Posted on 06/23/2007 1:28:02 PM PDT by Extremely Extreme Extremist
(AP) SALT LAKE CITY -- Mitt Romney said Saturday that criticism of his Mormon religion by rival GOP presidential campaigns is happening too frequently.
“Clearly, any derogatory comments about anyone’s faith—those comments are troubling. The fact they keep on coming up is even more troubling,” Romney said during a fundraising trip in the home state of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
The Mormon church is one of the fastest-growing religions and claims about 12.5 million members worldwide. But many evangelical Christians in crucial primary states such as Iowa and South Carolina consider the faith a cult.
Romney’s remarks follow an apology from GOP rival John McCain’s campaign for comments about the Mormon church allegedly made this year by a volunteer.
Also recently, Republican presidential hopeful, Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas, issued a similar apology for a campaign worker’s e-mail to Iowa Republican leaders that was an apparent attempt to draw unfavorable scrutiny of Romney’s religion. Former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani apologized after the New York Sun noted that a campaign aide had forwarded to a blogger a story about unofficial Mormon lore. Legend has it that a Mormon would save the Constitution, the story said. The campaign aide passed the story along with a note: “Thought you’d find this interesting.”
Romney said in a large presidential race there always will be some volunteers or workers who cannot be controlled. But he said the difference between derogatory comments that originated from the McCain campaign and others is that the Arizona senator has not personally apologized to him.
“In the case of Senator Brownback and Mayor Giuliani ... they called immediately. They each spoke with me personally. I don’t have any issue with that at all,” Romney said.
He said McCain “can do whatever he feels is the right thing. There’s no need for me to suggest how people respond to things that go on in the campaign.”
Tucker Bounds, a McCain campaign spokesman, said the McCain campaign has already apologized.
“It’s a very sincere apology. There is absolutely no place for those type of comments in our campaign,” he said.
Romney, a former governor of Massachusetts, said he had not spoken with McCain since the last presidential debate, on June 5.
Romney used a fundraiser hosted by Utah Jazz owner Larry Miller to criticize the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law. It banned unregulated, unlimited contributions from corporations, unions and wealthy individuals to national political parties and federal candidates.
“The bill ought to be repealed,” he said. “It’s been the wrong course for American campaigns.”
Romney said he favors unlimited donations as long as they are immediately disclosed on the Internet.
Romney was attending fundraisers in Salt Lake City and in Logan on Saturday.
Two separate persons. One God.
Job 38 also demonstrates the God is not only the God of earth, but of all the heavens:
Job 38:31 Canst thou bind the sweet influences of Pleiades, or loose the bands of Orion?
I don’t know, but it doesn’t remind me of Christian.
Mormons abuse Scripture to make it say what they want and they add additional revelation (the book of Mormon) to Scripture. Their beliefs are not Christian and when they pray, there’s nobody home. Mormons are lost and they need to know it before it is too late. May God have mercy on them and change their hearts and bring them to true faith in Jesus Christ.
There are many kinds of Dyslexia which is not the kind I have!
while “Godhead” is many times
I agree it is. It, unfortunately, does not mean what
mormonism teaches that it means. It is not a substitute
for one God in three persons, as scripture teaches.
But it is a biblical term.
ampu
What excactly does that mean?
Christ was perfect. The “human side” makes it sound as if you are saying he was flawed.
The point of Luke 22:42 is obvious. Christ and God are two separate beings. Thus he prays to his Father, not himself. Additionally, he is obedient. He would like not to partake of the bitter cup. However, he submits his will to the will of the Father.
Saying Christ was human is saying that Christ was human. Human feelings, human needs. See Christ at the well with the Samaritan woman. He was tired.
You say “Christ and God are two separate beings. “
But the Christ says:
John 10:30 “I and my Father are one.”
I’ll take Christ’s word for it. Will you?
Your assertion makes no sense.
Two separate beings. Two Gods. One Godhead.
Jer. 1: 5
5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee
Will you take Christ’s word for it in John 17:21
“That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us.”
According to your logic, the foregoing statement by Christ would make us God Himself since we would be “one” with Him as Christ is “one” with Him.
Or do you think it would harmonize both John 10:30 and John 17:21 if the “one” refers to “purpose” rather than “person.”
It says what it means.
Rev. 3: 21
21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.
Rev. 21: 7
7 He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.
And you still keep dodging...
John 17: 21
21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us
Not "differently" one in us, as(the same)Your fear of the truth is now leading you to bend and reject the Scriptures.
The Scriptures teach no such thing. The concept of the Trinity is an invention of the 4th century. That is why it does not appear in the scriptures.
CUH,
Is this something you would honestly like to
have a discussion about? I would like to know
if you are sincere, or if this is just a FR
kind of thing. No offense meant. If you would like
to discuss the Nature of God, I am ready and
willing.
thanks,
ampu
4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
5 Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?
6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;
There is understanding and I declare it.
We were with Him! Are you blind? Do you read the scriptures or just your stack of anti-Mormon literature?
Daniel,
So far, via your posts, I recognize you as
simply a “bomb thrower”. Yet this topic of
God’s nature is something you come back to
regularly. No surprise there, since mormonism
teaches a different nature of God.
Are you really desiring a conversation about
the nature of God? Or is this just a hit and
run?
best,
ampu
If that is your understanding of what "one" means, then we will be God and the "Trinity" will become a "Multiplicity". So why say we blaspheme when we declare our destiny is to be a god?
I'll take Christ's word for it. Will you?
John 17: 21 21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us
Do you have a problem with this scripture? That is an easy question. Why don't you answer it?
I enjoy reading ALL the Bible.
If you are genuinely interested in reconciling other scriptural passages by Paul and other authors in the New Testament, you should read Romans with an understanding that when Paul refers to “the law,” he is referring to the law of Moses.
The term, “the law,” has many senses in the New Testament, but Paul typically contrasts “law” with salvation through Christ. In Romans 3:28, the Revised Standard Version says that “a man is justified by faith apart from works of LAW”—salvation by grace, not rules. But many modern translations keep the concept of justification apart from “the deeds of THE LAW,” suggesting Christ’s way versus the LAW OF MOSES. At least half of Paul’s usages of “law” refer to the LAW OF MOSES. For instance, the faith passages of Galatians 2 and 3 are set against “the law, which was 430 years after” Abraham (Gal. 3:17), which is a “schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ.” (Gal. 3:24). Paul uses similar arguments in Romans 4, stressing that Abraham had his relationship with God through faith before the law—which shows that the LAW OF MOSES is in the background of Romans 3. In fact, Romans 3 begins with the question of circumcision (Romans 3:1) and builds the concept of the Jews who are obligated by the law (Rom. 3:19-20). So Romans 3 and 4 passages should be read as teaching SAVLATION WITHOUT THE LAW OF MOSES—but not without the Law of Christ. Thus, the Standard New Testament Dictionary points out that “the law” is often the equivalent of the “(Jewish) religion.” (Arndt et al. 1979, p.542). This usage is preserved in the relatively few uses of “law” outside of Romans-Galations, as Phil. 3:5-9 and 1 Cor. 9:19-21, where Paul states that he is under Christ’s law but not under Jewish law.
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.