Does that mean none of THIS?
| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 08/03/2007 6:34:01 AM PDT by Religion Moderator, reason:
Poor behavior |
Posted on 07/26/2007 5:03:33 PM PDT by tantiboh
Democratic political consultant Mark Mellman has a very good piece up today at The Hill on the baffling and illegitimate opposition among voters to Mitt Romney due to his religion. I liked his closing paragraphs:
In July of 1958, 24 percent of respondents told Gallup they would not vote for a Catholic for president, almost identical to Gallup’s reading on Mormons today. Two years later, John F. Kennedy became the first Catholic to assume the oath of office. Within eight months, the number refusing to vote for a Catholic was cut almost in half.
[snip]
Mellman also discusses an interesting poll he helped construct, in which the pollsters asked half of their respondents whether they would support a candidate with certain characteristics, and asked the other half about another candidate with the exact same characteristics, with one difference. The first candidate was Baptist, the second candidate was Mormon. The Baptist had a huge advantage over the Mormon candidate, by about 20 points.
[snip]
However, more recent polls have attempted to fix the anonymity problem. A recent Time Magazine poll (read the original report here), for example, got to the heart of the question by asking respondents if they are less likely to vote for Mitt Romney specifically because he is a Mormon. The result is not as bad as some reporting on the poll has suggested. For example, while 30% of Republicans say they are less likely to vote for Romney because of his religion, fully 15% of other Republicans say that characteristic makes them more likely to vote for him. And while many have reported the finding that 23% of Republicans are “worried” by Romney’s Mormonism, the more important (but less-reported) number is that 73% say they hold no such reservations...
(Excerpt) Read more at romneyexperience.com ...
It doesn’t help, though, to bandy about terms such as “cult,” “heresy,” and “not Christians.” That tends to get up the dander of us non-Christian cultist heretics.
So it boils down to this:
uninformed, ignorant, bigot
vs.
cult, heretic, non-Christian
-------------------------------------------------------
ROFLOL...You are unreal, my young friend.
Surely you must sit back and admire your handy spinning of words..and innuendo.
Surely God is impressed.
Can we call a day truce on this? I say we use this day for Prayers of the Minnesota bridge tragedy. For those who died I wish them to be embrace by a loving Jesus on the other side.
They will all bow before the Lord....that is sure.
It is my hope that many of them were Christians and called Jesus Lord.
I don’t care what they were. But I am confident they will be embraced by Jesus.
Let’s pray and hope for the best, whatever that is!
I thought you agreed to not argue?
That’s an argument? Sorry if it came of that way.
Bye the way, I like this song and I think it is appropiate.
Where Can I Turn For Peace
http://youtube.com/watch?v=E3sshDAF3M4
Geesh, you don't see it, do you.
Here's what you wrote:
I don’t care what they were.
Personally I hoped that you would've hoped, like I did...that many were Christians. Guess I was wrong.....
I value all people equally. I don’t have a fatalist view when people die. I believe all (except the sons of perdition) will be Christians in the End, because scripture says all we confess that Jesus is the Christ.
Sorry, I take universal view of Salvation, but I do, because I believe Christ’s grace is absolutely free and his love is universal.
You just can't abide by your own truce call. Can you?
You guy's are a hoot.
Does that mean none of THIS?
The poster has to ignore those pesky Bible passages where Jesus tells some to depart from Him because He never knew them, or the passages where Jesus taught His disciples that only 25% of the good seed would bring forth fruit. Cults are that way don’tchaknow. Some take the opposite approach and say only 144,000 will actually be saved, and some —like Islam— seek to force belief or they’ll cut your head off. But don’t you admire people who can hold diametrically opposite premises to be true simultaneously? They appear so enlightened. Why some even run for political office! [That last was for bowing to the theme of the thread.]
You JUST don't GET it; do you!!??
Now that they're dead; we'll get a roster of their names and get baptized for them!
Viola!
Instant bliss for them - merit for us!!
--MormonDude
Although I surely DO hope none were Jews.
Them guys get REALLY upset when we use THEIR name in one of our Temple rites that we have no Scriptural authorization for!
—MormonDude(Wait!! We DO have some kind of authorization!! We just GOT to have!!!)
>>>I'm sorry, but I don't read spam. Perhaps someone finds your copy and pastes from Mormon apologetic sites interesting.
Last I checked none of these men were what I would call "Mormon apologetics" or spammers.
IOW, he would follow in the footsteps of Ronald Reagan. Personally, I don't think he will over select mormons but if he did he would have good company. Reagan appointed more Mormons to high positions in government and his cabinet than any other president. And in disproportion to their actual population here in the US (Shhh, don't tell the DEM's)
"Ronald Reagan truly admired the Latter-day Saints. His administration included more members of the Church than any other American president, ever. Three of us, David Fischer, Gregory Newell and I, served on his personal White House staff. Richard Wirthlin was his chief strategist. Ted Bell served as Secretary of Education, Angela Buchanan was Treasurer, Rex Lee was Solicitor General. His White House included Roger Porter, Brent Scowcroft, Richard Beal, Blake Parish, Jon Huntsman Jr., Dodie Borup and Rocky Kuonen, and there were many other Latter-day Saints throughout his Administration. President Thomas S. Monson served on a Presidential Commission on Volunteerism. Others were ambassadors. LDS senators and representatives were held in special regard, and the Tabernacle Choir was his special inaugural guest." -Stephen M. Studdert, Special Assistant to President Reagan
Also one of my favorites, Pat Buchanan's sister
Angela "Bay" Buchanan US Treasurer Republican She is sister to Pat Buchanan, former presidential candidate. Their family is Irish-Catholic. She is called "Bay" because her brothers called her the "bay-bay." In 1981, President Reagan appointed her to serve as Treasurer of the United States. At the age of 32, she was the youngest person to hold that office since its establishment in 1775. (Her signature can still be found on older greenbacks.) She joined the Church in 1982. In 1998, she appeared on television as co-host of CNBC's political show Equal Time. She now leads an educational foundation dedicated to advancing traditional conservative issues.
ramp,
I think you probably know what was meant. If not,
here’s an explanation...
Just copying and pasting large volumes of information
from a “here’s how to answer mormon critics” source
doesn’t advance the conversation.
It takes little effort to cut and paste. Far better
for all of us to actually reflect and interact with
information based on thinking.
I see it on both sides, incidentally. I do agree though
that once we go over more than a screenful - and it goes
on and on - I tune it out. If I wanted that, I could
spend all day on Google.
best,
ampu
There is a difference between picking someone
for a cabinet without regard to their religious
preference... and starting out with their
religious preference.
Just becuase a "Mormon" quotes some of their beliefs in esoteric Doctrine does not make it false. I know your posting style is standard when it comes to Mormons (anything Mormon = wrong/bad) (anything anti-mormon = good/true) but it doesn't match the reality of early Christian teachings on esoteric Doctrine. This document has their actual quotes about the matter. Which quote do you disagree with. Pick any one of them and we will discuss it?
What is the difference?
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.