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.
>>>>If I make the boards, then organize those boards into a house, haven’t I done both?
>>There ya go again w/that "looseness." Even if you could claim that you grew the tree
>>from a seedling from which you got the wood and then "made" the boards, I got news
>>for you: The seed, the tree, the wood, was not original from you. You cannot get a
>>patent on that wood and that tree and that seed.
The boards and house was your analogy, and now you don’t like it? What if I created the Boards out of thin air?
>>The biblical doctrine of creation is that Christ has a patent on creation, and that it's
>>ex nihilo (Latin from out of nothing)...all based upon Hebrews 11:3 and other
>>passages.
Ex nihilo is from the Nicene Creed and I think we have been there enough for one thread, don’t you? And patents only last for twenty years, and you have to basically publish how you do it (God did neither)
Here: Heb 11: 3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.
I see nothing in your Quotation that contradicts what I have said, in fact it supports it. This scripture could also be read that Christ created things that can be seen using things that can’t like atoms being made up of smaller particles.
>>What? Every library-placed BoM, bookstore-placed BoM, every Salt Lake City mailed
>>copy of the BoM comes with a "Missionary-kit-packet-just-add-water" and "poof" an
>>instant missionary appears who discusses it with you (now that would give a different
>>"flavor" to the term "familiar spirit.")
Get real, have you ever had trouble getting the missionaries to come over?
Historically, LDS doctrine has changed over time, including notorious teachings regarding polygamy and the fact that, until 1978, blacks were barred from the Mormon priesthood. Mormons may be able to make sense of these changes in doctrine in light of their belief in progressive revelation, but it's difficult for non-Mormons to take "official" LDS doctrine seriously.
Because people act according to their beliefs, and ideas have consequences. If someone holds erroneous beliefs, it is charitable to correct them, in the appropriate time and place.
If Mormons believe the Book of Mormon is "Scripture", they changed Scripture. The Bible never changes. It may be interpreted differently but the Hebrew and Greek text never changes. As best I can tell, the Book of Mormon is not an interpreted text. The "original" text is in English. So if the BoM is changed via revelation, it is not stable.
The original BoM says "white". It said "white" in 1870 and 1932 and 1960 and it would say "white" today if it hadn't been changed.
I used to be a Presbyterian(PCUSA). When PCUSA ordained women, it was concerned with the pew Bible's version of 1 Tim 3 saying a church leader must be the "husband of one wife". So they changed the Scripture in the pew Bible to "married to one person". It sounds rather similar.
I think he means that every request for anything comes with a visit. It's a very effective ministry. I got a Christmas DVD from my neighbor. I later used it in a sermon I gave.
Yes I used a Mormon DVD to give a Methodist sermon on the Nativity. It was dead-on Scripturally. Except for the Thetan posing as a wise man (A whole pile of non-Mormons just said "See. I knew it". That's a joke, people. Tip your wait staff, I'm here all week)
Anyway, I got a visit from the elders. I was nice and didn't try to Methodize them and they didn't put the screws to me. I did have to move them outside because my daughter, who watched the whole video, was inside yelling "ASK ABOUT THE INDIANS". She's a little wise guy.
I think he meant
>>Ramen noodles would be captured to the LDSism for eternity.
I don't even know who the dude was, and I am an evangelical.
Ted Hag doesn't speak for me.
Very true on the hope for mercy.
I plan to go on (this is undergrad) for a couple semesters to add journalism certification (primary is in history and government). Then, I will get master's in history (not education.....give me a real degree thank you).
I could have done something that paid a lot....public relations, marketing, law.....but teaching makes me come alive. It isn't about the money.
And, at least this will be one non-liberal teacher. :)
So, THIS is an example of the esteem mormons hold for Jews?
From: Mormons meet with Jews over baptizing Holocaust victims
SALT LAKE CITY, Utah (AP) -- Mormon and Jewish leaders met Tuesday in New York City to discuss the Mormon church's apparent breach of its agreement not to posthumously baptize Holocaust victims and other deceased Jews.
More on this practice at The Issue of The Mormon Baptisms of Jewish Holocaust Victims
The main thing that I think will come out about Mitt Romney is this little gem, a vow taken in the ritual in the mormon temple: You and each of you covenant and promise before God, angels, and these witnesses at this altar, that you do accept the Law of Consecration as contained in the Doctrine and Covenants, in that you do consecrate yourselves, your time, talents, and everything with which the Lord has blessed you, or with which he may bless you, to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, for the building up of the Kingdom of God on the earth and for the establishment of Zion.
A good question to ask Mitt during the primary campaign is whether he intends to honor this vow OVER his oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States.
I am quite sure that if he makes it through the primary, the Jesse Jacksons and Al Sharptons will be making the point that until 1978, African-American men were denied "the priesthood" necessary to enter the mormon temple, because of the church doctrine that LDS Tenth President Joseph Fielding Smith explains:
There is a reason why one man is born black and with other disadvantages, while another is born white with great advantages. The reason is that we once had an estate before we came here, and were obedient; more or less, to the laws that were given us there. Those who were faithful in all things there [pre-existence] received greater blessings here, and those who were not faithful received less. . . . There were no neutrals in the war in Heaven. All took sides either with Christ or with Satan. Every man had his agency there, and men receive rewards here based upon their actions there, just as they will receive rewards hereafter for deeds done in the body. The Negro, evidently, is receiving the reward he merits (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 1:61, 65-66; emphasis added).
Now, let the indignant mormon apologists begin throwing their spears at me...I have my flame-proof armor handy.
Somone please tell me what one gets out of trying to disprove another`s religion? It was said earlier why should one`s beliefs bother someone else. Someone once said that "Religion is tied to the deepest feelings people have. The love that arises from that stewing pot is the sweetest and strongest, but the hate is the hottest, and the anger is the most violent." Anybody can argue and defend their beliefs. Many times until death. Crusades, Jihads, the Inquisition, and holy wars are all results of people trying to force people to believe what they want.
The topic of this thread is about the 43 percent would never vote for a mormon candidate. They won`t vote for him because he is a Mormon. It doesn`t matter what Mormons believe (except amidst those groups which love publishin Anti-Mormon literature...but most of thos pamphlets are so twisted and far from the truth). People just here Mormon and they think a few things: 1: Plural Marriage. 2. Donnie and Marie. 3. No caffine. and 4. Those guys who ride bikes in suits and all share the name Elder. Many don`t know what to believe about the Mormon church. Tons of crasy anti-mormon lit doesn`t help any. People read that crazy stuff and that turns them away from anything Mormon.
Its like shopping for computers. One starts looking towards Dell and somebody from eMachines comes up with twisted reports about how awful Dell computers are. Someone who doesn`t know anything about Dell`s true quality would be persuaded to buy an eMachine.
Ok..enough ramblings. You may fire at will.
Well, Mean West Texan, you're an interesting person. Thanks for the info. I'm always interested in learning about the history and beliefs of others. And, since I'm currently teaching the Old Testament on Sundays -- we just did the Babylonian conquest in 600 bc -- I'm particularly interested in Jewish history and tradition.
If you were an observant Mormon, according to our scripture, as a literal descendant of Aaron you might have some kind of claim to the office of bishop, but I'm not sure how that works. I've never seen it.
BYU has a study abroad center in Jerusalem. One of my daughters and several nieces and nephews have spent time there. My daughter came home with a real feeling of kinship and respect for the Jewish people -- and a fear of the Arabs -- at least the ones in Jerusalem.
The Mormons have the right and should have the right to baptize (for the dead) anybody that they want (so long as they are dead.) It is part and parcel to their religious beliefs and quite frankly I don't think anyone has a right to tell them to stop it. I would say that they are not being true to their religious convictions if they stop doing this or if they become selective on who they can and cannot baptize for the dead.
A good question to ask Mitt during the primary campaign is whether he intends to honor this vow OVER his oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States.
I don't believe they are mutually exclusive. Indeed, I don't think you will find a more loyal group of Americans than American Mormons. They really take seriously their Boy Scout oaths to "do my duty to God and my country". Since the Boy Scout oath puts God above country, should we then question the loyalty of every former Boy Scout who chooses to run for President?
Now, let the indignant mormon apologists begin throwing their spears at me...I have my flame-proof armor handy.
Your post seems to be intended to invoke flames and not to engender meaningful discussions. If you get flamed for it, then it is something that you brought on yourself... deliberately and with malice aforethought. So, when you reap the whirlwind, don't go patting yourself on the back thinking you are being persecuted for Jesus' sake, or anything like that.
I don't think you will find better neighbors than LDS members. And as a property owner in Utah, I can attest that I don't think you can find better renters. :-)
The Mormons have the right and should have the right to baptize (for the dead) anybody that they want (so long as they are dead.) It is part and parcel to their religious beliefs and quite frankly I don't think anyone has a right to tell them to stop it. I would say that they are not being true to their religious convictions if they stop doing this or if they become selective on who they can and cannot baptize for the dead.
I've never understood how anybody can get worked up over our baptisms for the dead.
If they think we are full of beans, and that we are only deluding ourselves as to the effectiveness of such baptisms, why would they care if we do it? It is such an irrational issue.
Read my post again. I cited specifics that will most likely be used against Romney, with sources.
The following comment by you is mind-boggling: The Mormons have the right and should have the right to baptize (for the dead) anybody that they want (so long as they are dead.) It is part and parcel to their religious beliefs and quite frankly I don't think anyone has a right to tell them to stop it.
If THAT is the mormon attitude, it certainly seems to be extremely arrogant, and would play into the hands of the anti-Romney forces.
Re: the temple oath, your comment, I don't believe they are mutually exclusive. My point is not what YOU believe, but what opponents will make of the fact.
Mormons have long prided themselves on being a "peculiar" people, and Romney's candidacy will provide the forum for them to explain and defend their doctrines. They should begin to prepare themselves for this, and be aware that there are sites on the web that provide all kinds of info, including the temple ceremonies, the masonic comparisons, baptism for the dead (against the will of survivors), and Joseph Smith's declaration that no one will be allowed into the mormon version of heaven unless allowed by Smith.
Over and over again, the arrogance in Smith's declaration and belief by mormons that they have THE only true church is going to be examined and challenged by leaned scholars and opponents. What you are seeing in this discussion here is only the beginning. Evangelicals will be provided with this information, and have a decision to made at the polls.
One last reply, I grew up in a mormon environment, and know first hand that mormons have as many faults and failings as any other group.
Oh, and Mormons who vote for Mormon candidates show absolutely no bias, eh? So, why on these kinds of threads does that kind of accusation of "bias" escape notice (LDS who vote for LDS candidates), but non-LDS who may not vote for LDS candidates is heavily commented (by a lot of others besides you)?
More inconsistency.
Why would I assume that? Nowhere in the Bible does it say that Lucifer was created on earth!!!
Of course you "believe we are brothers because we were spirit children" because LDS are the only ones in the world who espouse that way-out belief.
I notice that your LDS missionaries don't exactly lead with that belief goin' door-to-door. "Hi, I'm Elder Brown, the younger spirit brother of Elder brother Lucifer Satan. May I come in?"
Are you on record as being an Anti-Romney force? Or would you number yourself among the generally Anti-Mormon forces?
My point is not what YOU believe, but what opponents will make of the fact.
I would never in a million years have interpreted that oath as you did. I see no contradiction between that oath and the oath to uphold and defend the constitution, and anybody who does is just acting on blind prejudice.
They should begin to prepare themselves for this, and be aware that there are sites on the web that provide all kinds of info, including the temple ceremonies, the masonic comparisons, baptism for the dead (against the will of survivors), and Joseph Smith's declaration that no one will be allowed into the Mormon version of heaven unless allowed by Smith.
There are a lot of anti-Catholic sites and Anti-Evangelical sites and there are several web sites dedicated to the destruction of my own church (Calvary Chapel). Mormon doctrine clearly is not mainstream Orthodox Christian doctrine, but then neither is the Presbyterian Church USA or the Episcopalian Church. Quite frankly if given the choice between a Mormon in good standing and an American Episcopalian in "good standing," I think I would prefer to be ruled over by a Mormon any day.
What you are seeing in this discussion here is only the beginning. Evangelicals will be provided with this information, and have a decision to made at the polls.
Let's just play into the prejudices of ignorant Evangelicals. Let's not try to inform them that we are electing a secular leader and not the pastor of our church.
You seem to be attempting to engender some kind of fear into the evangelicals that somehow having our country being lead by a Mormon is the functional equivalent of being led Satan himself. I think as evangelicals we need to put our religious differences aside when weighing certain candidates and instead we need to look to see who shares our political and moral values. As conservatives I dare say that we have much more in common politically with Mormons than we do with Episcopalians or members of the Presbyterian Church USA. Yet if an Episcopalian were running for President, we would not be engaged in all this unseemly fear mongering.
Jimmy Carter got a lot of the Evangelical vote because he portrayed himself as an evangelical Sunday School teacher. He was absolutely without a doubt the worst president who ever took the oath of office. I would have preferred to have been ruled over by an atheist or a Buddhist or a Hindu with some leadership qualities than an evangelical nincompoop with a spaghetti spine like Carter.
The constitution specifically states that there should be no religious test for office. While we are free to interject our prejudices into any choice we make, I really don't think it does the evangelical movement any good to have its leaders going around saying that under no circumstances would they ever vote for a Mormon. Mormons vote for evangelicals all the time because Mormons have shared values with evangelicals. But evangelicals don't seem to be willing to return the favor. That is a shame. We are commended to treat others as we would have them treat us. But when it comes down to brass tacks are we willing to do so? It doesn't seem so.
In the world of political correctness it is offensive. How dare the Mormons baptize non-Mormons into their church after they are dead.
Geez it seems that those offended must believe that it works. That somehow if the Mormons baptize them, then they are sudenly transported from their Jewish hereafter into the Mormon hereafter or some such nonsense.
The whole idea behind Mormons baptizing others for the dead is their belief that there is a chance after death that will be given to every man to accept the gospel according to Mormonism and if you do accept that gospel posthumously, then as part of your conversion process you must be physically baptized by proxy by someone with the proper authority and since you are now dead, that needs to be done by someone here on earth.
It really doesn't make a lot of sense, but nevertheless it is a cornerstone of their religious beliefs and for someone to come along and freak out because the Mormons baptized their great grandmother by proxy in some Temple Ceremony is assinine. But the political correctness often gives us assinine results.
As far as I'm concerned, they can baptize all the dead relatives of mine that they can find. Hey, wait, they already have. :-)
>>Chances are that I miss lots of parties here at FR.
Bummer, but I understand.
>>Journal of Discourses, Vol. 4, p. 218, 1857; vol. 8, p. 115.
Link?
>>Well, we are his children, and have linked the scripture (from the Bible) on other posts on this thread…
OK, Try John 10:34 ( http://scriptures.lds.org/en/john/10/34#34 )
“Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?”
The logic is really simple, we are god’s children, he chooses to go by Father. This world is a type and a shadow, do dogs have kittens? Do Sheep give birth to goats? If god hs children what do they grow up to be?
How about Phillip 2:5&6 (http://scriptures.lds.org/en/philip/2/6#6 )
5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
Are we not in the form of god also?
>>Pearl of Great Price, Book of Abraham 4:3-7
Yep, good place to start Joseph says Gods, in the Vulgate the Word for God in Latin is nonspecific as to the number Mice=Mouse and vice versa it was translated to mean God singular because of the Nicene Creed which declared God to be singular. The Jews (whose Torah was also taken from the Vulgate, because they had lost the original manuscripts) Translated God as plural.
Hippolytus (The Great, Great grandson of John the Beloved) taught that the doctrine of God and Christ as one entity was heresy and refuted it in a book in the series he wrote called “A refutation of all heresies” which was lost for over 1,000 Years until copies were found being made by rote in a monastery in eastern Asia.
Some Quotes of the translation that was done
From “Against The Heresy Of One Noetus”
“1. Some others are secretly introducing another doctrine, who have become disciples of one Noetus, who was a native of Smyrna, (and) lived not very long ago. This person was greatly puffed up and inflated with pride, being inspired by the conceit of a strange spirit. He alleged that Christ was the Father Himself, and that the Father Himself was born, and suffered, and died. Ye see what pride of heart and what a strange inflated spirit had insinuated themselves into him.”
And
"A man, therefore, even though he will it not, is compelled to acknowledge God the Father Almighty, and Christ Jesus the Son of God, who, being God, became man, to whom also the Father made all things subject, Himself excepted, and the Holy Spirit; and that these, therefore, are three. But if he desires to learn how it is shown still that there is one God, let him know that His power is one. As far as regards the power, therefore, God is one. But as far as regards the economy there is a threefold manifestation, as shall be proved afterwards when we give account of the true doctrine. In these things, however, which are thus set forth by us, we are at one. For there is one God in whom we must believe, but unoriginated, impassible, immortal, doing all things as He wills, in the way He wills, and when He wills."
Gen 1:26 Let Us make man in our image (Who is us, why not me in my image?)
So, Mormons are not nearly as inventive as you would have us be but are actually going back to Beliefs from the time of Christ.
>> So let me put it simply.... A Mormon Jesus is non-existent.
BZZT Wrong!
We Talk of Christ We Teach of Christ, We Testify of Christ. Jesus Christ id the very Center of the Gospel. You narrow minded Definition of Christ is the problem. That we do not believe in. We believe in the actual factual Christ.
>>When you talk about Jesus, you talk about the New Testament.
Jehova is also Jesus’ name, he is also the God of the Old Testament. Messiah is also Jesus’ name Isaiah prophesied of him that way. What does all this have to do with the fact that the word Trinity does not appear anywhere in the Bible and is therefore not “Biblical”
New Advent is in and of itself a treasure trove, http://www.newadvent.org it is the Catholic encyclopedia on line and has all sorts of historical information in there, I got lost in there for a week once so be warned, for the avid reader, it can be addictive.
Specifically
Refutation of all Heresies Links to all the existing books here
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0501.htm
(2 and 3 are missing)
Council of Nicea (where the Nicene Creed was created 325 AD, by Constantine Emperor)
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11044a.htm
While reading this it is important to note that the histories were being kept by persons who were subject to the will of the emperor, so they were writing things to put him in a good light so they would not be killed (which was Constantine’s way of eliminating Views and Stories he didn’t approve of, he was also where they coined the phrase don’t kill the messenger, because he did on several occasions, but I digress.)
My example of how this affects the writing since this document was written in Latin (which Constantine could read) Eusebius writes “The opponents were soon reduced to two” in other writings in Greek for example Eusebius (same writer now feeling less constrained) says the opponents were killed except for two (who couldn’t be killed because of their positions, one of these according to another document was Hippolytus who is improperly named here because Constantine did not want anyone to know Hippolytus opposed his revision, but it is reported correctly in the Greek, which I do not have a link to at my fingertips right now.)
Ok, you come late to class, then you ask us to repeat things that were already said, I did, so return the favor and play nice. (pun fully intended)
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.