Evangelicals Against Mitt

The American Spectator ^ | 1/3/2008 | Carrie Sheffield

[tantiboh]

Mitt Romney is facing an unexpected challenge in Iowa from rival Mike Huckabee, who has enjoyed a groundswell of support from religious voters, particularly evangelical Christians wary of the clean-cut former Massachusetts governor because of his Mormon religion.

The common worry among evangelicals is that if Romney were to capture the White House, his presidency would give legitimacy to a religion they believe is a cult. Since the LDS church places heavy emphasis on proselytizing -- there are 53,000 LDS missionaries worldwide -- many mainstream Christians are afraid that Mormon recruiting efforts would increase and that LDS membership rolls would swell.

...

THE ONLY PROBLEM with those fears is that they don't add up. Evangelicals may be surprised to learn that the growth of church membership in Massachusetts slowed substantially during Romney's tenure as governor. In fact, one could make the absurdly simplistic argument that Romney was bad for Mormonism.

...

ONE WAY TO GAUGE what might happen under a President Romney would be to look at what happened during the period of the 2002 Olympic Winter Games. Held in Salt Lake City, they were dubbed the "Mormon Olympics."

...

Despite all the increased attention, worldwide the Church grew only slightly, and in fact in the year leading up to the games the total number of congregations fell. Overall, from 2000 to 2004, there was a 10.9 percent increase in memberships and a 3.6 percent increase in congregations.

...

The LDS church is likely to continue its current modest-but-impressive growth whether or not Romney wins the White House. Perhaps the only real worry for evangelicals is that, if elected, the former Massachusetts governor will demonstrate to Americans that Mormons don't have horns.

Carrie Sheffield, a member of the LDS Church, is a writer living in Washington, D.C.

[MHGinTN]

Please proceed ...

[Tennessee Nana]

The more threads I read in FR, the more I think it is being taken over by the intolerant right, not just the intolerant religious.
________________________________________________________

I’m glad you are not speaking about me

I’d love to vote for J C Watts or some other black conservative GOP canidate...

Black people are the same as you...

[Old Mountain man]

And who currently has the most?

[aMorePerfectUnion]

“And who currently has the most?”

You might as well ask, “Who has the most hair?”

Before Super Tuesday, when a thousand electoral votes
are distributed, nothing matters.

[Dan(9698)]

OK you have had your say.

Do you want to participate in a conversation where each can participate without being called dispariging names? If you do, welcome aboard, If not, move on to something else.

[Tennessee Nana]

The more threads I read in FR, the more I think it is being taken over by the intolerant right, not just the intolerant religious.
________________________________________________________

I’m glad you are not speaking about me

I’d love to vote for J C Watts or some other black conservative GOP canidate...

Black people are the same as you...

[Das Outsider]

Elsie sent several links to pages in the Catholic Encyclopedia. I have been reviewing information on those pages.

Yes, from New Advent, right? Elsie's posts must be way back in thread, or else I missed them--I'm taking a guess here.

I have found some passages that will be helpful to determine what was taught during the years of the Apostles and some writings of others who have researched this.

With regard to the writings of the ante-Nicene Fathers or, more recently, the Arian controversy?

I wanted to find information that was not from "Mormon" sources as well as not from "Mormon Bashers".

To tell you the truth, I really don't care if it comes from LDS, non-LDS, or anti-LDS sources. If the claims or statements are true, then they are true. Suppose a particular religious site tells me that the sun is shining, and it really is--then they are right, even if they're Ra worshippers. I jest, even though non-Mormon and non-Mormon-basher sources are just fine, Dan. Real researchers and analytical minds on FR are going to do their homework regardless.

Not that it wouldn't be interesting what each has to say, I just wanted to find what other information is available.

I personally enjoy learning what others believe and why they believe it. That doesn't make what they believe true, by any means, but it does provide a better sense of context when talking about the big issues.

[Das Outsider]

Please proceed ...

It is proceeding, though to some, it may seem like a funeral procession: long and tiring. ;)

[Jo Nuvark]

If Mormons believe that Jesus is the brother of Satan, then their Jesus cannot be the same Biblical Jesus that Christians believe in and espouse as Lord and Savior.

JESUS IS THE ONLY BEGOTTEN SON OF GOD
And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. (John 1:14)

God gives birth to God, as humans give birth to humans.

SATAN IS A CREATED BEING
Son of man (Satan), take up a lamentation over the king of Tyre and say to him, ‘Thus says the Lord GOD, “You had the seal of perfection, Full of wisdom and perfect in beauty. You were in Eden, the garden of God; Every precious stone was your covering: The ruby, the topaz and the diamond; The beryl, the onyx and the jasper; The lapis lazuli, the turquoise and the emerald; And the gold, the workmanship of your settings and sockets, Was in you. On the day that YOU WERE CREATED they were prepared. (Ezekiel 28:12 & 13)

SATAN WAS THE DIRECTOR OF THE HEAVENLY CHORUS
Your pomp and the music of your harps have been brought down to Sheol; Maggots are spread out as your bed beneath you and worms are your covering. (Isaiah 14:11)

*****************

“I Have a Question,” Ensign, June 1986, 25–26
How can Jesus and Lucifer be spirit brothers when their characters and purposes are so utterly opposed?

ANSWER
Jess L. Christensen, Institute of Religion director at Utah State University, Logan, Utah. On first hearing, the doctrine that Lucifer and our Lord, Jesus Christ, are brothers may seem surprising to some—especially to those unacquainted with latter-day revelations. But both the scriptures and the prophets affirm that Jesus Christ and Lucifer are indeed offspring of our Heavenly Father and, therefore, spirit brothers. Jesus Christ was with the Father from the beginning. Lucifer, too, was an angel “who was in authority in the presence of God,” a “son of the morning.” (See Isa. 14:12; D&C 76:25–27.) Both Jesus and Lucifer were strong leaders with great knowledge and influence. But as the Firstborn of the Father, Jesus was Lucifer’s older brother. (See Col. 1:15; D&C 93:21.)
—
http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=4a10ef960417b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1

[Colofornian]

A few on this thread are in direct opposition to the United States Constitution. The "no religious test" clause of the United States Constitution is found in Article VI, section 3, and states that: “ ...no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”

OK, you & Hugh Hewitt & the absurd makers of that Article VI documentary just don't "get it." You & these others believe that Article VI halts the crux of objections to Romney's other-worldly commitments.

I tell you what, for reinforcement--since you were constantly "chirp chirping away," I'll say the same thing below in several different ways until it rubs in on you.

Newsflash: Every person on the ballot, & even most write-in candidates, have proper "qualifications" to not be excluded from office consideration (based upon religious grounds).

Of course, millions of us have the "qualifications" to be considered a potential POTUS & shouldn't be excluded outright from a ballot because of the religion we hold! Nobody has a "Religious Ineligibility" tattoo on their forehead!

Bottom line: You confuse "qualifications" with "qualities." I focus on what voters base their votes on in the "real world": Qualities

Article VI says absolutely nothing...nada...zero...about how voters must weigh--or not weigh--the "qualities" of a candidate...So, nowhere does Article VI say that voters MUST 100% disregard character, beliefs, other-dimensionly commitments, and spiritual discernment in weighing candidates!

"Qualifications" have to do with what gets a man on a ballot. "Qualities" has to do with who gets elected.

So you & Hugh Hewitt and the Article VI doc folks raise nothing but a Straw man!!! Tell me, II, where oh where there's been any movement whatsoever to block anybody from any ballot?

All citizens who are not felons have the right to aspire to any office regardless of any faith, religious adherence or other-worldly commitment. But that doesn't mean you then can come along in some jack-booted way & tell somebody, "Hey, you, yeah, you, Mr. or Mrs. Individual Voter...if you dare consider the Hare Krishna aspect of this candidate...the Moonie ties of this candidate...the Satanic ties of this candidate...the Wiccan beliefs & practices of this candidate...then we will shame you, we will tell all you are an 'embarrassment' to the rest of us...that you disgust us...and we'll accuse you of attacking the beliefs of these people. What's more, we'll accuse you of being in direct opposition to the U.S. Constitution! Vote for the Hare Krishna dude or else!!!"

Wow! The MSM must have missed the "big news" that the Article VI folks somehow scooped them on...that there's been a "virtual" movement to bump Romney off of ballots everywhere...that there's been a movement to disqualify those voters who have voted for him...etc.

I object to this occasional preaching against voters based upon some unknown authority proclaiming, "Thou shalt not consider a candidate's other-dimensionly commitments!"

Some FReeper posted a December thread saying that 54% of voters wouldn't vote for an atheist. So now you accuse the majority of voters for opposing the U.S. Constitution?

You seem to accuse outright that when casting a vote...someone's Hare Krishna status or expectation of 72 virgins awaiting them post-death doesn't provide for us a glimpse of their broader perspectives.

So, Mr. Chirp-chirp...qualities of candidates as surmised by voters are left up to voters! & it's what gets them elected. Qualifications are what get candidates on the ballot. (If they weren't qualified those folks wouldn't even get to the consideration stage, now would they?)

[Godzilla]

popcorn

[Invincibly Ignorant]

Wow I struck a nerve. Are you holdin’ out on me?

[Dan(9698)]

After giving the invitation due consideration and seeing responses already posted, I believe I will pass.

I will continue to do some research for my own enlightenment, but I do not feel it necessary to endure the mocking and ridicule that takes place in this kind of discussion.

Thank you for the invitation.

[Invincibly Ignorant]

You’re not feelin’ the vibe of the framers when they threw that article into the consititution. Get into spirit of what they were feelin’ when they wrote it. I know it pisses you off they wrote it but sheesh, come on. Can’t we all just get along? lol.

[Invincibly Ignorant]

chirp...chirp...bigot...chirp...chirp... bigot...chirp...chirp lol

[tantiboh]

We can certainly discuss the topic; I’m interested in clarifying and explaining the doctrines of my faith. I’m not, however, interested in proving them right, or in proving the tenants of your faith wrong.

The defeat of ignorance does not require the construction of consensus. We will disagree as to the nature of God; I’m OK with that fact.

[DelphiUser]

I have spent some time thinking about this…

The Greeks had a tradition of arguing their philosophies and religions in a public forum. When the Christians started out in Judea, they occasionally had public meetings, like when Jesus taught the Sermon on the Mount, but most of the meetings took place in homes, and in small groups. After Jesus left, this continued, these small meetings were not contentions "My God can beat up your God" meetings, but contained testimony. The early Christians answered logical questions in a logical way coupled with testimony.

You have posted a large body of Works here which will be read by almost no one. This work starts with the Logical premise of "The LDS Church is wrong, so…" are you familiar with the phrase "Poisoning the well"? Historically, it refers to the Rumor that was spread in Europe that the black plague was caused by Jews poisoning the wells of Christians; it was used as an excuse to persecute the Jews.

Your attempt to "poison the well" by posting this irrelevant material is interesting in its size, but not extraordinary in its technique. We Mormons are constantly having some post or the other thrown in our face with the accompanying screed "See, your religion can't be true, you pagan non-Christian Scum!" This is not new. What is new is the almost total lack of personal reasoning on your part. You made no arguments based on logic, or on your own faith, you did not even testify of your faith, you just ridiculed ours.

I am going to address a few points here that I think are relevant, then I will return to my theme of the preaching of Christianity in the first century, how the apostles spread the word, nad how we Momrons do the same thing now.

You have used several Methods here that would have been ridiculed in the first century "spreading of the word" in fact, these methods have Latin names (and Greek ones too) specifically because they were not used in public debate because they are logically unsupportable and would have subjected the person using them to ridicule. These illogical argumentative moves are known as Fallacies.

I am going to list some of the common fallacies used on this very thread that would have gotten the user laughed out of a Greek forum.

Arguing from Authority: < href=http://www.fallacyfiles.org/authorit.html>Argumentum ad Verecundiam Also known as an Appeal to misleading Authority".

argument by Force:Argumentum ad Baculum Threatening an opponent is de facto Argumentum ad Baculum.

Argument by Consensus: Bandwagon Fallacy This fallacious method of argument presupposes the truth is up to a vote. And can be established by seeing what the majority thinks. (Orthodoxy anyone?)

An Appeal to Ignorance: Argumentum ad Ignorantiam Basically, I don't know of X Therefore there is no X.

One sided arguments: Also known as Card stacking, or ignoring counterevidence

"He who knows only his own side of the case, knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side; if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion." -- John Stuart Mill

Loaded Questions: Plurium Interrogationum "When did you stop beating your wife" questions or Questions that can't be answered the way they were asked.

I could go on, but I would not want to be accused of "Beating a dead horse"…

Now as to how the Gospel was preached by Paul, Paul did not go to cities and argue people into belief in their public places and completely answer all questions about Christ, but he did "drum up interest" there. Once Paul had people who were interested, he moved the meetings to a more private venue. These more private meetings are more conducive to the spirit, this was Paul's strategy.

Paul's tactic for executing this strategy was modified to suit any culture who's people he was teaching. In that day and age, entertainment was often had through public debate, so Paul would go and engage those who were openly philosophizing in debate, in his debates, he would not try to prove his detractors wrong, but he would give evidence of truth, and testify of it.

Mormons do this today.

Thus he frustrated his opponents by refusing to "Go all the way to the mat" he would give evidence of Christ, but not try to answer every detail asked of him.

In my posts here on Freerepublic, I am taking a leaf from Paul's book, and have had much success with it. I testify of Truth, but do not try to "Prove" my religion, because I know that "A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still" (My Dad told me that one). Since I will not convince anyone who is not willing to be convinced, I am not a threat to anyone's religion.

Now, I have offered proofs, like the Los Lunas stone which has the ten commandments written on it in Paleo Hebrew., and Chiasmus in the Book of Mormon, I only bring up two here, because they have already been brought up in this thread.

There is evidence that supports the Book of Mormon evidence that is not handled in any other religion. There is also evidence that contradicts the Book of Mormon, anyone who denies either of these points is ignoring counterevidence. Which brings us to the question, who are you going to believe?

Anti Mormons such as yourself have stated that they don't believe what we say is true, that's fine, as far as it goes, but many anti Mormons don't want others to even hear the argument. They want to shout us down and drown us in massive postings of little worth, While no one is going to stop you (unless the Mods decide there has been enough yelling and freeze the thread) this is patently :Argumentum ad Baculum which is a fallacious, or invalid way of arguing that Paul would never have employed.

Mormons, on the other hand invite all to Pray to God, we quote scriptures about prayer, many times on this thread, I have quoted First John 4:1-3

1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. 2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: 3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

This quote is not an appeal to authority; it is an appeal to the only authority. Both Mormons and anti Mormons on these threads claim to be acting In God's name and for him. Both claim they have his authority to do so in one way or another.

Thus we have a case of "He said, she said" where the listener has no inherent way for Lurkers to know which side to believe, worse, there is no guarantee that either side is right.

However, only one side regularly asks people to pray. God has promised to answer prayers asked in faith. Thus a prayer to God (who is presumed to know what the truth is, and be willing to share that with you since he promised) would lead one to suspect that those appealing to the ultimate authority for confirmation just might be telling the truth (but not necessarily). The only way to know for sure is to ask God.

Asking God comes with its own problems:
What exactly are you going to ask him?
How will you know what the answer is?
How can you know if the answer is from God?

In my experience, you have to know something about what you are asking about to get an answer, for example if you want to know if the Book of Mormon is of God then you will have to read it, not the readers digest condensed version, read the book you want to know about. Same thing with the Bible, if you are going to ask God if the Bible is his word, then read the Bible, not some synopsis, don't watch a cartoon, read the Bible. Then while you are reading it, pray to God and ask him if it is true. Ask if Jesus actually did the things that are recorded in the Book of Mormon and the Bible. Some have said that God will get mad, because he already gave you the Bible, the Bible does not bear this out. Some have said Satan will answer a prayer to God, the Bible does not bear this out. The Bible commands us to pray to God, Jesus taught us how in the Bible. IMHO the world would be a better place if we all prayed more and argued less.

I testify to all who read this that I have read both the Book of Mormon, and the Bible, I have put the promises in both books to the Test (BOM Moroni 10:4; Bible First John 4:1-3) I received a message from God. That message specifically met the requirements of the Bible for knowing that an answer to prayer is from him. I testify that the Book of Mormon and the Bible are both his word, I further testify that Jesus Christ lived and Died on this earth for yours and my sins, He was resurrected on the third day and thus has broken the bands of death. Most importantly, I testify that you too can know as I do the truth of this statement.

I do not ask you to take my word for it, I recommend you to God, ask Him as he has commanded and ignore all the carefully laid plans of his enemies, and just ask him.

This is my response to the massive posting of anti Mormon stuff that was cut and pasted here from other sources, go with God,

Amen

[DelphiUser]

Yes they did. And their accusation would have been true, if he wasn't the Son of God. So what?

It's called saying true things in a lying way. People say Joseph was arrested for this or that, and he was, he was also acquitted because the jury thought it was a bogus charge. opponents of the church commonly neglect that last point. My point was that even Jesus, the exemplar, the one person to live a perfect life can be described in derogatory terms, and have his "record" used against him.

I had a non Christian once ask me if "I really believed some bloke who got himself nailed to a bit of wood two thousand years ago was God?" I said yes, but it's hard to answer at all when the question is asked that way.

My point was often the medium (disrespectful language) becomes the message.

[DelphiUser]

That was your mormon supporter bucko. And of course you didn't bother to read it all (as usual) to see that it was historically refuted. Of course you run away.

I read what you posted, I do not agree with your interpetation. I am not running away, however I do reserve the Right to think about things and proffer a well thought out response, if that is not good enough for you ... then you need to learn patience.

[DelphiUser]

Mormon apologeticists reminds me of THIS.

Victor Borge, one of my favorites!

Well, having a serious conversation about religion with Anti's around reminds me of trying to sing with Phonetic Punctuation.