Posted on 04/02/2016 1:29:04 PM PDT by BlackFemaleArmyColonel
“There is a huge number of us that start the day the same way, I prefer the option of voting out the RINOs rather than voting in the full fledged no pretense socialists. “
You’re right of course, I’m letting my disgust of the GOPe get the best of me.
Plus in New York State the Libertarians would have to do a Wilson-Pakula to give a registered Republican their line. Nevah hoppen.
Oh, so only candidates for President are allowed to say who they support, seriously?? Since when?
Lots of GOP politicians lined up in support of GHWB and against Reagan in 1980. Reagan won anyway.
Both Kasish and Cruz balked at voting for him this week so he has just cause. But I don’t believe he will. If the RNC steals the nomination from him they will be helping to elect Hillary Clinton though. It could happen.
This sort of thing is all they want to talk about - they certainly don’t want to try to defend his views on the issues that are in complete opposition to conservative and American ideals.
Mormons are not Christians...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Are Mormons “Christians” as defined by traditional Christian orthodoxy? The answer to that question is easy and straightforward, and it is “no.” Nevertheless, even as the question is clear, the answer requires some explanation.
The issue is clearly framed in this case. Christianity is rightly defined in terms of “traditional Christian orthodoxy.” Thus, we have an objective standard by which to define what is and is not Christianity.
We are not talking here about the postmodern conception of Christianity that minimizes truth. We are not talking about Christianity as a mood or as a sociological movement. We are not talking about liberal Christianity that minimizes doctrine nor about sectarian Christianity which defines the faith in terms of eccentric doctrines. We are talking about historic, traditional, Christian orthodoxy.
Once that is made clear, the answer is inevitable. Furthermore, the answer is made easy, not only by the structure of Christian orthodoxy (a structure Mormonism denies) but by the central argument of Mormonism itself - that the true faith was restored through Joseph Smith in the nineteenth century in America and that the entire structure of Christian orthodoxy as affirmed by the post-apostolic church is corrupt and false.
In other words, Mormonism rejects traditional Christian orthodoxy at the onset - this rejection is the very logic of Mormonism’s existence. A contemporary observer of Mormon public relations is not going to hear this logic presented directly, but it is the very logic and message of the Book of Mormon and the structure of Mormon thought. Mormonism rejects Christian orthodoxy as the very argument for its own existence, and it clearly identifies historic Christianity as a false faith.
So, what does Mormonism reject? The orthodox consensus of the Christian church is defined in terms of its historic creeds and doctrinal affirmations. Two great doctrines stand as the central substance of that consensus. Throughout the centuries, the doctrines concerning the Trinity and the nature of Christ have constituted that foundation, and the church has used these definitional doctrines as the standard for identifying true Christianity.
The Mormon doctrine of God does not correspond to the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. Mormonism rejects the central logic of this doctrine (one God in three eternal persons) and develops its own doctrine of God - a doctrine that bears practically no resemblance to Trinitarian theology. The Mormon doctrine of God includes many gods, not one. Furthermore, Mormonism teaches that we are what God once was and are becoming what He now is. That is in direct conflict with Christian orthodoxy.
Contemporary Mormonism presents the Book of Mormon as “another testament of Jesus Christ,” but the Jesus of the Book of Mormon is not the only begotten Son of God, the second person of the Trinity, or the one through whose death on the cross we can be saved from our sins.
Normative Christianity is defined by the Apostles Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the other formulas of the doctrinal consensus. These doctrines are understood by Christians to be rooted directly within the Bible and rightly affirmed by all true believers in all places and throughout all time. As one leading figure in the early church explained, the true faith is recognized and affirmed everywhere, always, and by all (Vincent of Lérins defined the orthodox tradition as those truths affirmed “ubique, semper, ab omnibus”).
The major divisions within Christian history (Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Protestantism) disagree over important issues of doctrine, but all affirm the early church’s consensus concerning the nature of Christ and the Trinitarian faith. These are precisely what Mormonism rejects.
Without doubt, Mormonism borrows Christian themes, personalities, and narratives. Nevertheless, it rejects what orthodox Christianity affirms and it affirms what orthodox Christianity rejects. It is not Christianity in a new form or another branch of the Christian tradition. By its own teachings and claims, it rejects that very tradition.
Richard John Neuhaus, a leading Roman Catholic theologian, helpfully reminds us that “Christian” is a word that “is not honorific but descriptive.” Christians do respect the Mormon affirmation of the family and the zeal of Mormon youth in their own missionary work. Christians must affirm religious liberty and the right of Mormons to practice and share their faith.
Nevertheless, Mormonism is not Christianity by definition or description.
I am always glad to hear from readers. Write me at mail@albertmohler.com. Follow regular updates on Twitter at www.twitter.com/AlbertMohler.
Dr. Albert R. Mohler serves as President of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
I will support Trump if I decide that convention corruption won AND that Trump is serious about denying electoral votes to the other candidates. That means winning states and not just votes
And Trump isn’t general of anything now. He’s just a candidate. If/when he wins the nomination, different story.
Every letter we get from the RNC demanding we re-up our membership & pay up because we’re “past due”, they haven’t heard from us in two years, they sent us a dollar so send it back with more $$ enclosed .... all the usual cr@p ... well, they get a piece of paper printed with what the image on your post sent back to them in their self-addressed postage-paid envelope. The last one went in their yellow membership renewal envelope. You’d think they’d get a clue after years of wasting their money.
“Well sure - they must have hypnotized Trump to cause him to say and do all of those things.”
You mean like: “stop illegal immigration” and “build a wall”
And winning most of the delegates?
One thing I don’t know the answer to is how cotes are counted when a candidate has support from multiple parties: say Hillary is the Democrat nominee and gets 45% in a state, and Trump is the nominee of the Republicans and also the Libertarians, and that he gets 40% as the Republican and 15% as the Libertarian. Would Hillary be deemed the winner as the candidate with the most support from a single party? Or would Trump be the winner as the candidate with the most support altogether? In other words, are votes for a candidate on multiple tickets aggregated?
Good. I’ll support him.
Not supporting is one thing - third party bid is quite different. I would have to opine that a third party bid by anyone would give the socialists a free path to continue executive tyranny, which will be the destruction of our Republic.
It may be pure arrogance, or perhaps positioning for a deal. But its talking treason in my book because the net effect is deadly to our freedom and Constitution. It like saying, I’ll shoot a hole in the bottom of the boat unless I get my way.
Cruz killed my chance of ever voting for in Iowa. After Chicago I’m not sure if I’d ever vote for another GOP candidate. Free political speech is the lynch pin of our entire system and both the GOP and Cruz chose power over that principle.
“And Trump isn’t general of anything now.”
He’s not running a marathon either, it was an analogy.
“He’s just a candidate. If/when he wins the nomination, different story.”
Pfft, he’s a “candidate” that just happens to draw thousands and thousands of people from all walks of life at every rally.
But yeah, let’s sabotage him, so it’s ‘fair’ for the other, less popular candidates.
Great strategy!
Sure to win in Nov!
“Cruz killed my chance of ever voting for in Iowa. After Chicago I’m not sure if I’d ever vote for another GOP candidate. Free political speech is the lynch pin of our entire system and both the GOP and Cruz chose power over that principle.”
I like Cruz. He’d be a great prez. And he was just being an opportunist, which, crass as it was, is part of the game.
But the GOPe is supposed to run a fair contest.
They’ve failed. Miserably.
I’ve been telling you trumpers you can’t trust him.
He’s backed down now on a PLEDGE.
With the paltry excuse that he wasn’t treated fairly.
Poor, tiny, helpless Trump wasn’t treated fairly.
And so you people think he’ll keep that pledge to build a wall?
Good luck with that.
Good. May will walk with him. He can beat Hillary.
It’s Trump all over.
He is in this for the glory, not to actually do anything.
I don’t think he’d lose a minute’s sleep in that bed in Trump Towers if he cost us the election and gave us Hillary.
He doesn’t think she’s that bad anyway.
You Trump folks even whine when you’re in first place.
________________________________________________________
You Cruz folks even whine when you know your candidate is in bed with the GOPe.
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.