Posted on 11/20/2006 8:24:45 AM PST by areafiftyone
Mitt Romney (R) begins the 2008 campaign season in fourth place among those seeking the GOP Presidential nomination, trailing Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, and Condoleezza Rice. While many Republican insiders believe the Massachusetts Governor could become an attractive candidate to the party's social conservatives, a Rasmussen Reports survey finds that Romney's faith may initially be more of a hindrance than a help.
Forty-three percent (43%) of American voters say they would never even consider voting for a Mormon Presidential candidate. Only 38% say they would consider casting such a vote while 19% are not sure. Half (53%) of all Evangelical Christians say that they would not consider voting for a Mormon candidate.
Overall, 29% of Likely Voters have a favorable opinion of Romney while 30% hold an unfavorable view. Most of those opinions are less than firmly held. Ten percent (10%) hold a very favorable opinion while 11% have a very unfavorable assessment. Among the 41% with no opinion of Romney, just 27% say they would consider voting for a Mormon.
It is possible, of course, that these perceptions might change as Romney becomes better known and his faith is considered in the context of his campaign. Currently, just 19% of Likely Voters are able to identify Romney as the Mormon candidate from a list of six potential Presidential candidates.
The response to a theoretical Mormon candidate is far less negative than the response to a Muslim candidate or an atheist. Sixty-one percent (61%) of Likely Voters say they would never consider voting for a Muslim Presidential candidate. Sixty percent (60%) say the same about an atheist.
The Rasmussen Reports survey found that 35% say that a candidate's faith and religious beliefs are very important in their voting decision. Another 27% say faith and religious beliefs are somewhat important. Ninety-two percent (92%) of Evangelical Christian voters consider a candidate's faith and beliefs important.
On the partisan front, 78% of Republicans say that a candidate's faith is an important consideration, a view shared by 55% of Democrats. However, there is also a significant divide on this topic within the Democratic Party. Among minority Democrats, 71% consider faith and religious beliefs an important consideration for voting. Just 44% of white Democrats agree.
The national telephone survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted by Rasmussen Reports November 16-17, 2006. The margin of sampling error for the survey is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence.
>>First of all, the apostle Paul, who trumps your prophet…
Prophets do not trump each other, this is not a game of cards.
>>specifically says that "anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God" (1 Cor. 14:2). That is just the opposite of Bible prophesy, which is geared for men and not God.
Misquote of the Day, it’s “Unknown tongue”
>>Now you're totally screwing up Scriptural exegesis.
Here is 1 Cor 14:1-5:
1 FOLLOW after charity, and desire spiritual gifts, but rather that ye may prophesy.
2 For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.
3 But he that prophesieth speaketh unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort.
4 He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church.
5 I would that ye all spake with tongues, but rather that ye prophesied: for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying.
I learned Chinese which is not an unknown tongue, specifically so that I could teach and edify the church. This is specifically the use that Paul talks about.
>>Lastly speaking in tongues doesn't do anyone any good, Paul says starkly (see 1 Cor. >>14:6, 13, 18-19, 27-28) unless there's an interpreter. Who was Joseph Smith's >>interpreter?
Do you need an interpreter if you are using the gift of tongues to speak in someone’s native language? (I was in Taiwan, and learned whith the help of the spirit, varying amounts of four langauages)
>>The problem of the Mormons was the problem of the Corinthians--a problem that
>>forced Paul to ask them: "Did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only
>>people it has reached?" (1 Cor. 14:36).
No, but we have more truth, more light, more scripture and we would love for you to read it and pray to Christ (it’s ALWAYS a good idea to ask Christ if anything is according to his will)
The problem is that latter-day saints have assumed a less noble position than the Bereans: "Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true." (Acts 17:11) The Bereans judged the latter revelation by the previous revelation, not the other way around.
We ask nothing, God asks you to seek out his word. Praying to Jesus Christ never hurt anyone.
There are two kinds of people in this
Those who teach prayer; and those who don’t.
Mormons teach prayer.
OMG! They baptize for the dead? How could anyone vote for someone who believed in something so utterly "un-biblical"?
Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead? (1 Corinthians 15:29 KJV)
(/sarc)
So what? Do you think every book Amazon or Books a Million offers is one they published themselves, copyright & all? My understanding is that it's not hard for LDS folks to get a copy of this "version" right? Why doesn't the LDS church scoop up copies Joseph's alleged Bible translation from the RLDS and offer it if it's such a sacred document?
>>Why would any Joseph Smith-family jumpstarted religion (the RLDS) want to hoard
>>the supposed "Word of God?"
You’ll have to ask them, and the have edited it since and admit it.
>>The real reason for not circulating this too widely is that it's embarrassing for
>>Mormons on several fronts:
NEVER post opinion as Fact! This is your opinion (and why anyone would care what you opinion was about something you don’t believe in was, I don’t know, maybe that’s why you tried to pass it off as fact…)
>>(1) Many of the changes are extremely minor and are not relevant to significant
>>doctrinal distinctions.
Like pharaoh hardening his heart, not God for example?
>>(2) The changes rarely bolster peculiar LDS doctrines.
Um, Yeah, have you read it?
>>(3) By leaving many key Bible passages alone, Joe Smith seemed to be giving a
>>"thumbs up" to Biblical doctrines that conflict w/LDS doctrine.
He was martyred by God fearing tolerant Christians who lied and murdered, burned homes and stole property, raped and tortured Mormons because the Mormons did not believe what the “Christians” wanted them to.
Hey this MO sounds familiar doesn’t it?
So, he never finished it. We do have excerpts and publish them in the KJV as an addendum, and on the web at http://scriptures.lds.org/en/jst/contents
Why don’t you read a little, and pray about it, either way you’ll feel better. Then if it suits you read some more, if not, go read some thing that brings you closer to God.
He IS cute, and it is OKAY if we think so!!!!:-)
Wow. You have just left the orthodox Christian camp, too, I see.
Give me a moral Mormon any day to a Democrat so-called, Christian.
As of now, and as a NH voter, I am in the Romney Camp. This kind of poll and some of the hateful comments on this and other threads regarding Mormons has only achieved the opposite for me.
In fact I am going to run along now and check out where I can start.
LOL... it sure doesn't hurt, does it?
New Testament citations, please.
Where did you hear this?
First off, don't take this out of context. For example, if there was no urgent gospel to take to people...if all are fine as is...then by all means, call all the LDS missionaries home. I mean, aren't you "judging" every household that an LDS missionary visits as a potential eventual visitor to either hell or a "lesser glory?"
The fact of the matter is, that every LDS mission agency makes spiritual "judgments" all the time. Now I do deem that as being off-based motivationally? No. When an LDS missionary visits my apartment, do I think they are making as you say, a "field judgment?" Yes, but I don't assign ill motive to them as you seem to do to me. If I were them--if I believe someone has not embraced the true gospel, and I have good news to share, of course, good news is for sharing, not hoarding.
Jesus' comment about "ye shall know them by their fruit" is somewhat relevant here. Likewise, the apostle Paul said "The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man's judgment: 'For who has known the mind of the Lord that he may instruct him?' But we have the mind of Christ." (1 Cor. 2:14-16).
So bottom line here, we all make spiritual judgments. (But only those who share "the mind of Christ" makes accurate assessments...because as 1 Cor. 2:14-16 "judging" is just another way of saying "discerning"--and John says we are to "test all things, hold fast to that which is true.")
So, true Christians are in the "things-judging" business...(not the people-judging business). We judge "things"--spirit entities, doctrines, truth and falsehood. We know some spirits have already been judged; we have no such knowledge of people. Many people who might appear to be hell-bound are actually heaven-bound. But it's not because we can't tell who is on a present course of destruction...it's more because that course may change.
Finally, we cannot judge people's inward motives. Nobody has that kind of inner knowledge.
Time to destroy another possible Rep Presidential candidate. Yet, more then 43% of the voters in Mass voted for him.
Judgment without power to execute that judgment is simply opinion. Do you believe Mormons have the power to send you to hell?
But they won't vote for Romney.
Are they judging true judgment, or are they judging by appearances?
Really????
What makes you say that? You said Baptism for the dead was a completely un-biblical practice, yet, it is a practice that is mentioned in the bible and is neither condemned nor recommended.
The fact is that it is not a "traditional" practice, but you cannot say that it is "completely unbliblical". It is biblical. (Sola Scriptura). We don't know what the purpose for baptism for the dead was in 65 AD, but there were people practicing it and Paul didn't condemn it. He used it to make a point about the resurrection.
So Baptists including Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter pass the test, but Mitt Romney doesn't?
The Constitution says otherwise.......
Let him think that only (protestant) Christians can lead the country. He's got to explain Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter.
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.