Salon: Does Mitt Romney have a problem with women candidates?

Well, I thought this thread had died, and ws surprised to see it went on for another day or two.

I guess I’ll respond to a misleading statement or two, just to set the record straight, but I’ll stop there and let the thread die.

But the idea that some of the doctrines were secret, and could only be revealed to the initiated, is not at all from Christianity. It was, however, a common feature of what used to be called the “mystery” religions.

Saying that the early Christians had secret teaching seems to be historical revisionism to make your own practice seem more mainstream.

tom on July 19, 2010 at 3:15 PM

No, it isn’t historical revisionism but rooted in the Bible itself and early Christian history.

But let me point out one out of a few Biblical examples:

In Matthew 13 Jesus speaks in parables to a multitude. His disciples then question him and ask him why he speaks in parables to the people rather than just come right out and say it directly. Jesus then answers by saying “…it is given to you to know the mysteries of God but to them it is not given.” (Matt.13:11)

We have Christ himself admitting that he teaches in parables because he’s deliberately withholding information from the public that is only available to a select few, namely his apostles and followers.

And yet those same parables, which you equate to “mysteries for a select few,” are recorded in scripture clearly given to all.

You see, those select few were charged with teaching those same “mysteries” to everybody. Obviously, this is nothing like mystery doctrines given only to the initiated, since they are clearly put out there for all to learn.

Compare this to the practice of having doctrines that are only taught to the initiated, and the difference is crystal clear, to the point where it raises serious questions about the honesty of those making the argument.

I provided other biblical examples where teachings that were not available to the public but clearly for selected people but it seem too heretical to accept despite biblical and historical evidence that suggest that it is rooted in early Christian practice.

Again, here’s the problem: you have a doctrine that was not taught in the early church, and you want to provide support for it, so you find incidents that could be interpreted as examples if you had any other evidence, but very much do not prove your point by themselves. Then you claim that it’s proven.

Such as trying to convert parables into the “mystery doctrine” for the initiated that is common in Freemasonry, Babylonian mystery religions, and Mormonism.

And it bothers me that the conservatives, who come form different faiths, but who share the same values, can easily be found squabbling against each other on religious issues or oppose a candidate merely because of his faith.

You would think that a group that is religiously diverse but has commonality in values would get along with ease.

I am fine with people of other faiths and I support people in their own faith. If you want to be a Catholic, Jew, Baptist, Buddhist or whatever else…all I ask is that you be the best you can be in your faith.

I reject this whole straw man. Romney’s problems as a candidate do not primarily come from his faith. What little opposition he arouses from his Mormonism is probably well compensated for by a) the Mormons who tend to support him because of his faith, and b) those who tend to favor him because, even though not Mormons, they think well of Mormons generally.

I respect your faith and I request that you respect mine. However, I am one of those people who feels that when someone makes an incorrect or false statement about my faith, I am inclined to refudiate it. I just won’t let it pass without comment.

Conservative Samizdat on July 20, 2010 at 1:50 AM

A beautiful statement. Unless you’re a Christian objecting to Mormon mis-statements about Christian doctrine, in which case you’re a bigot.

Disagreeing with Mormonism does not constitute Christianity. Neither does saying flatly that Mormonis is not Christianity, even though it is clearly built on some of the same doctrines.

Not so. Christian Jews (Christian Gentiles not permitted within to worship with Paul) certainly did NOT perform Mormon rituals in the Jerusalem Temple, the only Jewish temple being Solomon’s (and that was destroyed with the revolt against Rome dispersing the Jewish population). It would be news to hear of another temple being erected during early Christianity.
maverick muse on July 19, 2010 at 3:50 PM

Actually, there have been other Jewish temples built other than the one in Jerusalem built by Solomon.

The Bible states in 2 Kings 12 that Jeroboam built new temples at Bethel (on Israel’s southern border) and at Dan (on the northern border).

In addition to the temples in at Bethel and Dan, there are at least three temples Jewish Temples in Egypt at Elephantine and at Leontopolis. There is also a Jewish Temple at Tel Arad in Israel.

These temples at Elephantine, Leontopolis, Tel Arad are not recorded in the Bible but are clearly identified as Jewish temples and were known by the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem.

Conservative Samizdat on July 20, 2010 at 2:59 AM

This is the kind of false and misleading information that sets my teeth on edge, otherwise I would not bother to post on a thread already abandoned.

Yes, Jeroboam built two temples, so that people would go to the temple in their own kingdom rather than the one at Jerusalem, in the kingdom of Judah.

And he was clearly condemned for it. Do I really have to list the many quotes in the Bible which say clearly that worship in the temple was only permitted in Jerusalem? God even sent a prophet to the temple in Dan specifically to condemn it.

There is not one scripture to support the building of Christian temples. That’s why there was never a branch of Christianity that built temples. Until Joseph Smith came along.

Why not just admit that having a Christian temple was a new doctrine or revelation from Joseph Smith rather than try to pretend it was somehow based on earlier Christian practice? The truth would serve you much better.

I’m afraid these sorts of false arguments are put out there for public consumption, to make Mormonism appear more similar to orthodox Christianity.

The fact that the arguments are made when they are clearly wrong indicates either ignorance, or a deliberate attempt to mislead, or, most charitably, just wanting to believe that it is so.

tom on July 30, 2010 at 11:19 AM