Using "World Series" is like saying the other "Super Bowl". It is a hook to grab people like me who really is not interested in Mormonism. What about Satanisim? I think that is a bit more dangerous than Mormonism. I don't recall hearing about Mormons conducting ritual human sacrifice on newborns. As an evangelical I would think you would be concerned about that.
I respect your religious beliefs, I happen to be Lutheran, maybe a heathen in your opinion but that's your opinion.
My argument is that recently Free Republic has come under full fledged attack by Mitt Romney hacks claiming we all "hate Mormons". I'm suggesting that your thread is aiding their argument.
As the primary comes closer there will be many independents voting as Obama is unchallenged. I don't think trying to paint Romney as a devil worshiper helps Herman Cain. You are making Romney look like a victim by twisting their belief system.
And most religions go through reformations, my former neighbors did not engage in plural marriage, they had Christmas decorations and seemed pretty normal, besides they didn't drink alcohol, but I know many evangelical sects that are extremely strict in regards to alcohol consumption.
I will admit I am not the expert you are on religion, I do happen to have a Degree in History and a Masters and will tell you that Mormonism is a completely different religion in 2011 than what it was when the Mormons fled Illinois under Brigham Young towards Salt Lake City. While the US Government had a lot to do with it by jailing polygamists, it seemed to work with the exception of radical extremists like Warren Jeffs and he's in prison for life. And I didn't see Orrin Hatch come to his defense.
So what? Are you so beholden to the "world" that you won't speak out vs. that which challenges the cross?
I don't know which Lutheran version you are, but the ELCA includes abortion as part of its healthcare coverage for churchworkers. It also accepts homosexual pastors. So should grassroots ELCA members simply "stay silent" on these matters?
Even if you are not ELCA, would you tell ELCA members not to speak out vs. homosexuality because that can lead to a "full fledged attack by homosexual activist hacks claiming we all 'hate homosexuals'"?
Really? You mean you can't separate moral opposition to a lifestyle from so-called "hate?"
Do you advise Christians across the board to simply remain silent on homosexuality because of how that might be interpreted in the public square?
How squeamish are you on speaking out on the truth?
I maintain Mitt's Mormon beliefs are a critical election issue and I raise following arguments in support of this position:
It is not right to say doctrine doesn't matter at all. Take Islam, for instance. It would be dangerously naive to assume, as American civil religion does, that all religions are pretty much the same. It's true that most religions share core ethical teachings, but orthodox Islam also teaches unambiguously that there is to be no separation of religion and state, that non-Muslims are to live subservient under law to Muslims, and in some sects that Allah commands a jihad or "holy war" be waged against non-Muslim "infidels". To the extent that a Muslim wishes to preside over our pluralist liberal democracy, he will have had to break radically from his faith's fundamentals.
Liberals who insist that religion has no place at all in American politics have to account for the Christian roots of many social reforms. Consider for example the abolitionism and the civil rights movement. When faced with the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., and other black clergymen explicitly appealing to Christian scripture against Jim Crow, Southern segregationists groused that religion had no business in politics. You can't praise religion's role in political discourse only when it advances causes of which you approve or is practiced by constituencies blacks, say, that vote Democratic.
If God doesn't exist, then by what standard do we decide right from wrong? If a society recognizes no independent, transcendent guardian of the moral order, will it not, over time, lose its self-discipline and decline into barbarism? The eminent sociologist Philip Rieff, who was not a believer, said that man would either live in fear of God or would be condemned to live in fear of the evil in himself.
Mitt, himself, has placed his Mormon faith under scrutiny. In his famous speech on Mormonism, Mitt said that a person should not be rejected . . . because of his faith. His supporters say it is akin to rejecting a Barack Obama because he is black. But Obama was born black; Romney is a Mormon because he accepts the beliefs of the Mormon faith. This permits us, therefore, to make inferences about his judgment and character, good or bad.
Mitt has promised to fully obey Mormon teachings without hesitation and without question.
In his February 26, 1980 speech at BYU titled Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet, LDS President Ezra Taft Benson maintained the Mormon Church President spoke with inerrant authority on "any matter, temporal or spiritual " and was "not required to have any particular earthly training or credentials to speak on any subject or act on any matter at any time."Mitt either intended to honor his promises to follow another man's instructions, or he lied. In the case of the former, we are entitled to know where these directives lead, and in the alternative, we should be concerned about Mitt's honesty.As a Temple Mormon, Mormon Bishop and Stake President, Mitt has sworn among other things, he recognizes the President of the LDS Church as a "prophet, seer and revelator," and will "obey the rules, laws, and commandments of the gospel" as proclaimed by Mormon Prophets.
Mitt made these solemn vows with the understanding they effect "time and all eternity."
For these reasons, among others, I assert Mitt’s beliefs are indeed a legitimate issue for determining his qualifications for elected public office.
My argument is that recently Free Republic has come under full fledged attack by Mitt Romney hacks claiming we all "hate Mormons". I'm suggesting that your thread is aiding their argument.
If pointing out truth using annotated facts, most of them taken directly from LDS sources, presented in a dispassionate and non-argumentative manner, is indeed hate speech, then I am as guilty as they come.
However, I am not ashamed to recount the truth, and I believe the commonly used liberal tactic of renouncing such arguments as hateful and/or racist is repugnant.