Is the church distancing itself--from itself?

[_malkie]

Does Huckabee really want to into a "crazy beliefs" debate? He has gone on record that he believes the Bible is literal. If I was Mitt I would ask Huckabee "Do you really believe Noah lived to be 900 years old?" If Huckabee tries to redefine "year" as being some vague time period, then he doesn't really take the Bible literally. And if he doesn't really take it literally, he'll piss off his Bible thumping fans.

I would die a happy man if someone would provide an unedited live video stream of Mike Huckabee being asked questions about a literal Bible.

The thing is, if Huckabee answers truthfully in a "crazy beliefs" debate, he is still OK with the EVs. If Mitt answers truthfully in a "crazy beliefs" debate, he is dead in the water.

Is credibility with the EVs not what this is all about? Does Mitt not need to convince them that he is at least close to them - he cannot convince them that he believes exactly the same (;=>) - and try to avoid answering any questions that would reveal the magnitude of the distance between him and them?

Or have I misread what Mitt is attempting here - quite possible/probable, since I'm a canuck.

[_beastie]

Huckabee apologized, romney accepted.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/12/1 ... 76542.html

After the Iowa debate today, Huckabee told CNN anchor Wolf Blitzer, "I went to Mitt Romney and apologized to him, because I said, I would never try, ever, to try to somehow pick out some point of your faith and make it, you know, an issue, and I wouldn't. I've stayed away from talking about Mitt Romney's faith. And I told him face to face, I said, 'I don't think your being a Mormon ought to make you more or less qualified for being a president.' That has been my position."

Now, well, it's water under the bridge. Romney took Huckabee at his word. As his spokesman, Kevin Madden, told the Huffington Post:

"The governor accepted the apology. He continues to believe that this campaign should not be about questioning a candidate's faith. While it is fair to criticize an opponent's record or policy positions, it is out of bounds for one candidate to question another's personal faith."

[_charity]

Like you can unring a bell. Pretty sharp of Huckabie, say what you want in public, apologize in private.

[_the road to hana]

Like you can unring a bell. Pretty sharp of Huckabie, say what you want in public, apologize in private.

Was anything he said untrue?

[_Gazelam]

http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss/vi ... =2800#2800

[_ludwigm]

charity wrote:
"Satan is the opposite, not begotten."
Wait, what's the opposite of begotten? Not begotten? Because if Jesus is the only begotten, then all of us are not begotten (the opposite of begotten), too. So we're all like Satan. Except not. Somehow.

Oh, Blixa, don't be coy with us.

I'm not being coy, Queen Victoria. I'm curious about how Satan-as-opposite-to-Christ has to do with his not being begotten.

I'm sorry for You, Blixa. You will never answered. You will never know what not-begotten is.
Full-blood apologists never answer. They chuck about names-notions unknown-redefined-misused by them.
Then escape.

You know, white is pure, horse is tapir, Gabriel is Noah, Elias is John the Baptist, principal is - - - I'm lost, what is principal?

[_Blixa]

Next thing, Ludwig, you'll be getting called out for coyness.

I don't really expect an answer. I think I found the solution in reading the response quoted in the Deseret News about the "controversy: "We believe, as other Christians believe and as Paul wrote, that God is the father of all," said the spokeswoman, Kim Farah. "That means that all beings were created by God and are his spirit children. Christ, on the other hand, was the only begotten in the flesh and we worship him as the son of God and the savior of mankind," she said. "Satan is the exact opposite of who Christ is and what he stands for." Charity's sentence was a garbled version of this which made "non-begotten" seem analogous to "opposite." (Though to be fair, Farah's explanation was short on how Satan achieved his total opposition, and what spirit vs flesh child has to do with all this).

Or I could be wrong about her explanation---there is so much redefinition being exercised by LDS authorities as they try to mainstream "the church" that its hard to know where one stands at this point. As others have pointed out this official explanation of the brotherhood of Jesus and Lucifer is disingenuous in its generality. The "older brother" who played a significant role in the "war in heaven" is what everyone always hears about in Sunday School, seminary and other areas of Mormon education and why Jesus and Satan as brothers has any significance. As Gad points out:

Charity, LOL, you've got to admit Jesus and Satan are brothers. sorry. If the brother relation is nullified by Jesus being "begotten" then he can't rightly be our "elder brother" as he's commonly referred to by LDS, can he?

And this is nothing, Ludwig:

Gabriel is Noah, Elias is John the Baptist...

Jesus is the Jehovah of the Old Testament. Why that hasn't made headlines yet....

[_malkie]

Next thing, Ludwig, you'll be getting called out for coyness.

...

Jesus is the Jehovah of the Old Testament. Why that hasn't made headlines yet....

Or the manner of begetting of Jesus - I wonder what EVs would make of physical sexual intercourse between God and Mary.

Sorry I don't know more about their concept of the godhead, but I would imagine that the 'triangles' implied by that physical act of begetting would have their head spinning.

I mean, is it just Joseph/Mary/Elohim (do the EVs know who Elohim is?), or would they also have to try to imagine how Jesus and the HG fit into the act?

[_Infymus]

What is so difficult about all of this? Why argue about what the meaning of IS, IS?

In Mormon Theology, God Raped Mary who became pregnant with Jesus. Ok, call that "Begotten", or whatever you want. You can also play the words on the rape, but in the end, Mary had God's baby who was Jesus. So this was the only "Begotten" and since Mary didn't get pregnant again with God's child who then became "Satan", you can play on the words of IS, IS.

The truth IS, that Mormon Theology plainly states that Jesus Christ and Lucifer WERE brothers in the pre-existence. Just as we are brothers and sisters to Jesus and Lucifer.

In Mormonism, Jesus and Lucifer ARE BROTHERS. Both were called. Both answered "Here I am, SEND ME." God chose Jesus and hense the whole "War in Heaven" started where Lucifer was cast into the Earth and became Satan.

What is so hard about all of this? You know, we "Antis" get accused constantly of twisting, distorting, obsfucating - and yet when people like Gordy Hinkster (I don't know that we teach that) or LDS Corporate spokesmen omit the real truth - well, that's just fine and dandy. All is well in Zion, all is well.

[_truth dancer]

Once again I feel dizzy... ;-)

Is the church now letting go of the long held belief that Jesus and Satan are indeed brothers, (right along with the rest of us)?

If not, why all the fuss?

Why did the church not just say, yes, we believe Satan and Jesus were brothers in the pre-mortal life?

Why is it so bad for Huckabee to ask the question about LDS doctrine?

Mike spends a few hours in a discussion with a knowledgeable reporter, asks him if this is a belief of the LDS church and all of a sudden there is all this hoopla.

What in the world is the big deal?

And why doesn't the church come out and admit this is a belief unless this idea is now moving into the realm of incorrect opinion?

Hmmmm...

~dancer~