Posted on 05/28/2005 11:26:17 AM PDT by RWR8189
So if it came down to a CINO (Christian-in-name-only) vs. a Mormon who lives according to his principles, but is not by your definition "Christian," you'd choose the CINO?
I guess you'd prefer the "Christian" Clintons to any "non-Christian" Mormon, Jew, or Buddhist.
related to Sweetjustusnow' post (#17):
Lies and the Lying Land Grabbers Who Tell Them
October 3, 2003
By Peyton Knight
http://www.americanpolicy.org/prop/lies.htm
Although the prophet is considered the mouthpiece of God on the earth, Mormon's do not walk lockstep with his opinions on many issues. I know many pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage mormons, who also oppose the war on terrorism. A key element of the mormon faith, is that all people of the earth can know God's will in their life through the ministrations of the holy ghost. These are personal revelations that are not given through church leaders, but rather through ones feelings. A mormon should determine for themselves, if the prophet's statements are true. If that is the case, then they are morally obliged to act on these principles.
I appreciate the sensitivity of your comments towards the mormon faith while expressing a real concern. I am however shocked at some of the hateful comments in this thread. At a time in American history when the soul of a nation is on the line, several ignorant and hateful individuals seem to find greater reward in attacking people of common principle than overlooking superficial differences and working towards a common goal.
Under the Banner of Heaven is really good on the origins of Mormonism, which to an outsider has many hilarious and disturbing aspects. It is excellent in explaining the behavior of the wacky breakaway Mormon polygamists, a group that apparently flourishes because they have learned to game the welfare system. But don't count me in any "17%". To oppose a member of such a large and diverse group based solely on their religion is bigotry, and, in my book, un-American.
Bump for later reading.
there it is....
matter of fact, I have a couple dyed in the wool Liberal friends. It doesn't really matter as long as we don't discuss politics. I don't want to tell the guy, but the way he runs his life and his family follow very conservative ways, but his politics are probably closer to a moderate Democrat than say Hillary Clinton, but he falls in lock step with them....
Sane people are a rare commodity sometimes :)
Then you'd probably guess wrong. Check the blog.
Dan
Harry Reid, the MINO (Mormon In Name Only) would defend Mitt Romney?! LOL!!!!
The Gov of Missouri issued an extermination order against Mormons at one point and while overt violence against Mormons has ceased, many harbor a deep hatred. It would be a miracle indeed if Romney were able to overcome it all.
It is amazing how much misinformation and misunderstanding there is floating around about Mormons. For example, Mormons are considered to be non Christians. In reality, Jesus Christ is our Savior, Redeemer, Lord, Master, and we even refer to Him as "Jehovah". Go figure.
I'm not.
More often than not the only reason the people are standing outside is because of stupid smoking bans. If they were allowed a room inside or be able to smoke inside the bar, they wouldn't be outside at the door.
Plus add #3, Republicans who are for smoking bans are generally hard core RINOs on everything else.
Pataki, Rowland, Bloomberg and Bruno for example are more to the left than most Democrats. You see a Republican supporting a smoking ban it's pretty much guarantees they are a RINO in regards to everything else.
Actually, I don't see smoking as a conservative/liberal issue. I guess I can see smoking bans as a government intrusion, but certainly not the sole quantifier as someone being a liberal or rino.
I have no problem with smoking rooms as long as they get used I guess. I certainly like having them at airports. I don't have problems with allowing smoking in bars too as that's a place where you expect it. I see smoking in the same terms as alcohol and drugs.
I personally don't see anything good about smoking (unless it's the tobacco suit money that governmeng seems to use for everything but what it was intended for). I don't support completely banning it either. However, I don't think we should encourage it with all the harm it does, especially in terms of medical bills which get passed along to the rest of us in some form eventually.
Back home we have this bowling alley where a lot of families used to go. Now, not very many go there as it has added gambling and the smoking there makes it almost unbearable.
The Bible Belt can't be won by a Mormon.
I think ou're *probably* right. But their case is probably like mine, if you've reda the blog: if the field is really, terribly desolate, and if he reinvented himself credibly... maybe, maybe.
And it's not encouraging that there isn't anyone right now that I look at and think, "Wow, yeah! Let's start NOW!"
Well, no one living.
Dan
(c8
But not all faiths offer inherent goodness. I doubt you would find many takers who would advocate that the Pharisees of Christ's day were deserving of 100% "respect." I can hear your mild rebuke of Jesus now..."Come on, JC, you know these Pharisees are sincere in their beliefs...and they strive to do good...woncha knock off these comments about being a 'brood of vipers' and 'whitewashed sepulchres' and being sons of Satan?"
The Bible doesn't advocate according koolaid-drinkers "respect," no matter how sincere their chugging may have been! Nor does it say to leave the judging of religious beliefs up to God alone.
The Bible has many words that describe discernment and wisdom. It also says in 1 Thess 5:21: "Test all things. Hold fast to that which is good."
If you ne'er make judgment calls as to what beliefs are sound, and which ones aren't, then you've just disobeyed this precept.
Hey, we have spiritual filters for a reason. Elsewise, Jesus' and Paul's warnings about spiritual wolves are non-sensical (Mt 10:16; Acts 20:29).
Eastland's got that right. A church that defines killing a defenseless pre-born baby on the grounds of "health" is so roomy you can drive a few million trucks thru. That is, BTW, the exact same definition as Doe vs. Bolton, the companion case to Roe v. Wade. That means that other than the contrived trimester system of Roe, which is negated by the "health" exception of Doe, there really isn't any difference between the 1973 Supreme Court and the Mormon church on abortion...except that LDS believe there are spirit babes in heaven awaiting bodies to inhabit.
The LDS, a denomination like any other?
Here's a denomination that baptizes dead people by proxy. It believes godhood awaits them. It has embraced seer stones. Former BYU prof wrote a book entitled "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View" in which chapter discusses divining rods, treasure-digging, and seer stones. Chapter 4 has a section on "The Smith Family's Magic Parchments" along with another section, "Kinship, Folk Magic, Occult Mentors, and Early Mormons."
And this is a "denomination like any other?"
"Some people think that Mormans are not Christian."
As far as I can tell, they aren't. Not a slam; just an observation that Mormonism has a very different theology from the rest of Christianity. The Catholic Church and the most radically anti-Catholic Protestants have far more in common than either has with Mormonism.
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.