Nay I miss his point not. It is a subtle point based on misinterpretation. For whom were those Romans? They were Christians, specifically the early Catholic Church. Thus not pagans.
As where we can look into mormonism's history and its quite frankly laden with paganism. Everything from Smith's connection to freemasonry paganism to a lot of the rituals he put into early mormonism are very lurid and have a basis in paganism.
I mean come on the Mormon Origin Myth is that Smith claims a being pretending to be an angel named Maroni gave him the plates of Nephi and he translated them from "Old Egyptian" into English with a seer stone. So not only is Smith heavily tied to paganism, but even for the translation and compilation of his books he using pagan techniques!
This topic could not get anymore ironic.
As where we can look into mormonism's history and its quite frankly laden with paganism. Everything from Smith's connection to freemasonry paganism to a lot of the rituals he put into early mormonism are very lurid and have a basis in paganism.
I mean come on the Mormon Origin Myth is that Smith claims a being pretending to be an angel named Maroni gave him the plates of Nephi and he translated them from "Old Egyptian" into English with a seer stone. So not only is Smith heavily tied to paganism, but even for the translation and compilation of his books he using pagan techniques!
This topic could not get anymore ironic.
Here is what I find even more contradictory is that sola scripturists never seem to allow for the teaching of others who are also sola scripturists, which begins with Luther who did write his own commentaries on the meaning of scripture.
Then the second Reformer took a step further and wrote two volume text on what constitutes Calvinism all based on scripture. Other early sola scripturists did the same thing, along with either texts or commentaries explaining what scripture means. This includes the topic under discussion. Mormonism is nothing more than another belief system developed from scripture. Jehovah Witnesses is precisely the very same thing. And you can use Eddy for Christian Science, or Russell for Jehovah Witnesses and many others, who without exception wrote texts or commentaries explaining what scripture means.
If scripture is one's sole source of faith and practice, my question is why do other sola scripturist object so much to others, just like them, who use scripture the same way they do?