Posted on 11/17/2007 6:27:48 PM PST by Nathan_Hale76
Mitt Romney called attempts to undermine him by questioning his Mormon faith "un-American" as he spoke to reporters in Nevada yesterday. Romney was specifically responding to reported "push-poll" phone calls being made in Iowa and New Hampshire, in which the calls reportedly begin as opinion polls but turn into statements and questions designed to highlight and cast doubt on Romney's Mormon faith. Here is what Romney had to say.....(Video)
(Excerpt) Read more at rightviewsusa.com ...
Clearly, since it appears to many that he plagiarized it in places. LDS defenders have claimed it was prophetic, but its strains credulity that God's additional revelations would be written in King James English, some of which was clearly misworded and corrected in later editions.
I would respect Mormons and Romney more if they quit trying to equate themselves with classic Christianity and called themselves what they are, an alternate revelation which claims to be a successor to the Christianity, like Islam or Baha'i. It would be more honest. It would also get the issue largely off the table and allow the discussion to go forward on political positions, not religion.
Great book on this is Kingdom of the Cults by the late Walter Martin.
So does Islam and Baha'i, but that does not make either of them Christian sects. LDS Doctrine precludes it from being considered Christianity since it is dramatically at odds with key pieces of classic Christian doctrine. LDS and its variants would be held in higher esteem (at least by me) if they would own up to being an alternate revelation and be treated like a separate religion.
I'll plead ignorance on the length of anyone's coup sticks.
But they have a point. Um, that is to say, there is some logic in their position. I'm not saying the coup sticks are pointy. Oh, never mind.
If you ask any Southerner -- for that matter, any American with a few generations on this continent -- whether he has a "non-white" ancestor, there are only two honest and accurate answers -- "Yes," or "Not that I know of." Families used to cover that up, before it became chic to claim a tribal heritage and profitable to claim a share of casino profits.
When I was a kid, I took a few trips up to Cherokee, NC. By the time I was about 11 or 12, I started to find it vaguely creepy and embarrassing. It was a culture completely turned into kitsch, with plastic tomahawks sold at every roadside stand and folks in traditional garb trotted out every hour like circus animals.
I hear it's gotten better, in part because of the money they've gotten from Harrah's. I haven't gone back, in part because I her the Harrah's Cherokee only has slots. No table games. I'm not gonna drive half a day to a casino where I can't throw away some money on blackjack.
My people were first wave and followed the frontier across the continent but I am as certain as certain can be that I have no Indian blood. There was some intermingling, especially by early French traders but cross-marriages were frowned upon and, in truth, relatively rare. One early union would have exponential effects now but if you consider immigration patterns and the racial prejudices over time, there are not that many Americans with even the possibility of Indian blood.
As a cohesive religious group my ancestors would have had reasons to coverup an "accident" but they would have had a far stronger compulsion not to create the situation in the first place. There is strong revulsion expressed through the centuries for the savage and brutal culture that was killing them and their neighbors. Intermingling was not likely.
IMHO, the basis for confusion begins in our society today basing our thinking upon things independent of God, then attempting to rationalize and accept the conflict between righteousness and unrighteousness.
Some of the earliest discussions on the Separation of Church and State were valid and sound, but did not confuse religion based upon worshiping a false god with worship of God through faith in Christ.
The policy begins from the viewpoint that an honest and honorable man will seek to remain obedient to the laws of God as well as the laws of the State. It also accepts that law is not made to punish the righteous, but to keep the criminal and unrighteous in control. Those who are heathen are understood to have a natural proclivity to violate law regardless, but when we look at the righteous man who seeks to remain obedient to both, it is recognized he should not be placed in a situation where in his proper living, his obedience to one set of laws should not imply his disobedience to the other set. Accordingly, bounds were placed upon the separation of those institutions and the reach of their law.
Divine law being the domain of God is established by Him, whereas the laws of the State were controllable by man.
This is expressed in the Constitution as the first amendment in that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”.
Our 20th century confusion has resulted from a lack of understanding of definition of religion. Religion is not the worship of false god, but rather the proper exercise of worship of true God.
In the 20th century we have fallen into the mistaken presupposition that man judges the righteousness of God in his pursuit of religion, rather than man’s proper role of pursuing God in discerning proper religion.
In the later case, the separation of Church and State is valid because it recognizes different believers have different spiritual gifts and are at different stages of sanctification in their walk with God, and might follow a different sequence of faith than their fellow brethren.
In the former case, the doctrine fails to provide a State which is compliant with Divine Will because it allows worship of false gods within its midst on the same grounds as worship of the true God.
When applied today in the case of Mormons, we find a religious institution which fails to respect the essential elements of Christianity, but seeks to counterfeit Christian faith even to the point of denying the revelation of God in the persons of the Father and the Son and other believers in Christ.
It is appropriate to discern Mitt Romney as not being true to God when he advocates Mormonism. Those who seek to vote for this nation’s next leader have the opportunity to discern amongst candidates who they believe will provide the bast leadership for this nation. Discerning those who are likely to be more influenced by antiChristian beliefs than by those who are likely to remain in fellowship with Him is not only encouraged, but a volitional responsibility of believers in the US.
A secondary argument regarding Mitt’s objection is to note that a believer through faith in Christ understands unbelievers shall attack him, but are able to persevere through faith in Christ. They do not need to appeal to a manmade policy attempting to normalize false belief with true belief. By appealing to his interpretation of the 1st Amendment, equating any and all religion as equal, IMHO, he telegraphs his intuition that Mormonism itself is a counterfeit to worship of God through faith in Christ and is no better than any other cult.
Daniel 4:17 comes to mind as a refutation of this thought.
Which has nothing to do with whether I vote for Romney, or not. This is theology, not politics.
You just think you know because you were raised in a tradition before 325 AD there was no Nicene Creed.
LDS say it was a Godhead of the Living Father in Heaven and his only begotton Son Jesus Christ (because Adam and Eve came to earth through the Garden of Eden and the rest of us were born through them.) and the Holy Ghost which is a spirit and the Comforter.
So it is Heavenly Father's Will aka Plan and the Son who show us the will of the Father, and is our Redeemer/Savior and the Holy Ghost who bear witness to the truth of all things!
http://scriptures.lds.org/en/js_h/1/19#19
17 It no sooner appeared than I found myself delivered from the enemy which held me bound. When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other—This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!
18 My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)—and which I should join.
19 I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.”
20 He again forbade me to join with any of them; and many other things did he say unto me, which I cannot write at this time. When I came to myself again, I found myself lying on my back, looking up into heaven. When the light had departed, I had no strength; but soon recovering in some degree, I went home. And as I leaned up to the fireplace, mother inquired what the matter was. I replied, “Never mind, all is well—I am well enough off.” I then said to my mother, “I have learned for myself that Presbyterianism is not true.”
“How free would a religion be, if pointing out apostasy and false doctrine were forbidden? Not free at all.”
That’s not the point. Nobody says that people can’t criticize other religions.
Separation of church and state was intended to keep government OUT of religion, not religion out of government as the ACLU crowd thinks.
The hypocrisy of too many Christians today is that they agree that government should not interfere with religion but ONLY WHEN IT COMES TO PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE WHAT THEY DO.
The hypocrisy of these Christians should be pointed out and I’m glad Romney has. As a born again Christian myself, I agree with him.
#6 These days, attacking people because of their faith is quite American. -- Brilliant
THIS what?
See the above...
Oh, I think the average one will; there are just a few in these threads that just go ballistic if ANYTHING negative is said about their beloved organization!
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.