Right. And wasn’t the same kind of warning in an “Old Testament” (Hebrew Scriptures) book? (I’m not finding it just now.)
It’s truly amazing how persistent people are in making a statement about Revelation, AKA *The Apocalypse *a statement about the Christian Bible as a whole. If they were correct about such a statement, early Christians would have been “amending” the Bible by adding books.
Also, there is the assumption that Revelation was written last, because it appears last. (Perhaps also because it goes quickly toward the Last Things.) This is one pretty big assumption, and I wonder if some people believe that the Bible, or at least the “New Testament” was written sequentially, perhaps all in the same document.
Finally, some skeptics have pointed out that the very warning means that, previous to its writing, sacred books were messed with. This is serious reason to doubt the original content is essentially left intact. But this will simply be dismissed by true believers.
Thank you. I was going to say towards the end of Deuteronomy but I coudn’t find it, so I pre-edited what I said to the O.T. I was going to also say that the Samaritans rejected everything past the Torah, and that there are some of them extant today… But I had never checked either out after reading it.
Huh? Are you talking about the Johannine Comma? As already discussed, that was added in the margin; nothing was removed. Other than that half sentence, there’s no evidence whatever to support your claim.
I have never categorized the members of any faith as unacceptable or acceptable; I take each candidate and evaluate them by what they present. But the unique aspects of Mormonism are why I think it’s particularly important that Romney be asked these questions. Mormons–or at least the hardcore ones–believe that their leadership receives from God a process of “continuing revelation”. Hence we have no idea what President Romney’s Church would command him to believe at various times in his presidency if he were elected. If he did do such things as believing blacks to be morally inferior because of the Church’s say-so, what guarantee do we have that he won’t be called upon to believe that or other morally atrocious things in the future? So I say that we need to ask there questions in order to be very clear about how he’s going to make political decisions.
The Catholic Church does not consider women to be inferior. Here’s the Catechism if you’d like to check. The Catholic Church believes that the priesthood is a job better held by men than women, a stance having nothing in common with what the LDS Church promoted until recently about blacks. They believed that blacks were inferior and they said so point blank. (And, as I mentioned, they have not retracted those statements.)
I don’t see how “The Catholic Church believes that the priesthood is a job better held by men than women” is not a statement that cannot be rephrased as “The Catholic Church believes that women are inferior in the role of priests to men” and so (less specifically, but still accurately) “The Catholic Church believes that women are inferior”.
Perhaps it is in the specifics that the difference lies. What particular qualities does the Catholic Church believe that women as a whole lack?
Bush is a fundamentalist in the sense that he took advice on how to run the country from the Almighty, and attempted to (or at least promised to) codify his personal theology into law.
The fact that he may or may not attend a relatively liberal church is irrelevant. If I go to Unitarian services but demand that the Ten Commandments be publicly displayed in state-owned buildings, I’m a fundamentalist.
You’re quite right - they’re in great error, theologically speaking, in that they accept any theology as more than fiction.
I have much less of a problem with Romney’s LDS membership than I do with Romney (and other Republican candidates) accepting public endorsements far-right crazies, be they LDS or “mainstream” Christians.
You’re the first openly gay Hindu I’ve ever personally heard of. I was starting to worry there was something wrong with my people, hijras aside.
Are there any commas in the Greek manuscripts? :dubious:
I think that your OP in this very thread disproves that statement.
Besides this being the same (or similar) canard used to attack JFK, do you happen to have any evidence other than your own prejudices that proves that Romney’s religious beliefs have prevented him from performing his elected office?
Silly of me to go off of the man’s track record to see how he’s performed in office.
The LDS church believed that Blacks were “cursed as to the Priesthood.” As they believe in continuing revelation, their leader opened up priesthood to all “worthy male members.” So, side note here, what about the Jews? Last I heard only one particuclar family could actually be priests in that religion! Rabbis aren’t priests, by the way, and the members of certain congregations (I think Orthodox, but I don’t really remember) get blessed once a year by that family’s males.
To the poster who said the concept of priesthood is different in Roman Catholicism and Mormonism: I’m curious. Why do you say the concept is different? I’d say the procedures of selection and qualification are different but that the concept is the same: authority to act on behalf of God for conducting ordinances of the church.
AIUI, all males in good standing are automatically elevated to the Aaronic priesthood at the age of 12, so that’s a bit different from the Catholic concept.
Well, the concept as in the purpose of the priesthood isn’t different. As I said, that’s an issue of difference in qualification and selection. And, as you just mentioned, the individual must be in good standing, as in qualified for the office. Just being 12 years old doesn’t cut it.
So some say any member of any faith should not be disqualified from consideration for public office. That is absurd. Many would easily and quickly reject devil worshipers. Others would not vote for Muslims. Still others would object to Scientology followers. It is not a question of whether a person should be thought of as less logical and politically unpalatable if they follow a strange religion. The question is whether Mormons fall into that group. For me they do. Mormonism was founded by a weird conman /shyster. He died about 1850, so many stories of his life are available. As he walked about treasure hunting with “seeker stones” in his hat , he was well known. His life us too recent for history to erase the warts of his weirdness and polish him into a fine example of a religious leader.
Then the anti black part can not be ignored. You can not hand wave away the polygamy. Nor can you justify the suppression of women. Forget about the magic underwear. That is a harmless oddity. Amusing to outsiders. But it is something a follower should have reacted with" what are you kidding me" when they were taught about it.
Mormons have some baggage that makes me question their grasp of reality . It is strange. I don’t give a lot of thought to its adherents until they run for political office. Then it matters. It matters a lot. It is not just another religion. I see any person who says they are Mormons as a bit flawed. They are ignoring too much .They are accepting some basic wrongs . The suppression of women can not be allowed. The teaching of blacks as inferior can not be accepted. And many of the teachings are too goofy not to DQ a follower from getting a voters consideration.