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.
What a lie!
Your college experience may lead you to believe that a "professor" is an inanimate object :) but Smith specifically labeled "professors" of the Christian faith as "corrupt."
Please correct yourself.
Meant Jude 3
You've made a few comments along these lines, and I've let them go. But, again, you are inconsistent. You make a big deal of others supposedly judging your heart, and here you not only call me a snake, but you guess as to what is my heart motivation. Practice what you preach.
Good response for an individual belief basis. So let me formalize that statement by stating no other prominent religion believes that dad and mom gods engage in celestial sex to have spirit babes who await bodies...and then mom god doesn't even get acknowledged in the "Official LDS faith."
So Heavenly Father is everything to the Mormon because we are literal spirit kids, but Heavenly Mom is apparently just a celestial sex machine because doctrinally, who cares?
So literal sex becomes important in heaven, but when Mormon apostle McConkie and Mormon prophets Joseph Fielding Smith & Brigham Young say that Jesus' birth was one where his conception was of a "literal paternity" by God the Father (quotation from McConkie) versus "letting other man do it" (Young's words)...
ya gotta wonder how a god of flesh & bones conducts a "literal paternity" with Mary the virgin, how Mary remains a virgin, and why the LDS general authorities can't every figure out how to bring the Holy Spirit into their "literal paternity" doctrine to keep it aligned with the Bible.
>>but you don't critique others (LDS) for doing that.
Sure I would, in fact I don' know any Mormons who vote only for Mormons, that would preclude voting in any presidential election to date, don't you think?
Rather than me proving this doesn't happen (which is hard) can you prove that it does? (which should be easy)
>> The type of faith the biblical Jesus espouses is the type that what you hear in secret, you shout from the rooftops.
Can I get an interpretation here?
The type of religion occultism espouses, it's done with step by step initiation, like the X number of degrees of Free Masonry (some of those rites Joseph Smith imported from Free Masonry into temple ceremonies).
OOOOK. For the last time Mormon’s do NOT teach that Satan is our ELDER spirit brother. That he existed before the world was created, that the fell from heaven are well documented in the Bible, and we accept that. What we do teach is that we also existed before the world was, we do not know (and it’s not important) who was born in what order except that Christ was the first born.
Why would we teach, much less lead with Satan being our elder brother since we don’t believe it? It is not some Deeper doctrine you will only be taught after you are trapped. As a matter of fact, if getting out of the Mormon Church is so hard why are there so many Ex-Mormons? The easiest and fastest way to get your name removed from the church is to go to your bishop, tell him you are not keeping your covenants, and do not intend on it, and you want out. He will give you a form letter to sign and in two weeks you will be a “Free” man.
IMHO: in order for something to be a trap it must be difficult to get out of (I’ve sat in chairs that were more of a trap)
>>The fact that Mormonism has all of these "tucked-away" beliefs and practices shows
>>the need for its church to exercise these family-focused P.R. campaigns. Even its own
>>prophet-prez (Hinckley) twice ducked MSM questions when asked about the Mormon
>>belief of becoming gods.
>>Don't bother to patronize us, either, by saying that you only give milk to infants. That
>>verse just becomes another prooftext by LDS apologists for excusing away the
>>Occultic initiation that a BYU professor (Michael Quinn) wrote about re: Smith's
>>Magical World view.
There is nothing “Tucked away” about Mormonism. And Milk before meat is of course the only reasonable course, have you ever cared for an infant? Taught Calculus to someone who does not yet know algebra? Some things have to be learned in order in order to be understood anyone who says otherwise is hiding something.
He answered a direct question with a direct answer. He did not elaborate, he didn’t have to.
As for Michael Quinn, I do not recognize the name, how did he come to speak for the church? Can you link me to his comments on LDS.org?
>>Actually, the Jews believed the sins of the father would be visited on his children.
That is one belief, but they asked if he had sinned (specifically) so he must have existed before he was born, or how could he have sinned?
There is no sin in Heaven so that is impossible. The Jews believed in transmigration of souls which is basically reincarnation. So you would be punished for something you did in your previous life. Messed up stuff.
"And, since I'm currently teaching the Old Testament on Sundays -- we just did the Babylonian conquest in 600 bc."
You should have an outing and take the class to the newish movie "One Night with the King" (or somesuch -- may be "My Night"). It's a reasonably (for Hollywood) accurrate re-telling of the Book of Esther. It may be on DVD now.
I suppose the mandated drunken (yes, literally mandated intoxication --- Google "Purim") Purim party is out for ya'll, though.
"I've never understood how anybody can get worked up over our baptisms for the dead."
Religious Jews think you're nuts and rude (disrespectful of the dead) for doing this.
But mostly harmless.
That said, it does rekindle the insult of forced conversions (e.g., Spanish Inquisition and other forced assimilations (e.g., what Hannukka is all about, albeit with the Greeks).
Secular Jews are just generally anti-anyone religious.
Me, my opinion falls under "mostly harmless."
But if we're nuts, then where's the harm? Nobody living is being forced to do so say anything they don't believe in.
And, even for those of us who believe in baptism for the dead, we believe it is up to the person for whom the ordinance is being performed to accept or reject it in the next life. Therefore, even if you believe our ordinances are effective, there is no effect if the person doesn't wish it to have effect.
Therefore, it is not forced conversion, even of the dead, and even if you believe that the ordinances we perform actually work.
That's my point.
It seems to me that anyone who can get worked up over this is just looking for something to get worked up over.
One way or the other -- believer or unbeliever -- nut or not -- it is harmless, exactly as you said.
Maybe I will check out the movie. Thanks. Actually, I think a Mormon filmmaker has just done the story of Esther, too. And, yes, we'll have to skip Purim if drinking is mandatory. But, frankly, we can act just as silly as anyone else, even when we're stone cold sober.
I took an Old Testament class as an undergrad, and, of course, have dabbled in the Old Testament off and on throughout my life. But I've never, I don't think, appreciated the humanity of the ancient Israelites as much as this time through.
I think of them surrounded by cultures that were either bloodthirsty or morally degenerate, or both, and how much courage it took to be faithful to their religion, and think it isn't too much different today, is it?
That should be "do or say"
Oh, I don't stay up late worrying about it.
(Although, again, a neighbor (who knew I was a Jewish Christian) excitedly showing up at my door with my geneolgy was a bit weird; this being my only odd interaction with Mormons.)
I was merely explaining the "why do Jews care" and giving the prevailing reasons.
I certainly support your right to do it; freedom of religion and all that. After all, you're talking to a guy who sells goats to Saudi Arabia. Don't want to know what they do with 'em. (I presume eat them; don't tell me otherwise.)
Well, YOU may not teach that...but it's been taught in the LDS church! LDS general authorities and writers have called Lucifer the "next heir to Jesus Christ" and "a spirit brother of ours." Furthermore, they labeled Jesus as an "elder brother" to Lucifer. (documentation all follows)
So, do you want to explain how Lucifer can be the "next heir to Jesus" and not be your "elder brother?" The way you phrase your objections, you do not object to the fact that you believe that Lucifer is your brother, only that he is not your elder brother.
But if Lucifer was spirit-birthed in heaven before you and every other Mormon, alive or dead, why bother insisting on these "technical" objections?
The bottom line here is that according to LDS teachings, both Lucifer and every Mormon claims Jesus as their "elder brother." Wow! What a family!
Documentation
In 1844, LDS author W.W. Phelps wrote: "And again, we exclaim, O Mormonism! No wonder that Lucifer, son of the morning, the next heir to Jesus Christ, our eldest brother, should fight so hard against his brethren; he lost the glory, the honor, power, and dominion of a God and the knowledge, spirit, authority and keys of the priesthood of the son of God!"
By 1949, according to this LDS Conference Report, LDS apostle Joseph F. Merrill says that Lucifer "is a spirit brother of ours and of our Lord Jesus Christ..." Here's the exact quote:
"Now there is another personality of which I desire to speak, ... that person is Satan, the Devil. But according to our understanding and teaching, Satan is a person with a spirit body, in form like that of all other men. He is a spirit brother of ours and of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is our Elder Brother in the spirit world. The earth was in course of development for the abode of man in mortality. A Redeemer was to be sent down and make it possible for the Father's children to return to him." (LDS Conference Report, April 1949, p. 27)
LDS Apostle John A. Widtsoe taught that Jesus is not only the brother of Jesus, but his "elder brother." Exact quote:
"The story of Lucifer is the most terrible example of such apostasy. ... He pitted his own plan and will against the purposes of God. He strove to gain the birthright of his Elder Brother, Jesus the Christ." (Evidences and Reconciliations, p. 209)
>>What a lie!
I never lie for that takes intent. Can you prove I intended to deceive, in the face of my denial of such intent? I have betimes and in sundry ways been inaccurate in my speech I have inadvertently inaccurately conveyed facts I have even on occasion mistakenly quoted facts which were not in evidence. But I never lie so the assertion of “lying” must be handled first.
>>Your college experience may lead you to believe that a "professor" is an inanimate object :)
Most of them were pretty immobile (Grin)
>>but Smith specifically labeled "professors" of the Christian faith as "corrupt."
JSH 1:19 I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.”
(http://scriptures.lds.org/en/js_h/1 )
“that those professors were all corrupt” was after I had stopped reading for this post, this is one of the reasons I am anal about posting links to my sources, you guys keep me honest, and that’s the way I like it.
He said they were corrupt, but did not condemn them to hell.
I stand Corrected, and thank you.
I can see how you might think that was odd. Did you feel like it intruded on your privacy?
In her defense, however, even non-Mormons usually get excited to discover their roots. Our church leaders often put together pedigree charts for famous visitors. I have heard of complaints when someone of note comes to visit Utah and they don't get their genealogy.
Genealogy is an addictive pursuit. Kind of like solving a puzzle, only with a personal dimension. Someone who's really into it may just assume that everyone else will share their excitement -- even a Jewish Christian.
I meant to ask you, how do you prove your lineage back to Aaron? Are there written records? Oral histories?
At the time Quinn wrote his book (early to mid 80s), he was a BYU prof. Or doesn't what BYU teaches serve as an extension of what the LDS head haunchos believe? Or is it that every word spoken in a BYU classroom or written by a BYU prof goes through the underground filter system at SLC HQ, thereby LDS-proofing it?
You can excuse us for not knowing that every utterance has to be officially branded with the lds.org insignia before being waved into the public airspace as genu-ine, authenticated, endorsed, confirmed, and inspected Mormonese.
>>You've made a few comments along these lines, and I've let them go. But, again, you are inconsistent.
No, I have consistently wondered what makes a person attack another person’s religion.
>>You make a big deal of others supposedly judging your heart, and here you not only call me a snake,
I did not call you a snake, Venom is also used to describe someone whose’ words are particularly sharp. It may be an artful use, but you have no doubt noticed that I have fun with my words, and they with me.
>>but you guess as to what is my heart motivation.
'Tis one thing to muse on the motivations of one in a debate, it is entirely a fish of another kettle to Damn someone to hell. I have never Damned you to hell, I have questioned your motives here. I reserve the right to analyze the postings of anyone on this forum for both content and intent. I assume I will be analyzed in kind by others.
>>Practice what you preach.
I always try to practice what I preach, I do appreciate it when others keep me on the straight and narrow however.
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.