the road to hana wrote:Mitt Romney is making the rounds of the morning talk shows this morning in the wake of Mike Huckabee's recent question, which will run in an interview in the Sunday New York Times Magazine this weekend.
"Doesn't Mormonism believe that Jesus and the devil are brothers?
...
When asked directly this morning by interviewers whether Huckabee's question as correct, Romney dodged a direct response and said that "his church had put that matter to rest."
I bet every time Huckabee raises the Mormon question, good ol' Mitt is thinking to himself: "That damn Huckabee is just like the Lucifer-led preacher in the temple movie!" ;)
"Moving beyond apologist persuasion, LDS polemicists furiously (and often fraudulently) attack any non-traditional view of Mormonism. They don't mince words -- they mince the truth."
-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)
the road to hana wrote:Mitt Romney is making the rounds of the morning talk shows this morning in the wake of Mike Huckabee's recent question, which will run in an interview in the Sunday New York Times Magazine this weekend.
"Doesn't Mormonism believe that Jesus and the devil are brothers?
...
When asked directly this morning by interviewers whether Huckabee's question as correct, Romney dodged a direct response and said that "his church had put that matter to rest."
I bet every time Huckabee raises the Mormon question, good ol' Mitt is thinking to himself: "That damn Huckabee is just like the Lucifer-led preacher in the temple movie!" ;)
An exmo adviser (I wonder if he has one) to Huckabee could provide enough ammo to keep Mitt on the defensive for a long time, and keep the CJCLDS real busy putting matters to rest.
NOMinal member
Maksutov: "... if you give someone else the means to always push your buttons, you're lost."
Here's what Pahoran is asserting over on MADB on this topic:
It is false to imply that there is any strain of LDS thought, much less orthodox LDS doctrine, that contemplates any form of equality between Satan and Jesus.
Any form of equality? So let's revisit that 1980 First Presidency Message quote from the late President Kimball:
the road to hana wrote:First Presidency Message December 1980 - Spencer W. Kimball on "Jesus of Nazareth":
But his day by day life confirmed his power, his ability, his strength. From birth, his life was a rugged one. Born in a manger without the conveniences even of the average Israelite home, he was an unwelcome guest. There was no room for him in the inn.
When still young, he must be whisked away to a far country to save his precious life, a perilous journey in great haste and fear, a trip which was rugged for the new infant, perhaps still being nursed by his mother. On the trip he would suffer hardships, sand storms, fatigue, new food, new customs, a new and strange world. The trip to Nazareth was an even longer and more arduous journey, this to avoid again a heartless ruler.
His trials were continuous. Perhaps his brother, Lucifer, had heard him say when he was still but a lad of twelve: “Wist ye not that I must be about my Father’s business?” (Luke 2:49). Then came the time when Satan sought to trip him. Their encounter in the previous world had been on more equal terms, but now Jesus was young and Satan was experienced. By subtlety and challenges he thought to destroy this budding Savior. Jesus had spoken of his father-son relationship. Lucifer determined to test that. Hungry after a long fast, Jesus’ body demanding sustenance, the cruel question came hurling at him: “If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread” (Matt. 4:3). Bread would have tasted so good that moment.
the road to hana wrote:Here's what Pahoran is asserting over on MADB on this topic:
It is false to imply that there is any strain of LDS thought, much less orthodox LDS doctrine, that contemplates any form of equality between Satan and Jesus.
Any form of equality? So let's revisit that 1980 First Presidency Message quote from the late President Kimball:
the road to hana wrote:First Presidency Message December 1980 - Spencer W. Kimball on "Jesus of Nazareth":
But his day by day life confirmed his power, his ability, his strength. From birth, his life was a rugged one. Born in a manger without the conveniences even of the average Israelite home, he was an unwelcome guest. There was no room for him in the inn.
When still young, he must be whisked away to a far country to save his precious life, a perilous journey in great haste and fear, a trip which was rugged for the new infant, perhaps still being nursed by his mother. On the trip he would suffer hardships, sand storms, fatigue, new food, new customs, a new and strange world. The trip to Nazareth was an even longer and more arduous journey, this to avoid again a heartless ruler.
His trials were continuous. Perhaps his brother, Lucifer, had heard him say when he was still but a lad of twelve: “Wist ye not that I must be about my Father’s business?” (Luke 2:49). Then came the time when Satan sought to trip him. Their encounter in the previous world had been on more equal terms, but now Jesus was young and Satan was experienced. By subtlety and challenges he thought to destroy this budding Savior. Jesus had spoken of his father-son relationship. Lucifer determined to test that. Hungry after a long fast, Jesus’ body demanding sustenance, the cruel question came hurling at him: “If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread” (Matt. 4:3). Bread would have tasted so good that moment.
Excellent point. And Pahoran fails to recognize that the question had to do with brotherhood, not "equality." Sounds as if he desperately is trying to change the focus. What a tool.
"Moving beyond apologist persuasion, LDS polemicists furiously (and often fraudulently) attack any non-traditional view of Mormonism. They don't mince words -- they mince the truth."
-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)
charity wrote:It is the father relationship that is a fundamental principle.
I think you meant to say that the father relationship is the principal principle (to borrow from the erstwhile wording in the Book of Mormon Intro). ;)
Crow is not tasty but it is edible. Perhaps Charity should eat her own words to "Who Knows",
Please use the correct word. I know it is a picky little thing, but the word is princiPAL.
This is only the beginning, if Romney gets the nomination.
Sometimes I think life-long LDS have no idea how their beliefs strike mainstream christians. Yes, upon analysis, mainstream christian beliefs are plenty weird, too, but they're such a part of the culture that no one notices how weird they are. The same cannot be said of Mormonism throughout the US.
Just wait till someone asks if LDS believe we can become gods.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
I didn't read the MAD version of it, so I don't know the context in which Pahoran said what he said, but guys, this is a very, very simple thing. Nobody's saying that Satan and Jesus are equal. They're just saying that they are spirit brothers. And that's exactly what LDS believe they are.
LDS doctrine is that Satan, Jesus, you, me, Gengis Khan, Adolf Hitler, Ann Frank, Queen Victoria, Al Gore, and Posh Spice are all literally spirit brothers and sisters of each other, period, end of story. It is in that sense that LDS believe "Satan and Jesus were brothers, OMG!" as the EVs have it.
But this isn't a doctrine the LDS need to do away with, or change. It's a fundemental belief.
And, as doctrines go, there's really nothing wrong with it. I mean, if we're all spirit brothers and sisters, SO WHAT? What's wrong with that?
What's wrong with the idea that Satan, (oh no!) the Great Bogeyman, Mr. Evil unIncarnate, the Great Asshole, actually was our own spirit brother before he "fell" to his current inglorious position?
Seriously, what exactly is wrong with that? Why is this such a problem? Why is anyone on the defensive about it? And, most importantly, why is there any obfuscation going on?
The answer is "yes, that's right" to the question, end of story, period. And without apology.
The only reason this is a problem is because the EVs misunderstand LDS doctrine on it, and the response should be to explain it better, and not to backpedal or obfuscate.
Mormonism ceased being a compelling topic for me when I finally came to terms with its transformation from a personality cult into a combination of a real estate company, a SuperPac, and Westboro Baptist Church. - Kishkumen
Sethbag wrote:The answer is "yes, that's right" to the question, end of story, period. And without apology.
The only reason this is a problem is because the EVs misunderstand LDS doctrine on it, and the response should be to explain it better, and not to backpedal or obfuscate.
Yes.
The road is beautiful, treacherous, and full of twists and turns.
This is what happens when you try to get in bed with people who think you're of satan.
Romney has been deluded by some opportunistic EV leaders (who may be more into power and politics than religion, anyway) into thinking that he can win over the EV vote.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
I agree with Beastie on this one. This is what happens when someone like Romney tries to convince the EV flock that he's just another run of the mill Christian believer, when in fact a lot of his religious beliefs are different than theirs. He shouldn't' have to go around expounding LDS doctrine, that's the Church's job, but he's gotten himself into trouble trying to make it seem like there's no difference in belief, when in fact there are huge differences. That's just a fact. It's what he gets for running as a "religious" candidate.
Notice Harry Reid doesn't get that? Why is that? It's my opinion that Harry Reid doesn't get this because he doesn't position himself as a religious politician. He positions himself as just a politician, period. He doesn't mix his religion in with his politics, and so it simply doesn't come up. Romney is playing the Religion Card, however, and so this is what happens when you do that as a Mormon in America.
Mormonism ceased being a compelling topic for me when I finally came to terms with its transformation from a personality cult into a combination of a real estate company, a SuperPac, and Westboro Baptist Church. - Kishkumen