Posted on 08/08/2007 8:00:00 AM PDT by greyfoxx39
Mitt Romney's own Republican Party has made religion fair game, and Romney will be asked how his faith would affect his policies.
-SNIP-
But Mitt Romney is a serious contender in 2008, rich and disciplined, and he's running in an era when presidential candidates are virtually expected to parade their religiosity. This is particularly true in the Republican camp, where religion and politics are now routinely intertwined; indeed, candidate George W. Bush upped the ante in 2000, when he said that his favorite philosopher was Jesus, ''because he changed my life.''
So it's no surprise Romney is facing questions about his lifelong devotion to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the breakaway theology that considers itself humankind's ''one true church.'' He had hoped to stonewall this issue, insisting in a TV interview 18 months ago that ''I'm never going to get into a discussion about my personal beliefs.''
But today word is circulating that Romney will discuss his faith in an autumn speech - and seek to disarm the skeptics much the way John F. Kennedy in 1960 dampened fears that a Catholic president would take orders from Rome.
Romney is dealing with potential hostility, fair or not, on several fronts. Many Christian fundamentalists, particularly southern Baptists, dismiss Mormonism as a cult (thereby imperiling Romney in the GOP primaries, particularly in pivotal South Carolina). Many secular voters are uncomfortable with the church's passion for proselytizing and its superior attitude, particularly its scriptural insistence that all nonbelievers are worshiping ''the church of the devil.'' Pollsters say that at least 30 percent of voters won't back a Mormon.
Romney's biggest problem is that skeptics are simply weirded out. They cannot quite envision having a president who believes that a man named Joseph Smith dug up a book of golden plates, long buried in a hillside, with the help of an angel named Moroni in 1827; that these plates, written in Egyptian hieroglyphics, spelled out the precepts of the true Christian faith; that Smith translated these hieroglyphics by wearing decoder glasses and burying his head in a hat; that Jesus visited North America after the resurrection; that the Garden of Eden was really in Missouri.
-SNIP-
Some questions do seem appropriate. First, the Mormon faith puts a high premium on ''faith-promoting'' information, sometimes at the expense of unpleasant facts. As a high-ranking Mormon leader said in a famous 1981 speech, ''Some things that are true are not very useful.'' Would Romney be able to assure swing voters that he would not merely perpetuate the faith-based thinking, and the rejection of empirical reality, that has trapped us in a ruinous war?
Second, since the Mormons consider themselves stewards of ''a quintessentially American faith'' (Romney's words), and since Mormons believe Jesus will return and rule the world from U.S. territory, does this suggest that a President Romney might wave the flag a bit too fervently, at a time when we need to repair our relations around the world? The Mormon faith is heavily rooted in what is commonly called ''American exceptionalism,'' the belief that we are special and we know best. Would Romney govern accordingly, and, if so, would that be a help or a hindrance in the war on terror?
-SNIP-
What matters, in other words, is not whether he really thinks Joseph Smith met an angel in 1827. The crucial issue is whether, or how, a devout Mormon would apply his faith on the job in 2009. His supporters have suggested that any such questions are symptoms of religious bigotry, but it is the Republican Party, over the past several decades, that has put religion front and center. They have made Mitt Romney fair game.
Your post #954 was a helpful guideline to extend to all.
#959 was excellent too.
If anyone posts that "X group believes Y" and is not a member of X group, IMHO they are guilty of telling individual people (the members of X group) what they believe and is putting Y in the mouths of group X which I believe is prohibited by the rules of this forum. Telling me what I, or my religion believes is a personal attack and should not be allowed.
Whatever guidelines exist for the religion section would need to be universally applied. For example, can you imagine a moderator trying to apply Delf's suggested guideline to say, an article talking about the pro-abortion beliefs within a given mainline or Catholic denomination?
Let's say someone posts an article about Catholics for Choice. Here's how, using Delf's suggested guidelines above, would go (italics in next graph are my words; rest are Delf's):
"If anyone posts that Catholics for Choice believes Y' and is not a member of Catholics for Choice, IMHO they are guilty of telling individual people (the members of Catholics for Choice) what they believe and is putting Y in the mouths of Catholics for Choice which I believe is prohibited by the rules of this forum.
So now, Delf is saying FREEPERS can't be critical of groups like Catholics for Choice? (You know something is a bad policy when it can't be applied universally...kind of like how "hate crimes" focus tends to zero in on sexually oriented folks).
Telling me what I, or my religion believes is a personal attack and should not be allowed.
Well, that's a new one. I mean, come on. Step back and just examine that bare-faced statement for a moment. So if I, an Evangelical, just simply state that Catholics believe in transsubstantiation, then by simple virtue of me "telling" what they/their "religion believes is a personal attack and should not be allowed?"
Boy, that's worse than the Democrats' idea of the Fairness Doctrine as far as an attempt to sequester free speech!!!
Any anti-Mormon...
OK. (Pause button). Who gets to define who is "anti-Mormon?"
Any anti-Mormon who thinks we are not Christian needs to say things that way, making it clear he is not stating a fact but his opinion.
And the reverse would be true, too? "Any anti-Catholic and anti-Protestant who thinks they are apostates needs to say things that way, making it clear he is not stating a fact but his opinion."
Well, under that guideline, since Joseph Smith clearly said in Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith, History, v. 19 (LDS Scripture) that all of Christianity's creeds were an "abomination," its leaders were "corrupt," and that folks "should join none of them" (any of those churches), then I guess by extension that makes every LDS who believes all Christian churches are apostate an "anti-Catholic" and an "anti-Protestant." Under those rules of engagement, then, no such LDS poster could ever state anything in a factual manner about Catholics & Protestants.
Every post on such a subject matter would need to start or end w/almost an automated "bot-like" disclaimer.
RM, Could you add to your list of Don'ts don't tell others what they believe (even as a group). I think this addition would eliminate some of the strife on these threads.
Tell you what, Delf. Just come up with a proposal along these lines: "No one should disagree with LDS sources lest they be guilty of a hate post on the basis of a person's religious orientation." (That way, we can properly punish all "hate" thought posts)
That is some chart! But don’t ping me to any more of these Mormon apologetics threads ... I detest deception and the apologists are in constant deception mode, perhaps to sustain their belief in this cult, but for whatever reason not worth wasting time reading their palaver. And just know you’re going to get palavered for posting that much truth about Mormonism in one chart!
Mormon versus Christian definitions
I hope your side is more accurate then you got the Mormon side.
on your side, you said;
+The consequence of unbelief. Unbelief results in damnation, that is, suffering eternal punishment in hell.
+By faith in Jesus’ payment for our sins, we are given the gift of eternal life living with God in heaven as his children.
+The unconditional, free gift of eternal life given us through faith in Jesus’ saving work
+God declares us (believers) not guilty on the basis of Christ’s atoning work.
+The free gift of eternal life in heaven with God given us through faith in Jesus’ saving work.
+(1) Believers in Jesus’ saving work are considered saints by God (sanctified). This refers to our status as citizens of heaven, while living on earth.
(2) While on earth, the continuing work of the Holy Spirit resulting in the strengthening of our faith and becoming increasingly Christ-like (holy).
(3) The final change that occurs on Judgment Day where believers are forever separated from their sinful nature and are thereby made holy.
-—— So, I hear you saying that FAITH is the only thing that will get us to heaven.-—
Then you add;
+A gift is something we receive which is undeserved, unearned, offered freely by the bestower.
+Faith is a gift of the Holy Spirit.
-———Which looks like, that if I do not have faith it is because God [the Holy Spirit] did not give me that gift.-———Since your God did not give me the gift of faith to be saved, why are you spending so much time going against your god will?.————
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Everyone please remember, I am only following what was said above to a point in its conclusion, I am not talking about the beliefs of any religious origination. fred
The follow-on logic to this, of course, is that God chooses who gets saved and who doesn’t, by virtue of upon whom He chooses to bestow the gift of faith. We really have no choice in the matter at all.
Which means that God chooses arbitrarily, and must therefore be a respecter of persons. It also negates the possibility of free agency in regards to our salvation.
Which means that God chooses arbitrarily, and must therefore be a respecter of persons. It also negates the possibility of free agency in regards to our salvation.
++++++++++
I agree except for the part about “God chooses arbitrarily”,
his god must have reasons for choosing who he chooses.
Faith is more than a noun. There ought to be but there is not a word 'faithe' to express an active component to faith much the way breath (the noun) has a verb form 'breathe'. Let's see how that new word/expression sits with the Biblical evidences of faith.
By faithing (the infinitive form of our new word) Abraham pleased God in action based upon belief in God's promise and his walk with God gave confidence that the promises were real (that's the ABCs of faith). Faithing, David went up against Goliath, overcame Saul, defeated numerous enemies, etc. Faithing, prostitute Rahab let down the scarlet cord from her window and was saved when the city fell to the Israelites. Faithing, Jesus emptied Himself and became a little lower than the Angels, and through faithing took upon Himself the weight of Adamkind and became obedient even to the death of the cross. Faithing, I die daily to the world and glory in the administration of the Holy Spirit as He transforms me toward the image of The Son, an image not seen or limited with eyes of the flesh but revealed with eyes of the Spirit. Faithing, I walk in newness of Life through an alive from dead soul.
Faithing is the action toward things hope evidenced in arrival at things not seen before. By faithing the rightousness of Christ is counted for me and I have open access to the God of the Created universe, to be transformed into that which He purposed in taking upon Himself mortal so that we might be made immortal in Him.
Do I have to post for you the great series regarding predestinate and transformed and glorified found in Romans? Are you familiar with the Bible? You might enjoy reading the passage on foreknowledge of God and them He also justified to be conformed to the image of His Son. Do you need me to post it for you?... You'll get another short Bible lesson if I do.
Ping-a-ling, if you’re interested.
Got it.
Quit sucking up to the RM ;^)
The classic:
"Let's get the Calvinists and the Armenians fighting for a while so we can rest a bit" tactic!
By choice or birth?
Elsie,
you’ve been around these Romney/Mormonism threads for
a long time - and I dare say you’ve seen it all (as have
I)...
Stepping back for a wider view, what patterns/commonalities
do you see over and over again by those caught up in
mormonism?
best,
ampu
~”By choice or birth?”~
That’s a dumb question. There isn’t an adult in this nation who isn’t a member of their faith by choice.
Point by point;
1. [ I really am sorry that you don’t understand ]
All I did was copy and paste the words from the chart, then combined the individual thoughts into a whole.
2. [ you seem to have missed the portion below the chart which indicates the chart was lifted from an Elsie post on a previous thread, so your pronoun games are busted before you begin trying to impugn me over the chart because I didn’t compile it though I agree with nearly every point of it.]
You posted it without correcting the mistakes.
Do you think there are also some mistakes on the mormon side?
3. [After (r)eading the rest of this post, see if you can guess which portion of the chart I don’t fully endorse]
it would have helped if you did it in the before post.
4. [By faithing (the infinitive form of our new word) Abraham pleased God in action based upon belief in God’s promise and his walk with God gave confidence that the promises were real (that’s the ABCs of faith). ]
Abraham’s confidence grew as he walked with God. He trusted God more.
5. [Do I have to post for you the great series regarding predestinate and transformed and glorified found in Romans? Are you familiar with the Bible? You might enjoy reading the passage on foreknowledge of God and them He also justified to be conformed to the image of His Son. Do you need me to post it for you?... You’ll get another short Bible lesson if I do.]
Many years ago, back toward the end of my time in high school, I started studying my faith and my religion. After a year or so in the service, I had my dog tags changed to “non denominational”. I also had a Mormon insult me by telling me his church was the only true church. So I studied more.
To me, the biggest part of faith is trust. Before we can have faith in anything, we need to know something about it.
The ‘trust’ part of faith is not the beginning of faith, God has given us the gift of knowledge and learning. We can use his gift so we can know for our selves. The more knowledge about the truth we gain, the larger our faith grows.
Yes, God gives us the gift of faith, and by faith all things were made, and all things are done.
fred
John 1:1-3 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God; this one was in the beginning with God; all things through him did happen, and without him happened not even one thing that hath happened.
By faithing the power of God raises you a new man in Christ Jesus. Many are called but few are chosen. Faithful is He that calleth you to Salvation for He will also do it. Of the many called unto Salvation, so few will let Him do it, the saving via faithing in His Faith that trust God to raise Him from the dead as promised. God made us in His image, with freewill to accept or reject His Grace toward us. Do not blame God for those who are not Saved because they will not let Him do it.
~”The ‘trust’ part of faith is not the beginning of faith, God has given us the gift of knowledge and learning. We can use his gift so we can know for our selves. The more knowledge about the truth we gain, the larger our faith grows.”~
Well stated.
I'm not sure I like these liberal rules, but so be it.
1000
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.