| 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
I respect you for looking at his record and basing your decision on that, not just supporting him FOR his religion.
By double talk I mean saying whatever will get him the most votes for those who are in attendance. When he needed to be liberal while running for Senator Kennedy’s seat, he nearly out liberaled Teddy in many areas.
Now that he needs the conservation base in the R party he is just saying whatever he thinks we want to hear. He sounds focus group tested and phoney.
#193
Was that not some years ago? I don’t have a good feel for how long this has been going on. I know that when he was Governor, he was more liberal than I would like, but still reasonably strong on 2nd Amendment, if not as strong as I would have preferred. I am most suspicious of him over his Right-to-Life stance, and how quickly it seems to have changed, but that has also been a few years, too. He’s not exactly Ron Reagan, but he’s not exactly Harry Reid, either.
I suspect we’d have heard more about focus groups if he was using them, but I suppose he could get something similar in input by just having his email surveyed.
Politics is the art of the possible. In MA, a lot of conservative ideas do not appear possible. Maybe that is all there is to it.
Oh please Romney stated his position and has not changed it since 2005 it is baicely the LDS belief.
3 legged stood Video
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/07/27/romneys-3-legged-stool-takes-the-stage/
First of all, I am not “electing a Democrat”. I have never, and would not vote for a liberal. Liberalism is just as dangerous as Mormonism. I said (for the umpteenth time) that I would vote for a third party. You can throw the “a vote for a third party is a vote for the Dems” if you’d like, but it is simply untrue. My vote for a third party is just that - a vote for a third party. I must stand before God and give account for my actions, including my vote. I don’t think He’ll accept the excuse of not wanting Republicans to lose the election of 2008.
I know this has been a very long thread, so you may have missed the numerous times I’ve explained myself, but I will say it **one more time**. An election in 2008 is of far less importance than where someone will spend eternity.
One can not compare Gladys Knight and the President of the U.S. The president is the most powerful and important man in the world.
Your assertion that Christians would like to round up all Mormons and put them in camps is just (sorry) silly and not really worth the benefit of a reply. No one has ever made such a hysterical suggestion.
Jews do not accept Christ, but they do not claim Christianity, either. My main problem with Mormonism is that they claim to be Christian, yet they do not teach or accept the Gospel according to Scripture. So, when someone who might be seeking after the truth hears that Mormons are “Christian”, they might be more inclined to believe it if it’s promoted by the president. They might accept its teachings, believe that they are Christian (as evidenced by many in this thread), die deceived, and end up in Hell. That’s why I would never vote for Romney.
It’s obvious that this upsets you, but there you have it. This is not an opinion that is only accepted by me. I’ve heard many other Evangelicals say the same thing.
All this is moot anyway, IMO. I do not believe that Romney will will the Republican primary. He’s too inconsistent on important issues. He will not bring out the vote among Christians, IMO.
Harry Reid and Orrin Hatch are both Mormon, and both congresscritters. They are poles apart in attitude and congruity with my personal political preferences. Hatch is closer than Reid by far. Romney is somewhere in between them, and I have been unable to determine to my satisfaction just where he places on the spectrum. I think maybe I’d vote for him against Clinton. Probably not against either Hunter or Fred Thompson. I’m still open for input, however.
Like most churches, it don’t take all kinds, we just got all kinds.
Oh please Romney stated his position and has not changed it since 2005 it is basically the one the LDS hold to.
3 legged stood Video
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/07/27/romneys-3-legged-stool-takes-the-stage/
I agree we are all different in our opinions some how it is hard for some to realized that.
When I "see" the posts....there's a "TO 193" hyperlink.
You don't have that????
There is a local talk show host here that plays sound clips of Romney in chronological order and it shows him saying things 180 degrees back and forth based on who is listening and what he is running for. Not just once as he claims to have evolved in some areas, but back and forth. The very definition of a flip-flopper.
Wow.
Y'know, you might be making heavenly brownie points with your version of your deity, but I can tell you that conservative people don't like having their religion compared to something as evil as liberalism...
I do not care what popes thought and we don’t know
what Apostles thought. That doesn’t change the
wacky nature of Joseph Smith and other mormonism
leaders. Good try.
I’d suggest you go back and reread some US history. The extermination order against Mormons issued by Missouri Governor Boggs was not rescinded until 1979, and Mormons had to leave the state or be lynched. Many of them were, in fact, imprisoned, and some were murdered. It isn’t much of stretch to imagine concentration camps.
Mormons differ on details of doctrine, as do many other branches of Christianity, and much of that doctrine was determined by the Catholic church at a series of councils. People who did not believe as the Catholic church determined they should were called heretics and driven out of the church, and many of them were killed. Lutherans, Calvinists of various kinds, and many other sects disagreed with the Catholics later on despite what happened to those earlier Christians, and some managed to survive. That isn’t US history, but it set the stage for US history.
I spent four years of my youth having my Southern Baptist Minister Step-father telling me Mormons weren’t Christians. I wasn’t Mormon at the time, but my grandmother was, and I know for a fact that she was a better example of a Christian than he was. I've known other Baptists who are good Christians, and some few Mormons who aren't. I do not think that a particular doctrine is all that important in determining who is and is not Christian. I know it's definately not up to you or I.
For that matter, you know as well as anyone else here that a vote for a third party is a vote thrown away. US history will tell you that, too.
You may be right that Romney won’t make it through the primary, If he does, unless you’ve got something much stronger than the fact that he’s Mormon to throw your vote elsewhere, you will be voting to elect Clinton or someone far too much like her.
So how many LDS do you know and did you investigate the Church youself or are you satisfied with what others have said?
I thought my reply was QUITE humorous.
“An election in 2008 is of far less importance than where someone will spend eternity.”
And having an LDS POTUS or not isn’t going to be a factor in anybody’s conversion. It’s a huge compliment to us that you think it would have an effect, but history just doesn’t bear it out. There have been presidents from a variety of religious viewpoints, including ones you would object to as much as you do to us.
If you really believe you have the religious truth, all you need is a POTUS that will protect your freedom of religion and Mitt would certainly do that. Talking like you do shows you consider your position too weak to stand on it’s own merits, you have to shore it up by keeping Mormons from becoming too successful. We have no problem voting for non-LDS candidates, we aren’t afraid of others in other faiths being successful or good examples of their faith.
“One can not compare Gladys Knight and the President of the U.S. The president is the most powerful and important man in the world.”
And usually the most hated too, if Republican anyway. Card, Young and Knight are not targeted like a POTUS would be.
Again, it is a huge compliment that you expect Mitt to be a good and well liked president if elected, but that also underscores that your motives are rooted in bigotry. Nobody is going to make the sacrifices a person needs to make to become a Mormon just because of Mitt. At best more people will listen to our side of the story, and if it scares you to have people get more than just your side of things before they make a choice, what does that say?
There is a difference between believing in freedom of religion and freedom of ONLY YOUR OWN religion. If you really believe in freedom of religion, then you don’t try to repress someone’s career because of their religion. You instead practice the golden rule. If America was 80% Mormon, how would you like us to react to a candidate of your faith? That is how you, as a Christian, are obligated to react to a Mormon candidate.
“Your assertion that Christians would like to round up all Mormons and put them in camps is just (sorry) silly “
Good thing that isn’t what I said then. I said if you want to keep people from seeing us as legitimate, you would have to do that. It doesn’t matter if Mitt is elected or not, the fact is we are out there, successful, well respected, valued members of our communities who usually welcome the chance to share our faith. We are the 4th largest denomination in the USA and growing, both from conversions and from a higher than average birth rate.
Trying to keep people ignorant of what a faithful Mormon is like or make people think it is some bunch of weirdos is a losing game. The bottom line is that Mormonism already is a legitimate part of mainstream society and deserves the same respect as Catholics, Protestants, and Jews. As time goes on, the more you rely on stereotypes, the sillier you will look.
“My main problem with Mormonism is that they claim to be Christian, yet they do not teach or accept the Gospel according to Scripture.”
We do not accept or teach YOUR OPINION of what the gospel is. Why should I accept your opinion, on what basis do you claim it superior to how we Mormons view the Biblical account? Because it claims to be older? We claim that our teachings were what Christ and the apostles taught, yours evolved centuries later. Because more people believe that than believe us? That is no standard for finding what is true and what isn’t.
“So, when someone who might be seeking after the truth hears that Mormons are “Christian”, they might be more inclined to believe it if it’s promoted by the president.”
So, in other words, you fear that people will join us if they give us a fair chance to make our case, so you want to prevent them from giving us a fair chance. That shows a real lack of faith in the rightness and strength of your own position, or a real unwillingness to allow people to see both sides make up their own minds.
Oh, and check a dictionary sometime. Mormons are Christians by definition of the word, orthodoxy is not a requirement to be Christian. Besides, since when do Americans look to the President as an authority on religious matters? They don’t.
“It’s obvious that this upsets you”
Religious bigotry and ignorance about (or rejection of) freedom of religion, yeah, that upsets me. I don’t have much of a stake in this election however since I’m Canadian.
“This is not an opinion that is only accepted by me. I’ve heard many other Evangelicals say the same thing.”
So? If someone said they wouldn’t vote for a black they would be able to find a peer group to prop them up too. What matters are his values, his policies, his abilities and his character. Accepting or rejecting a bunch of man-made creeds from the dark ages just isn’t relevant to the job.
Translation: Darnit, I don’t want facts getting in the way of a chance to smear Mormons. I’ll just ignore those facts.
I could post some parts from a letter by an early pope showing he though that a Phoenix was a real bird and it really did rise reborn from it’s own ashes. So what. Fact is that EVERYBODY from the 19th century or before had wacky ideas. Science hadn’t advanced all that from from the days of Rome.
Grig,
I am not the one who testified that Joseph Smith is
a prophet. Nor have I identified any living person a
prophet. Ergo... I don’t have a wacky prophet. Mormonism
does... based on many parts of his life, including
his statements that people on the moon dress as quakers
and can live to 1000.
upma
You don’t have that????”
This is what I see when I’m looking at pings to me, and my own posts:
Finding Truth in the “Would Not Vote for a Mormon” Polls ^
Posted by Osage Orange to Old Student
On News/Activism ^ 07/27/2007 3:55:56 PM CDT · 209 of 213 ^
It doesn’t show me which post you’re responding to, just which post number of the total number of posts on that thread. As I’m writing this response, it’s not telling me which post I’m responding to, either, although I can see the text of the post. I suppose that might be a matter of what preferences I have set.
You gave me the post # in your reply to my query, but not in the one I asked which post on, and I’d posted two or three times already when I asked.
If they have that on their website, would you freepmail me a link? I’d be seriously interested in hearing it. Or reading a transcript.
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.