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 ...
Didn't I see a post where LL said the LDS church or one of its many tentacles was a client?
There's gold in THEM thar hills!
So you’re saying your church will baptize seven-year-old children?
They will confer the priesthood upon eleven year old boys?
Really?
In fact, sometimes Christ refused to answer “gotcha” questions. Of course, some of our good “Christian” posters would probably call that “spin.”
I have explained it, and you fail to address my points. You continue to restate a position which has been addressed as error. If you want to continue to spam your point without moving the discussion forward, do so with someone else.
Let me guess. You seem to impugn LL for possibly having the LDS Church as a client (mining gold).
Do you believe that landscapers who work for the Baptist Church are also “mining gold”?
Are you consistent in condemning all who provided services to a church?
That is funny coming from someone who makes his bed with the dogs. Do you have fleas?
OK, you've been postin' up & down on the so-called "innocence" of children. Now do ya wanna explain how it is that birthday boy or birthday girl 8-year-olds need to be baptized to have their sins in remission if they're so innocent? Wanna tell us what bad things these alleged innocent recent 6 & 7 yr olds did to have something done that brings a result comparable to the word use for cancer u-turns? (Or is the "sin cancer" hidden in their 8 year-old birthday cakes and the "sin doctors" are just protecting the birthday industry?)
Well lets start with the LDS Second Article of Faith. "We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam's transgression." (I am quoting this stuff from childhood memory so if I am off, it is early onset of dementia : ) )
Mormons believe that everyone will die because of what transpired in the Garden but because of Christ all men (children and women too :) ) will be resurrected. Basically everyone starts with a clean slate, innocent and pure. If they die in that state their eternal life is ensured, but as you know well, no one stays innocent and pure for long. And that is where Christs second gift the comes into play. Which leads us to the Third and Fourth Articles of Faith.
"We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel."
"We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost."
It is important to note the order, Faith then Repentance. Now if I may be so bold I would like to interject understanding in between those two. Faith to Understanding to Repentance leads to more Faith, Understanding and Repentance. That cycle is the basis of the the Mormon faith.
So back to little children, Baptism is not so much to wash away their sins as it is the beginning of the teaching process. Faith, understanding, repentance, a process they will repeat for the rest of their lives. For Mormons, when you are baptized is not important (they have baptism for the dead, so that everyone is included) what is important is the process, Faith in Christ, Understanding and Repentance.
To a Mormon, the idea that a child is born in sin and would Burn in Hell because of Adams transgression, is an evil and sick perversion of Gods teachings. Maybe this is where your bitterness comes from, you know deep down inside that what you believe is an evil perversion of Gods teachings.
You know, it’s too bad these men didn’t use seven year old girls. Children are innocent you know, and so they can’t account for their own sins, but a fouteen year old? They’re prime! Just ask old Joe Smith....
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/01/25/national/main3753682.shtml
Don't you think the Book of Mormon scriptures made your point much better than the Bible scriptures? Interesting isn't it?
You choose to refer to Joseph Smith as “Joe Smith.” Why?
You tear down Joseph Smith for being sealed to a 14-year old girl, and point to an instance in which a man paid a 14-year old girl for sex. What is the link?
Is it that you are unaware that it was not uncommon for 14-year old girls to marry in the 1800s? (Try looking at familysearch.org)
Or do you not recognize that even today many states permit marriage of a 14-year old girl, including:
* Alabama
* Alaska
* Arizona
* Arkansas
* California
I could go on with almost all the other states, but I think I’ve made my point. And I doubt that your post was innocent at all, preferring to try to link prostitution of children with legal marriage to a 14-year old that you find absurd (though commonly engaged in during the 1800s).
Poor form.
>I can’t find you on the internet. Woman attorney, living in Utah County, very successful, and a writer?
Here’s a thought. Her last name might not be “lawyer.” And her first name probably doesn’t start with “lady.”
Yes it was might poor form for JoeSmyth to try to extort a 14 year-old girl to become one of his harem. Poor form indeed.
Oh and hey, it was “legal” in Utah when I became married for a thirteen year old girl to be married.....EVEN in the Temple of the Laaaard.
Opposing Romney for political reasons is fine. It is hard, however, to make the case that he is more liberal than Rudy or McCain, or more of a flip flopper that Huckabee.
I am really disappointed at the religious bigotry on display in the Republican party. Up until this election cycle I had always believed that the MSM caricature of the "religious right" was a myth.
Now...let's see how much LD$, Inc is putting up.
Not just what church members are offering...in goods, services, time, money.
You can show me...a lot of stuff. And THATS GREAT!! But...as I've asked over and over....it's the PERCENTAGE that really, really counts...now doesn't it?
When LD$, Inc. is raking in MULTIPLE BILLIONS and giving away a few million....and building malls, restaurants, motels, hotels, buying ranches, etc..etc...
IT APPEARS LIKE "Symbolism before Substance" to me...and millions of others. It's a nice trick...though.
Open the books. Let the light shine on their secrecy.
I would suppose a bright young bulb...such as yourself would want that. Might make believers out of us "gentiles." Who knows where the mormon church might go, and do then?
I know it, and you know it...something fishy going on for decades,,,within your leadership...and it's rooted in the mormon churches love of money.
You flunked reading comp...I guess.
I can explain it to you again...and apparently again..but I can't make you understand it.
fwiw-
Sorry. It’s exactly the families who think this who wind up with additional troubles down the road. Most parents I know have ingrained in kids much earlier many aspects of right from wrong.
Therefore you are accountable.
Do you really believe that a 4 to 7 yo who’s either whining or throwing a tantrum or engaging in reckless behavior can’t be held accountable for that?
Therefore, you need to be baptized and learn how to repent.
Did you deliberately reverse the order of the D&C passage I cited (& what’s in the order in the Bible)? The order is first repent & then be baptized.
Baptism’s not necessarily about absolution; for children it’s more about prevention and setting them on the right path.
Well, it’s nice to know your philosophy of Baptism. (The only problem is that it doesn’t reconcile with the D&C passage I cited, which tells very specifically a key purpose of baptism!: "And their children shall be baptized FOR..." ["for" is a purpose word] "...THE REMISSION OF SINS..." Now when does this occur? "...when eight years old..." (D&C 68:27)
Oh, and you should look up the word “remission.” Here, I’ll help: http://m-w.com/dictionary/remission http://m-w.com/dictionary/remit
Yes, thanks for reinforcing my point: I clicked on the 2nd one, here’s what it says: to release from the guilt or penalty of (and then it gives as an example, remit sins)
In our theology, children who die before the age of accountability are innocent in Christ. Unlike what some other Christian denominations preach, we do not believe that they are damned. I thought we’d explained all this to you already?
Well, the problem is that both D&C passages I cited don’t align with your “theology”
They won't cast THOSE pearls before us swine. You can count on it!
>I am really disappointed at the religious bigotry on display in the Republican party. Up until this election cycle I had always believed that the MSM caricature of the “religious right” was a myth.
You and me both. I used to view the Demos as having a lot of intolerance in the party. I still do, in many things. But one thing they don’t seem to tolerate is religious bigotry in their ranks. I don’t see how a “good” Catholic, Baptist, Methodist, etc. could vote Democrat, but they do.
The GOP gives me more of what I want: less government, more federalism, conservative social values. However, this election cycle has pointed out what my Demo fans hate about the GOP - a very vocal anti-tolerant and bigoted group within it. But I think that most of the GOP is not like that, and is NOT taking kindly to the preaching of these bigots.
>When LD$, Inc. is raking in MULTIPLE BILLIONS and giving away a few million
Where do you get these numbers from?
Have you compared them with other churches?
Have you ever tried reasoning with a four-year old on why it’s better to give up the candy to the child who does not have it than to keep it for yourself?
How about reasoning with a four-year old on the necessity of repentance, about what death and the resurrection mean, and about what “eternal” is?
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.