Don't Mormons believe that Jesus and the devil are brothers?

[scottwww]

What I can gather about the Mormon teaching about the relationship between Jesus and Satan is that they are spirit brothers.

Apparently they had many spirit brothers and sisters. Their father was one of many gods.

God needed to choose a savior for the people he was going to place on Earth. God’s two oldest spirit children both volunteered. Lucifer and Jesus were these two. Lucifer’s plan was to force the people to submit to God.

Lucifer’s plan was a different plan than had been done by the saviors that had been sent to all the other planets by their gods. (There were many gods.)

The god who was the father of Jesus and Lucifer accepted Jesus’ offer to be the savior of people on Earth. Lucifer didn’t like the decision and rebelled. One-third of his spirit brothers and sisters sided with him (Lucifer). One-third sided with Jesus. One third didn’t take sides.

Lucifer was cast out of heaven and called Satan. The one-third that sided with Lucifer were not given physical bodies and were cast down to Earth. The one-third that sided with Jesus were given light colored physical bodies and sent to Earth. The one third that didn’t take sides were given physical bodies with dark skin and sent to Earth.

Jesus was was then conceived by god(?) when he went to Mary and had sexual relations with her. This made Jesus the only begotten son in the flesh.

To sum it up, Jesus and Lucifer were the two oldest spirit brothers in heaven (or was that on Kolob?) Jesus took on the title of son of god, and Lucifer took on the name Satan.

When asked the question, "Don't Mormons believe that Jesus and the devil are brothers?" the response from the mormon church (LDS) was “Like other Christians,we believe Jesus is the divine Son of God. Satan is a fallen angel. As the Apostle Paul wrote, God is the Father of all. That means that all beings were created by God and are His spirit children. Christ, however, was the only begotten in the flesh, and we worship Him as the Son of God and the Savior of mankind.”

Are the Mormons trying to hide that they teach Jesus and Lucifer as brothers?

[Rips335iCoupe]

Who cares ... a country that says it prides itself on having religious freedoms, still has people like you living in it asking these ridiculous questions!

If everyone lived their lives using the type of values LDS members teach and strive for, the world would be better off.

Also, have you ever considered, they may be right??

[imolazhp_ci]

yeah that is pretty much it. they don't try to hide it at all... ask any mormon. they will all tell you the same thing. i wanted to bang this mormon chick so i went to church with her a few times, sweetest people... also the craziest.

[Rips335iCoupe]

Originally Posted by imolazhp_ci

sweetest people... also the craziest.

The craziest?? Mormons are the people you should be least worried about ... how about that religion whose followers like to fly planes into buildings, or strap explosives onto themselves and detonate among innocent people, or behead people with a pocketknife.

[NaTuReB0Y]

Who's my brother?

[scottwww]

Originally Posted by Rips335iCoupe

Who cares ... a country that says it prides itself on having religious freedoms, still has people like you living in it asking these ridiculous questions!

If everyone lived their lives using the type of values LDS members teach and strive for, the world would be better off.

Also, have you ever considered, they may be right??

I have no problem with the morals that Mormons try to live by. A lot of them are the same morals that I try to live by.

Why I brought this up is that among the Republican candidates for president this year is a Mormon. He has attempted to gloss over the differences between Mormons and Christians. If he simply would respond to the questions about his faith honestly, it might not help him in the polls, but at least he would not be seen as deceptive. When the Democrat who was Catholic ran in the '60s, he entertained the questions and answered them as fully as he could. He gave some degree of closure to the questions. Not this year's Republican.

[scottwww]

Originally Posted by Rips335iCoupe

The craziest?? Mormons are the people you should be least worried about ... how about that religion whose followers like to fly planes into buildings, or strap explosives onto themselves and detonate among innocent people, or behead people with a pocketknife.

I heard something in the news about Mrs. Clinton's campaign claiming that Barack Hussein Obama was a muslim. Is that true? (Not that being muslim is itself worth criticizing. But the denial if it is true is objectionable.)

[Rips335iCoupe]

Originally Posted by scottwww

I have no problem with the morals that Mormons try to live by. A lot of them are the same morals that I try to live by.

Why I brought this up is that among the Republican candidates for president this year is a Mormon. He has attempted to gloss over the differences between Mormons and Christians. If he simply would respond to the questions about his faith honestly, it might not help him in the polls, but at least he would not be seen as deceptive. When the Democrat who was Catholic ran in the '60s, he entertained the questions and answered them as fully as he could. He gave some degree of closure to the questions. Not this year's Republican.

Are you kidding me??

When Mitt Romney's father ran for the presidency 40 years ago, his Mormonism was not an issue. When Mo Udall was a major challenger for the Democratic nomination in 1976, his religion was so irrelevant that today most people don't even remember that Udall was a Mormon.

Five members of the Senate are Mormon. Are there any intimations that the Mormonism of Harry Reid, Orrin Hatch, Gordon Smith, Michael Crapo or Robert Bennett corrupts, distorts or in any way diminishes their ability to perform their constitutional duties?

Have you heard one question asked of the Democratic nominee's about religion?? NO!

What a double standard!

[Rips335iCoupe]

Originally Posted by scottwww

I heard something in the news about Mrs. Clinton's campaign claiming that Barack Hussein Obama was a muslim. Is that true? (Not that being muslim is itself worth criticizing. But the denial if it is true is objectionable.)

That's Clinton at there best!! Obama is Christian.

[scottwww]

Originally Posted by Rips335iCoupe

Are you kidding me??

When Mitt Romney's father ran for the presidency 40 years ago, his Mormonism was not an issue. When Mo Udall was a major challenger for the Democratic nomination in 1976, his religion was so irrelevant that today most people don't even remember that Udall was a Mormon.

Five members of the Senate are Mormon. Are there any intimations that the Mormonism of Harry Reid, Orrin Hatch, Gordon Smith, Michael Crapo or Robert Bennett corrupts, distorts or in any way diminishes their ability to perform their constitutional duties?

Have you heard one question asked of the Democratic nominee's about religion?? NO!

What a double standard!

I like a lot of Romney's policies in 2007, but I am apprehensive about his being Mormon. It would be very difficult for me to vote for him. His ducking the questions does not persuade me to another opininon. That is why he has lost any lead he may have had. A lot of people have the same opinion as I.

[Rips335iCoupe]

Originally Posted by scottwww

I like a lot of Romney's policies in 2007, but I am apprehensive about his being Mormon. It would be very difficult for me to vote for him. His ducking the questions does not persuade me to another opininon. That is why he has lost any lead he may have had. A lot of people have the same opinion as I.

I wouldn’t be too proud of this religious bigotry …

[scottwww]

Originally Posted by Rips335iCoupe

I wouldn’t be too proud of this religious bigotry …

Is this pride or bigotry? I think not. We are trying to select the next leader of the free world. A person's faith, if it is held dear, affects their decisions. If a man who seeks the power of the presidency will not address the question of what the man believes, how can we possibly support him?

Romney needs to clarify (and the LDS church need to clarify) why they believe people with dark skin are dark.

You throw around the word bigotry, yet look at what the implication is for what may be believed by mormons in general... and Mitt Romney specifically. To my knowledge this has not really been addressed.

Do you also go along with much of Romney's policy positions? I do.

[Rips335iCoupe]

Originally Posted by scottwww

Is this pride or bigotry?

Bigotry .. you are basing a vote on ones religion. These questions have no place in a presidential election. Shame on you. Read my posts again ... maybe this time they will sink in a little more.

Good luck in your search ....

[scottwww]

Originally Posted by Rips335iCoupe

Bigotry .. you are basing a vote on ones religion. These questions have no place in a presidential election. Shame on you. Read my posts again ... maybe this time they will sink in a little more.

Good luck in your search ....

If you are a Mormon (are you?) then you are being prejudiced in favor of your Mormon candidate. If you are not Mormon, I would think you would have the same questions I have. Perhaps these questions have already been answered to your satisfaction some how. Please share.

[scottwww]

Originally Posted by Rips335iCoupe

Obama is Christian.

Would a Christian do this? Maybe I should also ask if an atheist would do this (what Obama did).

As a nurse at an Illinois hospital in 1999, I discovered babies were being aborted alive and shelved to die in soiled utility rooms. I discovered infanticide.

Legislation was presented on the federal level and in various states called the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. It stated all live-born babies were guaranteed the same constitutional right to equal protection, whether or not they were wanted.

BAIPA sailed through the U.S. Senate by unanimous vote. Even Sens. Clinton, Kennedy and Kerry agreed a mother's right to "choose" stopped at her baby's delivery.

The bill also passed overwhelmingly in the House. NARAL went neutral on it. Abortion enthusiasts publicly agreed that fighting BAIPA would appear extreme. President Bush signed BAIPA into law in 2002.

But in Illinois, the state version of BAIPA repeatedly failed, thanks in large part to then-state Sen. Barack Obama. It only passed in 2005, after Obama left.

I testified in 2001 and 2002 before a committee of which Obama was a member.
Obama articulately worried that legislation protecting live aborted babies might infringe on women's rights or abortionists' rights. Obama's clinical discourse, his lack of mercy, shocked me. I was naive back then. Obama voted against the measure, twice. It ultimately failed.

In 2003, as chairman of the next Senate committee to which BAIPA was sent, Obama stopped it from even getting a hearing, shelving it to die much like babies were still being shelved to die in Illinois hospitals and abortion clinics.

-Jill Stanek

[NaTuReB0Y]

Religion is for the weak minds..........

[dr335is]

Originally Posted by NaTuReB0Y

Religion is for the weak minds..........

+1
Just the title of this thread proves it all...

[Kev]

Originally Posted by scottwww

Would a Christian do this? Maybe I should also ask if an atheist would do this (what Obama did).

As a nurse at an Illinois hospital in 1999, I discovered babies were being aborted alive and shelved to die in soiled utility rooms. I discovered infanticide.

Legislation was presented on the federal level and in various states called the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. It stated all live-born babies were guaranteed the same constitutional right to equal protection, whether or not they were wanted.

BAIPA sailed through the U.S. Senate by unanimous vote. Even Sens. Clinton, Kennedy and Kerry agreed a mother's right to "choose" stopped at her baby's delivery.

The bill also passed overwhelmingly in the House. NARAL went neutral on it. Abortion enthusiasts publicly agreed that fighting BAIPA would appear extreme. President Bush signed BAIPA into law in 2002.

But in Illinois, the state version of BAIPA repeatedly failed, thanks in large part to then-state Sen. Barack Obama. It only passed in 2005, after Obama left.

I testified in 2001 and 2002 before a committee of which Obama was a member.
Obama articulately worried that legislation protecting live aborted babies might infringe on women's rights or abortionists' rights. Obama's clinical discourse, his lack of mercy, shocked me. I was naive back then. Obama voted against the measure, twice. It ultimately failed.

In 2003, as chairman of the next Senate committee to which BAIPA was sent, Obama stopped it from even getting a hearing, shelving it to die much like babies were still being shelved to die in Illinois hospitals and abortion clinics.

-Jill Stanek

Although, I'm no fan of Obama, I don't see anything wrong with him being opposed to this law. In the actual text of the law, which can be found here, it defines alive as "a beating heart, clear sign of voluntary muscle movement, and pulsating umbilical cord". Obviously, this is not a good definition, because non-viable deliveries at 2nd trimester can still satisfy the criteria of being "alive" by the congress. However, they are considered medically "non-viable" by ACOG, the American College of OB/GYN. In this grey area, what are we supposed to do? Apparently, the author of the article is suggesting that we need to aggressively resuscitate and treat them as if they were viable pregnancies...... Did we determine how long do we resuscitate for? Did they have a specific protocol in mind to expand the NICU beds all over the country to accomodate these "babies"? Last time I checked, they didn't pass any compendiums to pay for the care of these "alive babies". So, who's gonna pay?

It's easy to pay lip service to your faith. However, someone out there has to deal with the mess that you created.

This is the problem when you have a bunch of religious fanatics with no medical knowledge running the damn country and telling how doctors with specialized training should do their job......

[scottwww]

Originally Posted by Kev

Although, I'm no fan of Obama, I don't see anything wrong with him being opposed to this law. In the actual text of the law, which can be found here, it defines alive as "a beating heart, clear sign of voluntary muscle movement, and pulsating umbilical cord". Obviously, this is not a good definition, because non-viable deliveries at 2nd trimester can still satisfy the criteria of being "alive" by the congress. However, they are considered medically "non-viable" by ACOG, the American College of OB/GYN. In this grey area, what are we supposed to do? Apparently, the author of the article is suggesting that we need to aggressively resuscitate and treat them as if they were viable pregnancies...... Did we determine how long do we resuscitate for? Did they have a specific protocol in mind to expand the NICU beds all over the country to accomodate these "babies"? Last time I checked, they didn't pass any compendiums to pay for the care of these "alive babies". So, who's gonna pay?

It's easy to pay lip service to your faith. However, someone out there has to deal with the mess that you created.

This is the problem when you have a bunch of religious fanatics with no medical knowledge running the damn country and telling how doctors with specialized training should do their job......

How would a baby be dealt with that was not a victim of abortion, but was born with the same physical condition?

[scottwww]

Kev, Would you please bold, italicize, or underline all the parts of the hippocratic oath that you do not follow in your practice (this assumes you have taken an oath). Maybe you could mark what parts were left out of your oath, or what parts you would not subscribe to if you had a choice.

The Oath By Hippocrates Written 400 B.C.E

I SWEAR by Apollo the physician, and Aesculapius, and Health, and All-heal, and all the gods and goddesses, that, according to my ability and judgment, I will keep this Oath and this stipulation- to reckon him who taught me this Art equally dear to me as my parents, to share my substance with him, and relieve his necessities if required; to look upon his offspring in the same footing as my own brothers, and to teach them this art, if they shall wish to learn it, without fee or stipulation; and that by precept, lecture, and every other mode of instruction, I will impart a knowledge of the Art to my own sons, and those of my teachers, and to disciples bound by a stipulation and oath according to the law of medicine, but to none others. I will follow that system of regimen which, according to my ability and judgment, I consider for the benefit of my patients, and abstain from whatever is deleterious and mischievous. I will give no deadly medicine to any one if asked, nor suggest any such counsel; and in like manner I will not give to a woman a pessary to produce abortion. With purity and with holiness I will pass my life and practice my Art. I will not cut persons laboring under the stone, but will leave this to be done by men who are practitioners of this work. Into whatever houses I enter, I will go into them for the benefit of the sick, and will abstain from every voluntary act of mischief and corruption; and, further from the seduction of females or males, of freemen and slaves. Whatever, in connection with my professional practice or not, in connection with it, I see or hear, in the life of men, which ought not to be spoken of abroad, I will not divulge, as reckoning that all such should be kept secret. While I continue to keep this Oath unviolated, may it be granted to me to enjoy life and the practice of the art, respected by all men, in all times! But should I trespass and violate this Oath, may the reverse be my lot!

THE END

[Rips335iCoupe]

Originally Posted by scottwww

If you are a Mormon (are you?) then you are being prejudiced in favor of your Mormon candidate.

Sorry, not LDS … but have some friends that are Mormon. Also, never said who I was voting for.

Why would I care about answers to these questions??? I’m not making a decision on becoming LDS, and Romney is not running for some religious office … this is for President of the US.

Do you not get it?? This was not an issue when Romney’s dad ran for president, or when Udall ran for president …. It’s just that the media is full of them selves these days, and the media thinks people are really interested in what they say. I really don’t give a crap about the drive by media and what they have to say.

Do I care that Hillary is Methodist? No! Do I care what Methodist believes? No! Does the drive by media make a big deal about her religion? No! Double standard? Yes!

When it comes to voting for a president ….. my vote isn’t determined my ones religion.

Geez … let this go!

[scottwww]

Originally Posted by Rips335iCoupe

Sorry, not LDS … but have some friends that are Mormon. Also, never said who I was voting for.

Why would I care about answers to these questions??? I’m not making a decision on becoming LDS, and Romney is not running for some religious office … this is for President of the US.

Do you not get it?? This was not an issue when Romney’s dad ran for president, or when Udall ran for president …. It’s just that the media is full of them selves these days, and the media thinks people are really interested in what they say. I really don’t give a crap about the drive by media and what they have to say.

Do I care that Hillary is Methodist? No! Do I care what Methodist believes? No! Does the drive by media make a big deal about her religion? No! Double standard? Yes!

When it comes to voting for a president ….. my vote isn’t determined my ones religion.

Geez … let this go!

If you are voting Republican or for a conservative party candidate then we are on the same side. Where we may differ is in our care for details. In addition to assurance for Christians that a vote for a Mormon is not an error, it is also better to deal with the questions that the Democrats and the leftist media are going to exploit if Romney were the Republican nominee. They would have a lot harder time making hay of a Christian for his beliefs since such a large number of people in the U.S. claim to be Christian.