What's Hot | Search |

Get Your Personal
On-Air Report Here

blog advertisingis good for you
Thursday, May 10, 2007
Posted by: Kevin McCullough at 12:16 PM

In the back and forth over the bigoted barking terrier Al Sharpton's questioning of Mitt Romney's sincere commitment to his faith, the time has finally come for some basics between Christians and Mormons to be explained.

I have attempted in more subtle ways to point out - that it is perfectly acceptable - even agreeable to allow Mormons and Christians to disagree on what divides them. Hugh Hewitt has written a superb book on why such differences don't have to be a dividing point when attempting to achieve a political end - and on Hugh's point we both agree.

Where I must differ is with the constant meme's on TownHall and elsewhere that decries ANY differences between the groups as bigotry. Differences are differences - they can not be gotten around. Bigotry would be the lesser treatment of an individual on the basis of such differences. And sinice Mormons and Christians are NOT one and the same - many have requested that I point out what distinctions do exist.

1. The use of divine texts - also called "SCRIPTURE":

Christians in the Apostolic tradition (which Mormons reject) view the Biblical text as inspired "God breathed" and authoritative. There is careful textual instruction to not "add to" nor "take away from" the texts.

Mormons however allow the biblical text as sacred (not necessarily authoritative), and couple with it, "The Pearl of Great Price", "Doctrines and Covenants", and "The Book of Mormon."

Put in civic history terms - these are two different nations with two different constitutions.

Does this mean Mormons can't serve as President - HOGWASH - nothing could be further from the truth. What it does mean is that Mormons are Mormons - and not Christians, and the texts by which they govern their liturgy, practice, theology, and evangelism - are the distinguishing difference.



View in ascending order View in descending order
uisignorant writes: Thursday, May, 10, 2007 12:46 PM
That's funny
We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated ccorrectly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.

We are studying it in Sunday school as well.

Another KNOWER of the Mormons who knows nothing.
azcita writes: Thursday, May, 10, 2007 12:52 PM
Mormons are not Christians
Agreed- Mormons don't accept the Bible as God's last word. Equally important, however, is that they believe God was a man who progressed in their ways to become a god. They believe he has a body and therefore had physical sex with Mary to produce Jesus, (who also has a body, required because their founder Joseph Smith said he saw the Father and Son in person in their bodies.) They are taught that every Mormon man is a god in embryo and by following their doctrines will become god of some other place and take his family there.(The latter breaks down when one questions what "family" he will take with him, considering that Mormon children grow up and marry and now there's a different family, with different in-laws who also intend to take their family and be gods elsewhere.)
How can we consider a man for President of the US who can believe such rubbish and thinks he is a god???
Teancum writes: Thursday, May, 10, 2007 1:02 PM
Christianity
I find it interesting that your definition of "Christian" is to believe the Bible in "the Apastolic tradition". I always thought it would have something to do with believing in Christ. I believe that Christ is my Savior and Redeemer. I believe that he died for my sins. Does that make me a Christian? I would hope so.

I do appreciate the point made that a Mormon in fact can serve as president. So, what was the point of the blog?
rjs46 writes: Thursday, May, 10, 2007 1:17 PM
Mormons are not Protestants who cares
Defining Christianity depends on what doctrines define Christianinty. Mormons believe Jesus Christ is the son of God and died to redeem mankind from their sins. This should be the criteria in determining if a person is a Christian. People who do not believe in the divintiy of Christ would be better left out of the term Christian. The distinction between Mormons and Protestants and Catholics is that Mormons do not believe Jesus is the same being as the Father in Heaven or the Holy ghost.

I agree with you that it is practiacally impossible to see how this doctrinal distinction could impact the way a believer of either doctrine seeks to fullfill the duties of the executive branch.

Mormons like Protestants strongly embrace traditional views of morality and personal integrity but otherwise recieve very little guidance on carrying out executive branch functions.


SoldierOfTruth1 writes: Thursday, May, 10, 2007 1:20 PM
Wrong, Wrong, Wrong
First off, Kevin, it may be instructive to you realize that the Bible did not fall from heaven compiled and bound in the form that we have it today. Second, the verse in the Revelation which you allude to is taken out of context in so much that the verse Revelation 22:18,19 is clearly referring to the Revelation of John itself - if this meant truly anything written after this time then you must aldo disgard the Gospel of John because it came later. Also, Moses said in Deuteronomy 4:2, basically the same thing so in your rationale, all books after the Septuagint would need to go away. It is best you learn a little about Mormonism before you try to teach its beliefs. True we do have other scriptures but where in the Bible does God say, "That's all there is folks." I believe the answer would be nowhere.

As for Marcita - she also is misinformed. Mormons never have, do not now, and never will teach that God had physical intercourse with Mary. Anti-Mormons assume this because of a statement made by Brigham Young in Journal of Discourses Vol 8 pp213-216. Brigham only said that Jesus was brought about by natural means. The Bible itself tells us that the Mary was overshadowed by the Holy Ghost. It does not say how it was accomplished, but that she conceived. Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints do believe that Jesus Christ is the literal son of God, as Christ himself preached, having received 23 chromosomes from His father God and 23 chromosomes from His mother Mary. If he did not have the Chromosomes of God He would have been unable, of himself, to lay His life down and take it again. In this day and age of modern medical miracles and in vitro fertilization why do men continue to believe that this is so impossible. I believe since Mormon's believe in the literal sonship of the Christ that it makes them even more Christian than the old orthodox "its a mystery of God" views.

Furthermore, Mormon's believe the family is an eternal family going back to Adam and there is one eternal round, "Will the Circle Be Unbroken?" Your children may marry and move off but they are still your children, it's that simple.

As for your allegations of man becoming Gods go and read Romans 8:16-18. The scripture promises us that if we live worthily that we will become heirs of God and joint-heirs with Jesus Christ. Consider the meaning of the words heir and joint-heir. If a King over a land has a son and he is to be the heir of His father then he someday is to be King and if this king had a son who he appointed a joint-heir then they twain would rule together. The scripture says that we are to be heirs of God? Think about that!
endocelt writes: Thursday, May, 10, 2007 1:23 PM
Mormons as Christians
Mormons reject the Apostolic Tradition? Since when? The Mormon Church was founded on the Apostolic Tradition, and is one of the very few Churches headed by 12 Apostles, which they claim possess the same keys of the kingdom delivered to Peter, James, and John, and the original Apostles (in fact, they claim the apostolic authority was personally delivered to them by Peter, James, and John). How is this not the Apostolic Tradition? This is more Apostolic than all other Christian denominations combined. To say they reject the Apostolic tradition, means that they believe Catholicism and hence the derivative Protestant denominations went astray, but in no means implies that they don't believe in the Apostolic Tradition. They claim to be the epicenter of the true Apostolic tradition. Where is Mr. McCullough getting his information? And Mormons allow that the Bible is "sacred" but not authoritative? This guy is nuts! Mormons say that they believe "all that God has revealed (Old and New Testaments), all that he does now reveal (for them, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price), and that he will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God." The God of the Old and New Testaments is the God of the Mormons. This is the Jewish God and the Christian God. So Mormonism should be called a Judeo-Christian religion. Or as has been noted, the "fourth" Abrahamic religion. Mormons claim that their precepts represent the latest and most extensive, though not last, word from that same God, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, of Moses and Aaron, David and Solomon, of Isaiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Jeremiah, Malachi, Elijah, and all the prophets, and of John the Baptist, Jesus, the Son of that God, who died for the sins of the world, and triumphed over Death in His resurrection, and Peter, James, and John, and all His Apostles, including John the Revelator. That God is the same, yesterday, today, and forever, Mormons believe, and will forever continue to commuincate with his Children. Hence, they expect more to come from that God. Hooray for them. Stay tuned.
rjs46 writes: Thursday, May, 10, 2007 1:32 PM
Rubbish
I apoligize to Marcita for the poor information she has recieved regarding Mormons. She has made inferences about things that Mormons do not claim to know like how Jesus was conceived. I don't think she came to those conclusions on her own. Much of the information available about Mormons comes from people who have an axe to grind because they have been disfellowshipped. I know a couple of people who have done horrible things then spread lies about the church when they were no longer members. One of these people was a prominent source for information about Mormons in the Christian community in spite of his personal misdeeds. Getting information from such sources is no different than asking Richard Dawkins if God exists.
uisignorant writes: Thursday, May, 10, 2007 1:35 PM
Why?
Gabby writes: Thursday, May, 10, 2007 1:24 PM
Christians see it this way:
if Mormons really did believe that the Bible was the word of God, then they would KNOW that the Book of Mormon is not.


How so?
rjs46 writes: Thursday, May, 10, 2007 2:00 PM
back on topic
I think we have established that Mormons and other Christians have differences in doctrine. These differences are no greater than the differences among different protestant religions, Catholicism, and eastern orthodox religions. Gabby thinks her (innacurate)charecterizations of Mormon doctrines are silly. I think other religions have doctrines that are false and offensive. The relevant question is whether these doctrines materially limit a political candidates ability to effectively carry out the office of the president. Mormons and most other Christians share the traditional moral views and integrity that is lacking in the other Republican front runners. However, while we know that Romney does not share the personal failures of his fellow Republican front runners his past positions are still difficult for me to overcome.
uisignorant writes: Thursday, May, 10, 2007 2:08 PM
Gabby;
The bible does not say it was not.

So please tell me how did Judas die?
Matthew 27
1 Early in the morning, all the chief priests and the elders of the people came to the decision to put Jesus to death.

5 So Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself

But yet in Acts 1:18

18(With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out.

So with the money he throw back and did not have he bought a field and died after or before he was hanged?

How can this be? This is the UNFOULABLE word of God.

SoldierOfTruth1 writes: Thursday, May, 10, 2007 2:52 PM
Mark Twain and The Bible
So, Gabby you believe Mark Twain over the Bible? That is interesting. If you knew the Bible as you should you would see the fulfillment of prophecy in the coming forth of the Book of Mormon. The Bible gives witness to it time and again, beginning with scriptures in Genesis concerning the seed of Joseph (the tribe of Israel that the Book of Mormon derives from), continuing through to Isaiah and Ezekial stright through to the restoration of the gospel in The Revelation.

Mark Twain, your hero, also used the n word with frequency. While Mark Twain was amuzing and most of his writing enjoyable he was, after all, he was the master of satire and the 19th century Don Rickles.

So, Gabby, quit your allegations and accusations which have been proven false time and time again. If you want to discuss these topics rationally and one at a time I will be glad to comply but if all you want to do is accuse and be contentious then what does that say for you?
rjs46 writes: Thursday, May, 10, 2007 2:54 PM
In Twain
Now I enjoy Mark Twain as much as the next fellow I don't consider his writings scripture. If we are going to criticize literary style by modern standards in a different language than originally written I am afraid the Bible would be the next victim.

Based on Gabby's comments I can only conclude that she wants to divide conservatives over doctrinal differences that are unrelated to political issues. Mormons and other Christins have too much moral common ground to be divided over unrelated political matters. The area where this is most applicable is in nomination of Supreme Court Justices. I hope that Gabby's enthusiastic support for her religious position does not bias her against Catholics who share moral but not doctrinal posiitons.
uisignorant writes: Thursday, May, 10, 2007 3:16 PM
Gabby
Gabby is blabby...
She just like to she her name and has nothing to really say. Just looking for an audience.

blah...blah....blah...
Eileen O'Connel writes: Thursday, May, 10, 2007 3:37 PM
Easy!
So don't go to a Mormon Church.

Problem solved.
rjs46 writes: Thursday, May, 10, 2007 4:30 PM
Respect
Nasty and viscous? I wish Gabby could direct her anger at something worth fighting against like the destruction of morality in our society.

If Gabby is passionate about disproving Mormonism I encourage her to read the Book of Mormon and sincerly ask God if it is true. If she wants to talk about how politics relate to Mormonism I am afraid all she will find is very little guidance on anything other than moral issues.
SoldierOfTruth1 writes: Thursday, May, 10, 2007 4:30 PM
Human Nature
Gabby, it is human nature for one to get a little upset when someone tells outright lies and distorts the truth about them, as you have done here and in many other posts. On the other hand I will leave judgement to Him whose job it is and not return evil for evil as you enjoy doing. Go in peace, my brother/sister and may the spirit of Christ be with you. And remember it is the devil which teacheth a man to lie.
SoldierOfTruth1 writes: Thursday, May, 10, 2007 11:33 PM
Brigham Young Quotes In Context
Gabby quotes Brigham thus : "The birth of the Savior was as natural as the births of our children; it was the result of natural action. He partook of flesh and blood--was begotten of his Father, as we were of our fathers." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 8, p. 115)."

Why is this heresy? In this day and age of in vitro fertilization this should surprise no one. Yes, Mormons believe that God, the Father, was the literal Father of Jesus Christ - just as Jesus himself attested to. If not He would have had no power to lay down His life and take it again. This would make Mormon's even more Christian then their orthodox contemporaries. Gabby, are you telling me that "orthodox christianity" does not believe Jesus Christ to be the Son of God? That is heresy!

Gabby quotes: "Now if any of you will deny the plurality of wives, and continue to do so, I promise that you will be damned." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 3, p. 266).

Now let us look at Brigham's remark in context: "It is not through lust that men and women are to practise this doctrine, but it is to be observed upon righteous principles; and, if men and women would pay attention to those instructions, I would promise, in the name of the Lord, that you would never find them lustful in their dispositions, and you might watch them as closely as you pleased.
Plurality of wives is not designed to afflict you nor me, but is purposed for our exaltation in the kingdoms of God. If any man had asked me what was my choice when Joseph revealed that doctrine, provided that it would not diminish my glory, I would have said, "Let me have but one wife;" not because it is not a great comfort to me to have children, but if I have not children I know them not.
Some of these my brethren know what my feelings were at the time Joseph revealed the doctrine; I was not desirous of shrinking from any duty, nor of failing in the least to do as I was commanded, but it was the first time in my life that I had desired the grave, and I could hardly get over it for a long time. And when I saw a funeral, I felt to envy the corpse its situation, and to regret that I was not in the coffin, knowing the toil and labor that my body would have to undergo; and I have had to examine myself, from that day to this, and watch my faith, and carefully meditate, lest I should be found desiring the grave more than I ought to do.
You will probably wonder at this, and that such should have been my feelings upon this point, but they were even so.
Now if any of you will deny the plurality of wives, and continue to do so, I promise that you will be damned; and I will go still further and say, take this revelation, or any other revelation that the Lord has given, and deny it in your feelings, and I promise that you will be damned."

So Brigham's point was that we are to follow any revelation given from God or be damned. End of discussion. Will you deny that God has not commanded Polygamy from time to time. Reading the Old Testament shows that Abraham was justified in this, as was Isaac and Jacob. David said that God gave him his many wives up until such time as he began to take "strange wives". All of this was ordained of God then and has been any time God has wished to raise up righteous seed unto himself. Do you know the mind of God?

Gabby quotes Brigham thus: Also, "The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 11, page 269).

Again in Context: Now, we as Christians desire to be saved in the kingdom of God. We desire to attain to the possession of all the blessings there are for the most faithful man or people that ever lived upon the face of the earth, even him who is said to be the father of the faithful, Abraham of old. We wish to obtain all that father Abraham obtained. I wish here to say to the Elders of Israel, and to all the members of this Church and kingdom, that it is in the hearts of many of them to wish that the doctrine of polygamy was not taught and practiced by us. It may be hard for many, and especially for the ladies, yet it is no harder for them than it is for the gentlemen. It is the word of the Lord, and I wish to say to you, and all the world, that if you desire with all your hearts to obtain the blessings which Abraham obtained, you will be polygamists at least in your faith, or you will come short of enjoying the salvation and the glory which Abraham has obtained. This is as true as that God lives. You who wish that there were no such thing in existence, if you have in your hearts to say: "We will pass along in the Church without obeying or submitting to it in our faith or believing this order, because, for aught that we know, this community may be broken up yet, and we may have lucrative offices offered to us; we will not, therefore, be polygamists lest we should fail in obtaining some earthly honor, character and office, etc,"—the man that has that in his heart, and will continue to persist in pursuing that policy, will come short of dwelling in the presence of the Father and the Son, in celestial glory. The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy. Others attain unto a glory and may even be permitted to come into the presence of the Father and the Son; but they cannot reign as kings in glory, because they had blessings offered unto them, and they refused to accept them."

So again we see in the broader context that Brigham was saying that if this principle was not accepted ("in faith" does not mean "in practice") whether by living it or in faith that it was a revealed principle of God man could not become the heirs of all that the Father Hath (Romans 8:16) Furthermore, little known to most non-members and members of the church alike is that the order of plural marriage was a calling to certain of the brethren (less than 5% of the church) and could not be entered into unless called of God by the prophet to do so. Any man wanting another wife was not able to just marry another and the first wife had to approve and often chose the other wives.

As for men becoming gods (little g) I would again recommend Romans 8:16-18 and again I ask you the meaning of the word heir and joint-heir? What happens to the heir or joint-heir of a King? (Answer: they someday become King). And Jesus said, "Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture can not be broken; Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God? (John 10:34-36)

Putting things in context makes a difference in meaning. Of course Gabby may not have done this intentionally as he/she just gets the information from anti-mormon web sites. I, however, have a full set of the Journal of Discourses and am only too happy to oblige putting them in context for the readers. Again, Gabby, do you know the mind of God?

Gabby quotes Brigham thus: "...no man or woman in this dispensation will ever enter into the celestial kingdom of God without the consent of Joseph Smith." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 7, p. 289)."

Let's see it in context: "Joseph Smith holds the keys of this last dispensation, and is now engaged behind the veil in the great work of the last days. I can tell our beloved brother Christians who have slain the Prophets and butchered and otherwise caused the death of thousands of Latter-day Saints, the priests who have thanked God in their prayers and thanksgiving from the pulpit that we have been plundered, driven, and slain, and the deacons under the pulpit, and their brethren and sisters in their closets, who have thanked God, thinking that the Latter-day Saints were wasted away, something that no doubt will mortify them—something that, to say the least, is a matter of deep regret to them—namely, that no man or woman in this dispensation will ever enter into the celestial kingdom of God without the consent of Joseph Smith. From the day that the Priesthood was taken from the earth to the winding-up scene of all things, every man and woman must have the certificate of Joseph Smith, junior, as a passport to their entrance into the mansion where God and Christ are—I with you and you with me. I cannot go there without his consent. He holds the keys of that kingdom for the last dispensation—the keys to rule in the spirit-world; and he rules there triumphantly, for he gained full power and a glorious victory over the power of Satan while he was yet in the flesh, and was a martyr to his religion and to the name of Christ, which gives him a most perfect victory in the spirit-world. He reigns there as supreme a being in his sphere, capacity, and calling, as God does in heaven. Many will exclaim—"Oh, that is very disagreeable! It is preposterous! We cannot bear the thought!" But it is true.
I will now tell you something that ought to comfort every man and woman on the face of the earth. Joseph Smith, junior, will again be on this earth dictating plans and calling forth his brethren to be baptized for the very characters who wish this was not so, in order to bring them into a kingdom to enjoy, perhaps, the presence of angels or the spirits of good men, if they cannot endure the presence of the Father and the Son; and he will never cease his operations, under the directions of the Son of God, until the last ones of the children of men are saved that can be, from Adam till now."

Could this be because Joseph does hold the keys of the last dispensation and no one will be saved unless they accept the word that God, the Father and His Son, Jesus Christ revealed to him. If he was indeed a prophet of God (and I with all my heart know that he was) then he is acting in the office to which God appointed him and people will have to accept the restored and true gospel of Jesus Christ before they can be saved. For if one will not receive the word of Christ – how can they be saved. Now you may say this is blasphemy but you “orthodox Christians” say the same of your creeds and affirmations.

Gabby Quotes Brigham thus: "I have given you a few leading items upon this subject, but a great deal more remains to be told. Now, remember from this time forth, and for ever, that Jesus Christ was not begotten by the Holy Ghost." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 1, page 51).

Was Jesus Christ the Son of the Holy Ghost or was He the Son of God the Father? Who did Jesus claim to be His Father? Was it not God, the Father? The Scripture says that the Holy Ghost overshadowed Mary and she conceived. I think I explained this above but in case you missed it the Holy Ghost carried the seed of the Father and was no more the father of Jesus than is a doctor implanting the seed of another in the uterus of a woman. You could say, I suppose, that the woman is with child by the doctor since he implanted the seed. In the same way you could say that Mary was with child by the Holy Ghost, who (according to the Bible) implanted the seed. But this fact makes neither one the genetic father. Call it heresy all you want but the Bible supports my words.

Gabby quotes Brigham thus: "Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so." (Journal of Discourses, Volume 10, page 110.)"

Now in context: “I am no abolitionist, neither am I a pro-slavery man; I hate some of their principles and especially some of their conduct, as I do the gates of hell. The Southerners make the negroes, and the Northerners worship them; this is all the difference between slaveholders and abolitionists. I would like the President of the United States and all the world to hear this.
Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so. The nations of the earth have transgressed every law that God has given, they have changed the ordinances and broken every covenant made with the fathers, and they are like a hungry man that dreameth that he eateth, and he awaketh and behold he is empty.”

This was a law given of old to the children of Israel and is the reason that Isaac forbade Jacob to take a wife of Canaan. Joshua was commanded to go into Canaan and slaughter every man, woman and child (see Book of Joshua). Perhaps that is where Brigham got this evil idea. Or then it could be that he was God’s prophet on earth at the time and the same was revealed to him as was revealed to the prophets of old. Brigham was merely talking about laws of God which men had transgressed. This being one of them. Men, even today, find it extremely difficult to obey the laws of God. Again, are you sure that you know the mind of God? Maybe you better read Isaiah 55:8,9. I sure don’t pretend to know the mind of God except for those things which he revealed. Have you ever wondered how Canaan got its name? Maybe from the mark that God placed upon Cain after he slew his brother Able.

As for your verses from LDS scripture, the word dark has always been used to describe those who follow Satan (has nothing to do with race in that respect – “Come to the dark side, Luke,” says Darth Vader. Was George Lucas being racist? Give me a break). Your Mark Twain (that you revere so highly) was more racist than Brigham Young. I have never read anything where Brigham flung around the “n word” like your beloved Samuel Clemens. Also, white and delightsome has always been used to describe the people of the Covenant. White has always been synonymous with purity.

Also, taking the time period in which Brigham lived (as already pointed out by your Mark Twain) he was actually more politically correct for his time than any other. Why don’t you read this last sermon of Brigham Young’s in it’s entirety. You may come back with a totally different view.

Last of all, we could argue religion all day and give you quote for quote and scripture for scripture but what I know, I know not of myself but by personal revelation from He that Redeems me and the Holy Spirit. This, being the last days, the faithful are given witness by revelation, dreams and visions (Joel 2:28 & Acts 2:17) and also through the prophets (Amos 3:7; Ephesians 2:20; Ephesians 4:11,12). This according to the Bible is one of the many marks of the True Church.

Gabby this response has been quite enjoyable and only reconfirmed to me how Satan works against God’s kingdom on earth. Keeping throwing out those Journal of Discourses quotes. I love putting them in context and showing the deception of the Evil One to steer men away from the Gospel of Jesus Christ in all of its restored glory and in the very form and spirit as He established it in His day. There is no difference! Of this I testify!



daddy o writes: Friday, May, 11, 2007 2:29 AM
We are also discussing this topic
On the Grank Pastore Blog of Apr 30.
Those who want to use scriptures only and be genteel about it are invited to come on over.
uisignorant writes: Friday, May, 11, 2007 8:02 AM
Talk about distorted...
Gabby writes:

No biggy there. If you read more carefully you would know that the priests bought the field with the money that Judas threw down in the temple after he realized that Christ would be condemned to death (Matthew 27:6). Judas didn't buy anything with the money.

In Acts 1 it reads "Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity..." Does it say he purchased it with money? No. It says he purchased it with the "reward of iniquity". (Back in Matthew 27, it says specifically the money). So there is no disagreement there.



What to try again?
KJV
Acts 1:
16Men and brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus.

17For he was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry.

18Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.

NIV
18(With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out. 19Everyone in Jerusalem heard about this, so they called that field in their language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood.)

NAS
16"Brethren, the Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit foretold by the mouth of David concerning Judas,who became a guide to those who arrested Jesus.

17"For he was counted among us and received his share in this ministry."

18(Now this man acquired a field with the price of his wickedness), and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle and all his intestines gushed out.

Darby
16Brethren, it was necessary that the scripture should have been fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke before, by the mouth of David, concerning Judas, who became guide to those who took Jesus;

17for he was numbered amongst us, and had received a part in this service.

18(This [man] then indeed got a field with [the] reward of iniquity, and, having fallen down headlong, burst in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.

Clearly they all say JUDAS bought the land with the money to betray Christ. There is no mention of a sword or dagger. So by YOUR own postings if it is NOT in the bible it is not true.

So the bible is a lie because Mathew said
5And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself.

6And the chief priests took the silver pieces, and said, It is not lawful for to put them into the treasury, because it is the price of blood.

7And they took counsel, and bought with them the potter's field, to bury strangers in.

8Wherefore that field was called, The field of blood, unto this day.

SoldierOfTruth1 writes: Friday, May, 11, 2007 1:12 PM
Intentional Deception or Illiteracy
Gabby, you just proved you are either a deceiver or just illiterate. If you read carefully above you will see that I said nothing of Brigham Young being concieved in vitro. That you also took completely out of context.

The New Testament only mentions the office of Bishop as (at that time) restricted to one wife. Why didn't Paul say, "the saints should have only one wife" instead of telling Timothy that a bishop must be the husband of one wife (1 Timothy 3:2).

Again you make snide comments about revealed truths and ineptitude at reading comprehension (and yes I should have known better than to cast these pearls to the swine). Very few on earth have ever agreed with revealed prophecy as the Lord has given it. You know very well that Brigham was only saying that we, as followers of Christ, have the responsiibility to obey all God's commands and revelations.

I am so glad that you know the exact mind of God despite what the Bible tells us. Do you believe every word in the Bible or (as you have shown here) do you just take those verses that suit you and throw the others out? Sad thing that!
SquiddyPopPerkyJean writes: Friday, May, 11, 2007 1:38 PM
Thanks Dennis, et al...
Hi,

This is fun! I love when my religion is such a hot topic of discussion.

Dennis, I appreciate your fleshed-out responses to accusations against our religion. I love the Jesus Christ that I learn about in this church. I am sure of His divinity and incredible love for us, unworthy as we are. It encourages me to love others and be a better person all around.

I regularly read the Book of Mormon and feel great love and peace toward others because of its influence. I hope that my example of kindness shows through, although I am humble enough to see my many imperfections. I see the B of M positively affecting other readers, as well -- for example, returning to their wives and breaking off adulterous affairs, quitting smoking and other things harmful to one's health, becoming more honest in their jobs and other dealings, forgiving, giving more attention to their children, etc. So what is the harm to those who don't believe it, if it only helps us be kinder, gentler, better citizens?

Just as an FYI, here are some conservative values I pick up from the B of M:
-- defending your families against violent enemies is justified when they seriously threaten you (2nd amendment, war on terror) -- don't let terrorists just trample all over your family, country and religious freedoms
-- children need mothers and fathers in the home, and families should love each other
-- life is precious and in God's hand
-- we should live in harmony with others and be kind even when we don't always agree
-- freedom is precious, important for our own growth
-- we should learn self-sufficiency and not rely on government handouts
-- it is evil to excessively tax people and for the gov't or rulers to glut themselves on the labor of others
-- even religious leaders should work with their own hands, not make a living on just teaching the word of God, which should be free to all
-- education and access to good literature/scripture, etc is very important for keeping society moral

To Gabby, Brett and others who are so vehement and vicious against all us Mormon folk:

So what if we have "weird" beliefs or do not interpret scripture as you do? What has any Mormon (and I refer to those who are genuinely following Mormon teachings, not abusers) done to hurt you? I am sorry that our doctrines are so stressful or harmful to you. But seriously, if you were to come to my little Utah neighborhood where most of us are active LDS, you would be welcomed, I'd bring you a loaf of fresh, homemade bread, you'd get helping hands if you were moving or doing some large chore...

We'd respect your wish to not be proselytized and just be there as good neighbors. We'd invite you to social events, but not shun you if you decline. Mormons will usually vote conservatively and not attempt to mix our "weird" religious ideas with public policy. Sure, we support family values and other basic Judeo-Christian morals, just as the founding fathers believed was necessary for our type of democracy to succeed.

You'll not find a more accepting and genuinely loving people.

Yeah, there are wonderful, good people in every culture or religion. Many of them put me to shame by how good they are, although I think I'm a pretty decent person. But when Gabby and others paint Mormons as some heinous and dangerous group, I would hope that readers will decide for themselves.

And if you still worry about Mormons in politics... how about giving that Harry Reid fellah a hard time instead! I am ashamed that he, as a public figure, represents Mormons, since he is one. I believe and hope he is the exception, not the rule. I suspect he's one of those MINOs, anyway -- Mormon In Name Only. So go ruffle his feathers and tell him to stop getting all buddy-buddy with terrorists!

What about Glenn Beck? He's a great guy, and Mormon as well!
SquiddyPopPerkyJean writes: Friday, May, 11, 2007 1:44 PM
Oops, A Confession
Okay, if anyone goes to my Townhall blog, they may see that I've made unkind remarks about Liberals. Yes, I need to be kinder to Liberals. I am not perfect and should be more tactful as I discuss why conservatives are more sane than liberals.

Oh, and I drink Diet Pepsi!!!!!
Libertybob writes: Friday, May, 11, 2007 2:00 PM
Squiddy Drinks Pepsi!!!
That's it! I'm telling your bishop so you can be all excommunicatified. I think I remember someone on these posts telling me that us Mormons can't do that... so they must be right!
rjs46 writes: Friday, May, 11, 2007 5:11 PM
Calvin Ball
I think it is pretty clear that Mormons are followers of Christ. There is no rational argument remaining that they are not. Sadly there is no getting around the fact that this is a game of Calvin ball. If someone can choose the rules for the game they can determine the outcome. In this case choosing what the criteria are for being a Christian has made the outcome inevitable.

Sign Up to Post Your Comments Sign Up to Post Your Comments
Please take a few seconds to sign up, then you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, create your own blog and more! If you are already registered, click here.
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
 

 

blog advertising is good for you
Archives
Blog Search:




Blogroll
PREMIUM BLOGS
Andrew Sullivan
BatesLine
Ben Shapiro
Beyond The News
Blogs For Bush
BlueStateConservatives
Broken Masterpieces
Captain's Quarters
Cheese and Crackers
Communists For Kerry
The Corner (NRO)
Daou Report
David Limbaugh
Dawn Patrol
EasonGate
Filling Up Space
Fire Ant Gazette
Front Page Magazine
GOP Bloggers
Happy Husband
HillaryWatch
Hugh Hewitt
Instapundit
John Huang
Kaus Files
Kevin McCullough
Kerry Spot
LaShawn Barber's Corner
Lileks
Little Green Footballs
MarriageWatch
Michelle Malkin
Northshore Politics
Obama Factor
Pardon My English
Powerline
Rabes Ramblings
Radio Blogger
Ramblings Journal
Ray Pritchard
Real Clear Politics
Red State
Saint Kansas
Scrappleface
Sexless In The City
SlantPoint
Townhall C-Log
Volokh Conspiracy
Vox Popoli
Weintraub
WizBANG
Worldthreats
Zorn's Notebook

CPAC BLOGS
Ace of Spades HQ
Alarming News
Ankle Biting Pundits
GOP Bloggers
HughHewitt.com
JunkYardBlog
Kevin McCullough
La Shawn Barber's Corner
Miscellaneous Objections
Outside The Beltway
Politics from Left to Right
Redstate
Terrorism Unveiled
The American Mind
The National Debate
TheAgitator.com
Townhall.com
Winds of Change.NET
Wizbang
Wonkette


GODBLOGGERS
Adrian Warnock
Al Mohler
Better Living
Ethos
Evangelical Outpost
It Takes A Church
John Mark Reynolds
La Shawn Barber
Mark D. Roberts
Normal Rockstar
Ray Pritchard
Rhett Smith
Roman Catholic Blog
Stand to Reason
Steve Camp
Stones Cry Out
Summa Aesthetica
The Anchoress

MILBLOGGERS
Argghhh!
Austin Bay
Belmont Club
Black Five
Centcom
Counterterrorism Blog
Froggy Ruminations
Hooah
Howdy
Hurl
Law and Ordnance
Major K
Mudville Gazette
Smash
Training for Eternity