Posted on 05/04/2007 5:46:36 AM PDT by Saundra Duffy
Or the number of folks massacred by mormons on 9/11/1857.
Mormons owned and delivered terror on 9/11 long before Muslims did.
Murdering every man woman and child in a wagon train over the age of 8, after promising to lead them to safety (after of course having them disarm) and then turning on them.
I don’t hold Mitt guilty for the actions of his ancestors, and I’ve found most Mormons to be very moral people... but anyone who’s been to Salt Lake City and isn’t a Mormon, will generally tell you, Mormonism is more Cult than Religion.
I don’t oppose Mitt because he’s a Mormon, in fact, could care less.... I’m just not convinced of his stands. Many are flip flopped and he’s not very impressive to me, at least what I’ve seen.
LOL I see you can’t answer the question either.
I see you’re rather limited in your baiting techniques ...
Not very good satire.
Most definitely, any Republican, especially Fred Thompson, will be preferable over any dimocrat.
It appears evident that MHGinTN doesn’t want to play your game.
Let me answer. Romney took an oath swearing everything he had...or will have to the furthering of God’s Kingdom on Earth. Now we are all very aware that Mormonism teaches that Mormonism will propel this Kingdom....and they are talking specifically about the Chruch of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints when they speak of Gods Kingdom, and that Romney is a fomer ecclisiastical leader in his Church.
So was he lying then, or would he be lying now if he said that it was his oath to do all he could in furthering God’s Kingdom (Mormon Church) on Earth.
If he then took an oath to uphold the Constitution and the court sent down a ruling in opposition to the Chruch, where would his loyalties lie. With his previous Temple oath or his new Presidential oath. I see a potential conflict. Do you not?
Christians dedicate all they are and all they have in service to God. I see no difference. Does that mean we shouldn't elect Christians, in your view?
I see a potential conflict. Do you not?
One could say there would be a conflict between a Christian president and a ruling handed down by a court. In fact, I have heard some say that. So. . .would you say a Christan should not be elected President?
Have a nice day.
"How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? And how can they preach unless they are sent?"...Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ." (Romans 10:14-15,17)
You & I probably wouldn't disagree on how someone is introduced to Christ. So, no the Gideons aren't wasting their time. [We'd probably disagree on which Christ they were being introduced to...there is "another" Jesus--see 2 Cor. 11:4]
These messages come from Paul's epistles. Letters. Living letters, nontheless, but not the same thing as a living relationship. These are simply the introduction to the relationship to the Son of God.
What if I told you, upon entering your Marriott Hotel room, that there was a bag of letters from God there that would introduce you to Him (courtesy of Gideon). This introduction is crucial. The communication from God is crucial. But a relationship is ALWAYS a two-way street.
Keep in mind that these letters are the introduction; but your covenant relationship is the "engagement." (Heaven is the marriage). Your covenant relationship is eternal life NOW and forever. I believe a relationship with Christ can be lost (unlike other evangelicals here & elsewhere). But LDS also believe salvation can be lost.
Scripture is kind of like spiritual E-Harmony.com. It's the introduction. I'm sure couples who met via E-Harmony say this was their vehicle for marital "salvation." That minus this, they would still be single. But these couples' engagement & marriage was forged in relating one to another.
(As an aside: May I encourage all folks to pick up that Gideon-placed Bible while staying at Marriott & other Hotel chains...rather than access the devil's "intro" offered there: hotel porn. [& is it true, then, that 10% of the porn profit gleaned by Mr. Marriott winds up in the coffers of the LDS church?])
Can it be true that the church one attends or does not attend prior to Jesus confronting them matters more that Jesus’ own words?
No. I would think that Color Country's experience proves that. In fact, my post #553 says just the opposite of what you say here:
{It's a big problem to]...assume that Lord Jesus is only linked to folks by the institutional umbrella they have a membership in...You assume that mass priesthood=automatic salvation of some sort. I don't think any Scripturally based evangelical would say being a mere appendage to the body--no matter how orthodox--is what saves you. Too many LDS practically rewrite Eph. 2:8-9 to be: "You are saved by membership thru faith in Joseph Smith." Surely you've heard the phrase, "God has no grandchildren."
I don't think Americans have any trouble whatsoever in believing our President would do whatever he could for the Biblical God's Kingdom. None of our Presidents have sworn alliance and oath to the protection of an Incorporation or single Church body. Can you name one?
It is a apparent you never received a witness what more can I say!
C'mon now color, lay off those Oreos!
Some people have problems with a person who has merely spoken publically of their faith being President. I'm sure you've heard the complaints about Bush. I refuse to make a choice based on what religion someone belongs to.
Can you name one?
Nope. Can you show me what actions Mitt took at governor that shows he applied that oath he took the way some on this thread think he would as President? His past behavior shows us what he would do in the future.
nope
http://www.rethinking-mormonism.com/mitt-romney.htm
This link examines Romney and his oath. You may view it as an anti-site, but you won’t scare the Dems with that tactic. They don’t care if valid information comes from an ‘anti-mormon’ site or not.
Okay you two....
The topic of my weightiness is OFF TOPIC.
LOL
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.