Posted on 04/08/2012 7:24:47 PM PDT by publius321
Christians who support Romney in Primary are responsible for advancing a polytheistic pagan doctrine and leading potentially millions of souls to state of deception.
The God of Israel said He is the Alpha & the Omega, the beginning and the end. He said there is only ONE God.
Mormonism says there are infinite numbers of gods throughout the universe and THEY can be gods themselves, just like God the Father and His Son Jesus Christ.
This is heresy. Mitt Romney is a heretic just as Barack Obama is a heretic Here's WHY (just scratching the surface).
(Excerpt) Read more at youtu.be ...
(No) Who is suggesting that on FR? [IoW, this is a straw man issue raised by some FREEPERS)
Stay home, not vote, and thus help Obama get reelected?
(No) Who is suggesting that on FR? (Really...now you're 2 for 2 on raising strawmen not being raise on FR...there's LOTs of other important races & issues to vote on...so please show me ONE FREEPER who has advocated that we "stay home"...
What are you...given to being "non-issue central?"
Move to Mars?
Oh sure...We've got an entire "Martian Move" caucus @ FR that posts these kinds of threads daily. /sarc
Well, let's see: O-for-3 during baseball season is a strike-out.
I guess you didn't gain an ounce of credibility with this post, did ya? Move to Mars?
I suggest we pray for the future of our nation.
What? Is this an open plea of ignorance about Mormonism's 180 year attack upon Christianity???
Mitt Romney, Dec, 2007, speaking @ the George Bush Presidential Library: "I believe in my Mormon faith and I endeavor to live by it. My faith is the faith of my fathers – I will be true to them and to my beliefs."
Snapshot of Joseph Smith’s Slanderous Invectives vs. Christian Sects |
Mormon Source[Note: Most of these are Mormon ‘scriptures'. In fact, First three rows below are Lds 'scripture' & therefore cannot be rug-swept any more than a Jew might try to take three commandments off of the very tablets of stone Moses brought down from the mountain] |
| “...which of all the sects was right… must join NONE of them, for they were ALL WRONG… those professors were ALL CORRUPT…” | Joseph Smith – History vv. 18-19. – Lds "scripture" Pearl of Great Price |
| ...“which of all the sects was right…ALL their CREEDS were an ABOMINATION in his sight…they teach for doctrines the commandments of MEN…” | Joseph Smith – History vv. 18-19. – Lds "scripture" Pearl of Great Price |
| Mormon church the only ‘Christ-sanctioned’ church on earth: “…the foundation of this [Mormon] church…the ONLY true and living church on the face of the whole earth” [Obvious ‘scorched earth’ implication: All other churches are false and dead] | Lds “scripture” Doctrines & Covenants 1:30 |
| Direct question asked of Joseph Smith: 'Will everybody be damned, but Mormons?" Answer from Lds "prophet" Joseph Smith: 'Yes, and a great portion of them, unless they repent, and work righteousness." | Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 119 [Not “scripture” – but still publicly spoken by the Mormon ‘living prophet’ and published by a later Mormon ‘living prophet,’ Joseph Fielding Smith – via a publisher owned by the Mormon church – Deseret News Press, 1938] |
| “In 1952…the first official proselyting plan was sent to missionaries throughout the world…It included seven missionary discussions that emphasized…[four topics, one of them being]…THE APOSTASY and Restoration…” [This makes it almost 60 years that Mormon church missionaries, now numbering 52,000, have formally emphasized in its training & door to door saturation a priority in bashing the worldwide Christian church as “apostates” (100% AWOL)] | Our Heritage: A Brief History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints p. 116, 1996 |
So, you're advocating that we ignore all of American history, eh? What? Hide our heads in barrels of whatever you're selling???
For those with inquiring minds, here's what Mitt's leaders have taught them through the years -- and it's hardly how JudgemALL sizes up the scenario:
Joseph Smith himself:
Joseph Smith, Jr.: “…all the priests who adhere to the sectarian religions of the day with all their followers, without one exception, receive their portion with the devil and his angels.” (The Elders Journal, Joseph Smith Jr., editor, vol.1, no.4, p.60).
Late 19th century:
George Q. Cannon, member of First Presidency with four different Lds "prophets": "AFTER the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was organized, there were only two churches upon the earth. They were known respectively as the Church of the Lamb of God and Babylon. The various organizations which are called churches throughout Christendom, though differing in their creeds and organizations, have one common origin. They all belong to Babylon" (George Q. Cannon, Gospel Truth, pg.324).
45 years ago:
Lds "apostle" Bruce R. McConkie: McConkie says all non-Mormon churches are "...the great apostate church" [that's us -- the Christian church] "as the anti-christ...This great antichrist...is the church of the devil." ("Apostle" Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine p.40)
Lds "apostle" Bruce R. McConkie: "What is the church of the devil in our day, and what is the seat of her power?…It is all the systems, BOTH Christian and non-Christian, that perverted the pure and perfect gospel….It is communism, it is Islam; it is Buddhism; it is modern Christianity in ALL its parts. It is Germany under Hitler, Russia under Stalin, and Italy under Mussolini" (Millennial Messiah, pp. 54-55).
Lds "apostle" Bruce R. McConkie: "The church of the devil is the world; it is all the carnality and evil to which fallen man is heir; it is every unholy and wicked practice; it is every false religion, every supposed system of salvation which does not actually save and exalt man in the highest heaven of the celestial world. It is EVERY CHURCH except the true church, whether parading under a Christian or a pagan banner." (Doctrinal New Testament Commentary, 3:551)
Note, per Mormon doctrine, the "only true and living church on the face of the earth" is the Mormon church (D&C 1:30).
BTW, the Doctrinal New Testament Commentary was cited by the official Mormon church as a commentary to 1 Nephi 14:10:
* The church of JC LDS: Seminaries and Institutes of Religion: Book of Mormon Student Manual: Chapter 4: 1Nephi 11–14 : Notes and Commentary
* It was also cited among study guides commonly used in the Mormon church as published by Cedar Fort out of Springville, Utah...in these two 2007 books:
* Randal S. Chase, Making Precious Things Plain: A Book of Mormon Study Guide: Volume 1: 1 Nephi-Alma 16 Cedar Fort, Springville, UT, 2007 p. 40
* K. Douglas Bassett, PhD, Doctrinal Insights to the Book of Mormon: Vol. 1: 1 Nephi through 2 Nephi Cedar Fort, Springville, UT 2007, pp. 62-63
27 years ago -- Official Lds church magazine, Ensign:
The “man of sin,” generally equated with Satan, would exalt himself over all that is divine and assume the place of God in the Church. Of historical and theological significance is the fact that in Paul’s prophecy the church structure survives. But God is not at its head, making that church—following the appearance in it of Satan—no longer the church of God....How appropriate, therefore, is Paul’s description of him sitting in the place of God in the church of the apostasía. Kent P. Jackson, Signs of the Early Apostasy, Ensign, December 1984 Signs of the Early Apostasy
This BYU professor is commenting on 2 Thess. 2:1-12 here...which Christian commentators reference as future. Lds leaders constantly reference 2 Thess. 2:1-12 as past tense -- evidence of the great apostasy...Jackson calls it a "drastic" apostasy. Lds doctrine is that it was total or all but a handful...and those handful were never "public."
Does this mean, JudgemAll, you're just too lazy to investigate Mormonism?
Well, that's "OK"...the quotes that follow -- coupled with the previous two posts to you -- allows you to sit back and not have to research Mormonism...Of course, these quotes all work against your very premise...which you really need to retract!
The Encyclopedia of Mormonism claimed:
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints DOES NOT see itself as one Christian denomination among many, but rather as God's latter-day restoration of the fulness of Christian faith and practice. (Encyclopedia of Mormonism 1:270)
Lds "apostle" Bruce McConkie ("Brother Bruce") "affectionately" conveyed the following to all Christians in his 1979 version of "Mormon Doctrine":
"Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are not Protestants, and the Church itself is not a Protestant Church. The true Church is not a dead branch broken from a dead tree... (p. 610)
I'd say among all the horrific and horrendous titles Mormon leaders have given of the worldwide historic Christian church for these past 180 years, I actually prefer this as the lone unoffensive title assigned to us by Mormons...for what is the cross but a "dead tree?"
I mean...consider the alternative titles given to us by Mormon leaders:
* The Abominable Whore of All the Earth Christian Church: Source: "abominable church...whore of all the earth" (2 Nephi 28:18, Book of Mormon);
* The Great Mother of Abominations Christian Church: Source: "that great church, the mother of abominations" (LDS “Scripture”—Doctrine & Covenants, 88:94).
* The Abominable Mother of Harlots Christian Church: Source: "...the most plain and precious parts of the gospel of the Lamb which have been kept back by that abominable church, which is the mothers of harlots..." (1 Nephi 13:34, Book of Mormon)
* The Mother of Harlots Great Abominable Christian Church of All the Earth (found, the devil): Source: "...the mother of harlots, which is the great and abominable church of all the earth, whose founder is the devil (1 Nephi 14:17, Book of Mormon)
* The Christian Church of the Devil [My, how almost "tame" and "plain" compared to the other Mormon doosies!] Source: "And he said unto me: Behold there are save two churches only; the one is the church of the Lamb of God, and the other is the church of the devil; wherefore, whoso belongeth not to the church of the Lamb of God belongeth to that great church, which is the mother of abominations; and she is the whore of all the earth. (1 Nephi 14:10, Book of Mormon)
Now those were just the options available from Joseph Smith...but boy, once he set loose Lds "prophets," "apostles," first counselors, and the, they really uncorked some titles upon Christianity:
* Nothing Less Than the Whore of Babylon Catholic and Protestant Branches: Source: "Both Catholics and Protestants are nothing less than the 'whore of Babylon' (Courtesy of Mitt Romney's great-great grandfather, Orson Pratt, an "apostle" within the Mormon church: The Seer, p. 255).
* Hatched in Hell Universal Christian Fellowship: Source: ..."a perfect pack of nonsense...the devil could not invest a better engine to spread his work" [than Christianity...Lds "apostle-turned-'prophet'" John Taylor, JoD, vol. 6, p. 167]
* The Christian Church of the Mormon Devil: Source: "...the Christian God is the Mormon's Devil..." (Brigham Young, JoD, Vol. 5, p. 331)
(Ah-a 2-for-1 in this source!):
* Christian Mystery of Babylon the Great Mother of Harlot and Abominations of the Earth Church
and Lewd Daughter Protestant Church:
Source: 'The present Christian world exists and continues by division. The MYSTERY of Babylon the great, is mother of harlots and abominations of the earth, and it needs no prophetic vision, to unravel such mysteries. The old church is the mother, and the protestants are the lewd daughters (Lds “Apostle” John Taylor, Times and Seasons, Vol.6, No.1, p.811, Feb. 15, 1845...Taylor followed Brigham Young as "prophet" of the Lds church)
[You can text for your "fave" Lds leader title of Christians and their church @...!]
Hey, as long as y'all "nice" Mormons continue to call us by any of these labels w/a "smiley" face, we won't be offended...and we'll continue to think of you as "nice" Mormon neighbors :)
Back to McConkie's Church of the Dead Tree:
So: if you think any of these actual titles that your leaders have had for our church hurts the overall LDS "PR" image, I suggest you simply "tone it down."
Just follow Brother Bruce's lead and reference us as "The Evangelical Church of the Dead Tree."
"For the preaching of the cross [the dead tree] is to them that perish, foolishness; but unto us which are saved, it is the power of God." (1 Cor. 1:18)
"But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross [the dead tree] of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world." (Gal. 6:14)
Therefore, I am not ashamed to be associated with The Worldwide Church of the Dead Tree--for it is the gospel (the "good news"). The "good news" is not an elaborate "system" of every belief under the Mormon sun that a 12-year-old LDS "deacon" is supposed to know before he dies. It's not every law, commandment, ordinance, precept, etc. in the LDS "scriptures;" it is simple trusting in/knowing the true God and the true Jesus Christ (John 17:3).
"For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to everyone that believeth [LDS note: It doesn't say to "everyone that worketh" or "everyone that obeyeth"]..." (Rom. 1:16)
Signed
Ex-Proud but current member of the Church of the Dead Tree, where My Savior's Blood was shed as One Who...
...Died for my...
...Pride,
...Flesh,
...Guilt,
...Actions intended to "convince and change" a Divine Mind who already knows everything about me and my heart...
...And yet, surprisingly, doesn't love me any less.
The use of the description, polytheism, to describe Mormon thinking about the trinity is not their modern thinking on God. Christians believe in Trinitarianism, which is God existing as three persons in one substance. I believe modern day Mormons believe in Modalism which believes that there is only one God who does not exist as three separate persons but rather manifests himself in three different “modes” (i.e., as Father, Son, or Holy Ghost).
The teachings of Brigham Young were early and feeble attempts at understanding God’s nature. I think believers in God are striving to understand that nature, and we cannot fault men like Smith and Young when they fail; especially when they could barely understand it. Only Christ and the Bible, through the Holy Spirit puts men on the right track.
I think that men like Joseph Smith and Brigham Young should have persevered in their study of the Bible. Both were self-educated and were susceptible to errors of interpretation and judgement. There was many who could helped them through the difficult interpretations. They should not have strayed and would have benefited more in the Christian faith that was experiencing the Second Great Awakening during their lifetimes. There were many in the early years of our nation’s history that did much from just the inspiration of the Bible. It is too bad so many have sold the Bible short through history.
It is interesting that two of the worlds major religions, Mormonism and Muslim-ism both have as their root a belief in polygamy—just a last thought.
Why should I heed your advice rather than heeding the words of the Constitution of the United States?
Article VI - Debts, Supremacy, Oaths
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
Look, all I’m saying is that the choices presented to us this fall seem to be Obama or Romney. Apparently the original poster does not want us to vote for Romney. I am asking what his suggestion is. Logically I can see only three options: vote for Romney; vote for Obama; vote for neither candidate, either by staying home or by writing in the name of someone who has no prayer of winning. It’s fair to ask which course of action the OP is advocating. That’s not a straw man.
Of course, I am praying for this nation daily. So far no blindingly brilliant revelations have been vouchsafed to me.
I'm getting these responses from people like you who don't CARE about the issue about which I am addressing. I am specifically referring to evangelical Christians who are falling for this savage wolf in sheep's clothing during the PRIMARY when we have two christian statesmen from which to choose (Rick & Newt).
I am calling THEM out for acting just like Democrats (mainly in the African American community)who claim to be disciples of Christ yet JUSTIFY their voting for abortifiers of 30 million children and promulgators of homosexual “marriage” they claim to largely OPPOSE - on the grounds that “there are OTHER issues” - mainly their own financial advantages, unjust as they are to the rest of the population.
Any Christian supporting Mitt Romney is betraying the faith for what they delusionally perceive to be there own FINANCIAL interest by ignoring the false air of validity they give to this pagan religion founded by a seer who received his prophecies from a demon he channeled against the fundamental warnings of God himself in Deut. which commands unequivocally that contacting spirits is an abomination. It led to the fall of King Saul and Israel's fall in the Old Testament.
You may not care about this but again, I'm not talking to you.
Point 1- RELIGION: Religion IS NOT a qualification or disqualification for public office; but it's certainly one quality of voter discernment among many others...namely, voting record, present position statements & rampant inconsistency of past position statements, social issues' stances, character, viability, scandal-free past, etc. Article VI, section 3 of the Constitution is aimed at the candidate (must be of a certain age and must have resided in our country for a certain number of years) and the government so that religion does not become a disqualification to keep somebody otherwise eligible for running for public office. Article VI, section 3, is not aimed at the voter. Otherwise, voters would have to 100% disregard character, beliefs, other-dimensionly commitments, and spiritual discernment in weighing candidates.
POINT 2 - ELIGIBILITY: Newsflash!! Every person on the ballot, & even most write-in candidates, have proper "qualifications" to not be excluded from office consideration (based upon religious grounds). Of course, millions of us have the "qualifications" to be considered a potential POTUS & shouldn't be excluded outright from a ballot because of the religion we hold! Nobody has a "Religious Ineligibility" tattoo on their forehead!
POINT 3- BOTTOM LINE: Too many confuse "qualifications" (language within the Constitution) with "qualities." (language that’s NOT in the Constitution). I focus on what voters base their votes on in the "real world": Qualities
Otherwise, Article VI says absolutely nothing...nada...zero...about how voters must weigh--or not weigh--the "qualities" of a candidate...So, nowhere does Article VI say that voters MUST 100% disregard character, beliefs, other-dimensionly commitments, and spiritual discernment in weighing candidates!
"Qualifications" have to do with what gets a man on a ballot. "Qualities" has to do with who gets elected.
Look; I know it! We are faced with a deplorable choice in this election; one which is extremely unappetizing to any of us. We’re left not knowing what to do; and that’s the way Obama and his campaign likes it.
It’s crappy. I don’t know what they’re playing at and have been playing at for a long time apparently.
We need another Mormon in Washington D.C. like we need another Harry Reid that runs the Senate....
Maybe Harry and Willard are “good” Mormons..
That just might be a bit of the problem..
What do Massachusetts voters know that we don’t..
Could be Willard is a cloaked democrat..
You know.. a Borg and a drone in the HIVE..
You still haven’t said what you want Christian voters to do this fall. Stay home? Write in Sarah Palin’s name? What? Be specific. Clearly you don’t think people should vote for either Romney or Obama, so what are you suggesting?
OK...you did -- with this post -- introduce an option I have been advocating: Don't take the GoP pick out on other Republican races -- at least in 2012. Don't stay home. Vote Third party.
Now you added, "who has no prayer of winning."
I don't object to that assessment; what I object to is the assumption that this same assessment wouldn't apply to Mitt Romney.
So allow me to give you an initial "short" consideration as to why this is so...[I'll add other details if you want to keep reading below the asterisk line]:
The fact is...IF Romney is nominated...that means we'll have TWO liberal candidates running for POTUS.
Sorry...but we DON'T have enough LIBERAL voters in this country to support TWO liberal candidates!!!! Comprende????
If FREEPERs think this is going to be one of those 40-something-% to 40-something-% races...think again!!! Because, in order for that to happen, it would mean that we would need about 85-90+% of all voters to vote liberal & vote socialist in this election!!!!!!
Romney = healthcare socialism [that's a track-record FACT]; Romney = appointment of liberal judges [that's a track-record FACT]; Romney = pro-abortion actions & statements...statements even as recent as Dec of '07 [that's a track-record FACT].
What? Do people really think that they can get over 85% of the country to vote socialistic & liberalistic??? If you think that's going to happen, then that would be as poor of an ASSUMPTION as someone who would think a third-party candidate would win!!!
*********************
(Keep readin' if you're interested in the 'details'):
If I was a forecaster -- and if I told you now that...
...one candidate would get 46% of the vote;
...another candidate would get 32%-33% of the vote;
...a protest candidate of some sort would get 13% of the vote;
...and the minority party candidates (green party, etc.) would get 8-9% of the vote...
...does that sound like a two-person race to you?
Sports Analogies to explain this:
Some sports fans who didn't have a dog in the hunt were pullin' for both Louisville & then Kansas to upset Kentucky in the NCAA basketball tourney...But neither of those teams had the offense to pull past Kentucky. Still, those fans wanted to "root" for the underdog. Their rooting didn't change a thing. It didn't make the games any closer. The underdogs still lost by significant margins.
Even those who weren't "botfans" of either Louisville or Kansas could have urged as many people as possible to "root on" these underdogs...No matter...
The analogy is simple: If Romney + a "protest" candidate still get less than Obama, it really won't matter who you voted for [romney or the protest candidate]. Why? Because they are BOTH statistical losers!!!
Not only is romney an atrocious candidate, but his racist background with the Mormon church is THE worst choice to match up vs. Obama...and don't assume that by the time the MSM & Obama dems get done with Romney expose' after expose' that Romney will be a viable candidate by the end of October.
(I firmly believe the polls then will bear that out)
It's really not that Obama is like some unbeatable Olympic competitor...I don't think he can capture more than 46% of the vote...But if you reviewed a lot of Olympic events...say speed skating...or some track events...there's times when the coaches put a competitor in there that's really not so competitive vs. the front-runner.
That's what we have in a non-viable candidate like Romney.
You -- or a few other FREEPERs who might be "rooting" for Romney with your singular votes won't get Romney into even capturing 1/3rd of the popular vote. If I had to guess right now...
...Romney would get 'round 32%...perhaps some tenths over that...
...a third-party "protest" candidate (not sure who) may draw 13%...[Let's face it, do you REALLY expect 90%+ of the country would vote for A liberal???]
...Obama -- 46%
...Minority-party candidates (green party, etc.) would split the other 8-9%
If Romney won't even be able to capture 1/3rd of the nation's vote, how can any FReepers -- like Blood of Tyrants (post #3) -- blame some conservatives who won't vote for him???
What do I base some of these figures on?
(a) Ya gotta understand that RIGHT NOW, the GoP ONLY has 29% of all registered voters...
...& almost half of them are NOT Romney supporters...
...another probable 25-30% of them won't vote for Romney no matter what...[And most of these won't vote for Obama, either]
That means that only about 1 in 5 registered voters will vote for Romney -- as Republicans.
(b) Most Dems aren't going to vote for Romney...
(c) Six to Nine % of all registered voters (who aren't Republicans) would rather support a green party or constitutional party candidate or some small party...
(d) What segment of the registered-voter pie does that leave? Independents, who are about 1/3rd of all registered voters...All Obama would need to do is to capture about 42% of Independent voters, and he has that 46% of the vote I mentioned above.
So you think that Romney -- after the MSM & Dems get done with him -- will be able to grab more than a quarter of registered Independents? (I don't think so)
And even if he could, getting 1/3rd of the Independents would probably only give him 35-36% of the overall vote; getting 1/2 of the Independents would probably only give him 41-42% of the vote...
He won't win.
So why waste your vote
and your reputation
and your FREEPER credibility
being (or becoming) his personal apologist????
I’ll ditto that too. I’ve had dealings with Mormons and have no problem with them.
Yes. Writing Sarah Palin's name would be a good suggestion.
My last post outlines why Romney can't win.
The biggest objection people have to voting for a third-party candidate is that it's wasting their vote.
My last post outlines why voting for Romney will also be a wasted vote.
He can't win: THERE'S NOT ENOUGH LIBERAL VOTERS TO GO AROUND IN THIS COUNTRY TO SUPPORT TWO LIBERAL CANDIDATES. That is the simple bottom-line than fantasy-wishers just refuse to see.
This means that if you object to this obvious reality as I stated here, you will need to...
...not only become an apologist for Mormonism,
...but an apologist trying to convince everybody that Romney really isn't liberal and really isn't socialistic.
Is that what you and every plans on becoming the Summer & Fall of 2012??? Really?
The GoP establishment has exercised the epitome of "stupid" to -- in the year of T. Martin type of case -- run a candidate who for the first 13 years of his adult life belonged to a "Blacks keep out" temple...against a black candidate of all things!!!!
Now, if the MSM made so much of a certain upside-down rock on the hunting ground of Gov. Perry's family, what do you think the MSM & race agitators & Dems are going to do with the sheer ammo the Mormon church & Romney have handed to them...
Romney STANDS 0% chance of winning.
That is something you can bank on!
“As Christ said, if they are not against us, they are for us”
But they are against us. And they are against the Christ of the New Testament. Think of this in terms of disease. Which would you rather have? An open virus trying to take you down outright, or a virus that can disguise itself as part of your own system, thus bypassing your immune response? Or put another way, what did Jesus warn against? Atheist communists or false christs? Isn’t the wide acceptance of false christs something Jesus predicted as characteristic of the end of the age? Doesn’t that worry you a little more than garden variety secular tyrants? It does me.
On a pragmatic basis, even if you don’t buy the theological argument, I guarantee you Romney is in fact against us in terms of conservative policy. I worked for a constitutional law firm in Virginia during Romney’s governorship of MA, and we were getting calls from people, good Christian people of conscience, who were being driven against the wall by the Romney administration for trying to live out their Christian beliefs regarding the sanctity of life. His “conversion” story on that issue is not to be believed except by the most gullible amongst us.
So even using your own premise, Romney is still not someone a Christian can in good conscience support. If that makes the choice in November difficult, too bad. Christians have often been confronted with extraordinarily difficult choices. It goes with the territory. This world is not our final destination. If this “kingdom” falls, there is another.
My mom and dad visited a friend out in Utah once, and while they were there my mom was approached by a young man who was urgent to know her maiden name. She later found out through her friend (a Christian missionary to the Mormons) that she had just been added to the list of women that young man wanted to have for a wife in the afterlife, to make little god-babies with. My mom. Can I tell you how creepy and disgusting that is? Basically an open expression of lust toward my mother, rationalized by a perverse evolutionary polytheism, and thus radically opposed to the God and the Christ of Christian Scripture. No, I cannot support such a person for President.
By the same token, if we step back and let Obama win, are we endorsing black marxist islam?
“The use of the description, polytheism, to describe Mormon thinking about the trinity is not their modern thinking on God.”
Sure it is, if you make some careful distinctions. I have discussed this sort of thing with a Mormon elder I worked with professionally. The rank and file are allowed to entertain loose notions of God that help them seem more mainstream, but the leadership knows full well the church as a whole is committed to the words of their own prophets, even those teachings that suggest evolution of humans to deity, and that, by any ordinary rendering of the language, is most certainly a variant of polytheism.
However, their apologists attempt to sidestep the polytheism charge by adding a qualifier, that polytheism implies actual worship of the multiple deities. Then they can claim because they purport to worship only one such being, they are not polytheists, but henotheists (belief in many gods, but worship of only one god). But polytheism is first of all ontological, i.e., it describe a belief about the nature of being, that multiple deities exist, whether one worships them or not. Thus, the Mormon belief in multiple human evolutions to multiple deities is clearly polytheistic by that rudimentary and more honest definition.
But even if one were to accept the double-speak of henotheism, they still fail to distance themselves from polytheism, because not only their older prophets, but their modern prophet, President Gordon Hinkley, openly admits he worships both Jesus and the Father of Jesus, two distinctly different beings in the Mormon ontology, and this is nothing remotely like either Trinitarianism or Modalism, except in some surface effects. See Hinkley’s comments on the subject in Liahona Magazine, March 1998 issue.
Furthermore, for those still willing to give “modern” Mormon theology a pass, because after all, they do claim to love Christ, I remind you they do not accept the Christ of the New Testament, as Christians understand him. They openly state they have a different Christ:
“In bearing testimony of Jesus Christ, President Hinckley spoke of those outside the Church who say Latter-day Saints ‘do not believe in the traditional Christ.’ ‘No, I don’t. The traditional Christ of whom they speak is not the Christ of whom I speak’” (LDS Church News, week ending June 20, 1998, p.7)
Please note that is a mere 14 years ago. This is not ancient history. The leadership knows exactly what Mormonism teaches, and they leverage to their advantage that ordinary Mormons are typically decent folk who use a lot of the same language and labels as traditional Christians. It creates an opening to draw in the unsuspecting and those who do not understand their own faith. But the elders know.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.