Posted on 01/08/2008 4:09:13 PM PST by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...
Brother Millet did indeed quote the scripture. No malicious intent here. I’m just saying the Biblical Scripture has been around and quoted often for over a thousand years.
Millet isn’t some sort of genius or prophet for saying it.
tant,
thanks for posting the link. While I do not consider the six
member group, Evangelicals for Mitt, authoritative, but in fact
deceptive, I read it and appreciate your effort to post it.
This of course, doesn’t change his pro-gay positions in the
past, but it is something.
ampu
How can I compete?
You are truly Invincible!
What a silly point to make, then. Religious leaders quoting scripture. Scandalous.
PLEASE don't throw me in the briar patch!
Huh??
What do you call going out on a mission??
Dang!!
What COMMUNITY do you live that such TEACHINGS are going on?
So now you are offering opinion as fact.
You are a darn poor lawyer!
That’s because I didn’t listen to the whole youtube thing. I just heard him say they didn’t have to feel obligated to answer everyone’s questions. I didn’t hear him quote the scripture, I just figured that was the principle behind what he was saying.
Your posts are just ridiculous. It’s amazing how petty you are willing to be.
I’ve never seen a lawyer use the ad hominem so often.
How successful are you in your practice?
Very.
I can’t find you on the internet. Woman attorney, living in Utah County, very successful, and a writer?
You’d think google would be able to locate you pretty quickly. Oh well.
Eight is the minimum age.
Just because you are eight, however, does not mean you are able to be baptized in the LDS Church. That was my point in explaining that there is no magic age, and that in the eyes of an all-knowing and merciful God, there are no absolutes.
That makes much more sense!
I’ll discuss almost anything(that which is sacred is off limits of course) regarding the LDS Church with a person. But once that person shows himself to be “selling” a point without listening to the other party, or “attacking” a religion, I walk away.
In my view, that’s no Christian. While such people often point to Christ tearing down the Pharisees, remember that he was taking on the leaders of his own faith. He did not take someone else’s faith and tear it down. In fact, he urged to do good to those who persecute you.
Your post then, by your own admission, did nothing at all to discount that eight is the age of accountability in Mormonism.
How about the age of twelve to become a deacon and hold the Aaronic Priesthood. You must be twelve. Again the magic number. There are all sorts of them in Mormonism.
God must be very wise to know that at age eight you become sinful overnight.
>Not to speak for elsie, but when someone comes along and starts howling “bigot” and “liar”, and using the usual nasty ad hominems against us, the response is likely to be similar, regardless of the poster’s religious preference.
So so-called Christians who engage in this behavior must believe that “turn the other cheek” was only a suggestion...
Almost hate to get in the middle of all this, but if Romney is the Republican candidate, I’m going to vote FOR him against any Democrat. That said, setting up a god of your own liking is idolatry, and that’s what Mormonism, Scientology, and millions of other “Christians” have done. Callling it Christianity doesn’t make it so.
He will flip-flop to a different position...just wait a few days.
You are trying to simplify God. I explained that it was a minimum, and pointed out, however, that the view there is something “magical” at eight is not supported by reason or logic. And that God is reasonable, which is why His Church does ignore that exceptions exist.
While I believe it IS reasonable that most children have the ability to choose and are accountable before God for their decisions, there is nothing magical to that number. Surely it is given as a means to be practicable in our daily lives.
Just as Christ will not condemn to hell a man who has not been baptized in his name having never been informed of Christ, surely Christ will not enforce a rigid line of the age eight upon all his creatures. For God equally created all men unequal.
>That said, setting up a god of your own liking is idolatry, and that’s what Mormonism, Scientology, and millions of other “Christians” have done. Callling it Christianity doesn’t make it so.
Joseph Smith claimed that the Father and Christ were two different personages because he saw them. Not because that’s how he felt it should be.
His experienced trumped what traditional Christianity had taught him. Who was he to argue?
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.