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.

[Tennessee Nana]

tantiboh said in post # 105

SSorry, but when you denigrate my love for and faith in Christ, I cannot consider that a loving comment.

I am a Christian. I base my life around Him. I do so because of my Mormon faith. Whether you like it or not, that is the truth.”

So I quoted Hebrews 11:1, 6

Then DU said in Post # 197

“Now faith is the substance of things hoped for the evidence of things unseen Hebrews 11:1

But without faith it is impossible to please Him (God), for he that cometh to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of them that diligently seek Him...Hebrews 11:6

What happened to Luke 6:37
37 Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven: “
______________________________________________________

I dont know, DU, did something happen to Luke6:37 ???

I just quoted to Tant the Words of God in Hebrews about what faith is and how God feels about faith...

You need to argue with God...They are His words not mine...

God was the FReeper who posted those words to Tant (and to DU and Nana and everyone else) not me...Jump on Him....

:)

[tortdog]

>God was the FReeper who posted those words

Wow. Who is He voting for?

[Tennessee Nana]

“Who is He voting for?”

Who is God voting for???

Why dont you ask Him ????

[DelphiUser]

The second I was thinking they might get their message across better if they told biblical stories while using dancing vegetables.
B

Hey, my kids like Vegitales...

[DelphiUser]

Since you introduced personal ancedotes, I'll use mine. I would question the exit numbers reported by the LDS Church since I know two people from wards in different states who had to hire attorneys to get their names removed from the LDS membership roles. Neither had attended LDS services for years.

Rules of evidence would preclude the entering of third hand information (OK, fine, I was just having fun)

I find this hard to believe since I have both gone to houses where people have asked to be removed with the form letter for them to sign, and processed the records in the churches computer system as a ward Clerk. (We had to flag everything and sent the documents to Salt lake.)

The computer would then show them as a "Nonmember" and still have Baptism dates etc, but would also show a date of cancellation or some such. Now if they were trying to remove their name completely from the computer, I have no idea how that would be done. I don know of people who claim to have had that done, but not of the actual event. Can you find out what they were trying to have done that required lawyers?
B BTW, the date you last attended is irrelevant.

[DelphiUser]

I Said: "Right, like the Nicene Creed which was created by a pagan emperor to make "Christianity" more palatable to pagans, right." Delphi User

U Said: It has escaped your dead soul

Father forgive him for he knows not what he says.

U Said: what the Nicean Creed says is actually based upon and substantiated in the Bible and by Historical analyses,

Our interpretation has similar, and IMHO more compelling evidence of a similar historical source much from the Catholic Church's own web site, click on my name below and go to "Nicean Creed" for a small sample of the links.

U Said: unlike the fabrications by Joe Smith which are not substantiated by any archaeological or genetic proof,

Actually there is plenty of evidence, but only for those who are honestly seeking the truth, not for those who will dismiss everything as a "Hoax".

U Said: are contrary to and thus contradictory to the teachings of the Bible,

There are places where the Bible contradicts itself, therefore it is impossible to completely agree with something that contradicts itself, then you will deny that it does.

U Said: and are the utterings of a peepstone false prophet who used divination trickery to fool farmers in upstate New York and then to fool God-fearing people who wanted to believe his lies and fabrications so much that they swallowed his excuses for polygamy, fraud, and his degeneracies.

WOW! weren't you the one who just earlier in this thread complained about specious assertions? Ah yes it was in post #191 I'll make it real simple for you MHGinTN, Read 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.

I have read the Book of Mormon, I have prayed about it to God, I received a witness that The Book of Mormon is true, accompanied by a witness that Jesus is the Christ, and is my savior and came in the flesh. Therefore the witness was from God the Bible tells me so.

You want to tell me that my faith in the Book of Mormon is wrong? fine please tell me why God lied to me about it. If you can't, then don't be offended when I listen to God and not you.

[HungarianGypsy]

Hey, my kids like Vegitales...

So do I.

[MHGinTN]

It is not surprising that you would frame your plea in this flawed way ... you don't see the fallacy woven into it!
"You want to tell me that my faith in the Book of Mormon is wrong? fine please tell me why God lied to me about it."

I would tell you, yet again, that I do not believe God told you anything which you could take as a stamp of approval for the fabricated story of Joe Smith, peepstone prophet. Up your meds, you're becoming emotional and thus irrational.

[Godzilla]

It's black and white what Jesus says makes you a Christian (not necessarily a good Christian, but a Christian), where does anyone get off deciding they can tell Jesus who he will call his own?

Considerable portions of the NT were written in response to false teaching that were trying to enter the church at the time. Many times, these false teachings involved the redefinition of the Person, nature and work of Christ. They thought, like you, that their definition of 'Jesus' was the authentic one. They were rebuffed by the writers of the NT. Were your standards to be applied, we would need to accept gnostics and other cults into Christianity, and I doubt you would welcome them into a mormon temple (although they would be 'christian' like yourself). Time and time again the Apostles reminded believers to defend their faith against corruption. The definition of who Christ is was being challenged.

In these threads we’ve seen how challenges and clarification of these definitions and the contrasts to orthodox Christian doctrine and definitions somehow quickly morph into ‘bigots’ and ‘hate’ speech. But here is the true black and white issue – the definition of the ‘christ’ of Mormonism and that of orthodox Christianity are mutually exclusive and cannot be reconciled. Either one is true, or the other, but they cannot co-exist as equals.

Here is another black and white issue – the founder of Mormonism, Joseph Smith, claimed that “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.”( Joseph Smith—History 1:19). The mormon founder himself rejected the Christian church as being non-christian (no other way the use of ‘abomination’ can be interpreted). Therefore, it would be logical to assume that Christians are not ‘Christians’ in the eyes of Mormonism because our creeds and doctrines are wrong (which would include the Person, nature and work of Christ). Thus it makes one wonder why mormons would want to associate themselves with something defined as an ‘abomination’.

The crux of this issue is doctrinal and doctrine is based upon definitions. Name calling will not change a thing.

[MHGinTN]

For those just stumbling upon this exchange history betwee us, it is important to note that your entire religion is founded upon the claim by Smith (though he retold the tale in more than one way) that he was encountered in a grove of trees by God the father in a body and Jesus in a body (two separet bodies), glowing before him. And Mormon painters have depicted this encounter in varying ways, usually as two glowing figures, one of an oldish looking man and the other a younger man, both glowing and suspended in the air before a fourteen year old boy. The Bible teaches that Satan comes as an angel of light, that Satan himself knows and will relate that Jesus is the Messiah and Savior, and that Jesus is the only way for Salvation. Of course, these from Satan are at different times and in different settings and always given as a means to fool the listener so the listener swallows a dose of lies from the father of lies. [One scripture actually has a demon saying this affirmation to Jesus to plead not to be sent to Hell immediately!]

[DelphiUser]

I and my Father are one. (John 10:30, KJV) Yes, but there are so many meanings for the word one, if this were all we had to go on it would be difficult to know which one he meant, fortunately, he did not leave us with that one scripture, but in John 17:22 he said "And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:"

Jesus himself made an analogy of his oneness with the Father and the oneness the disciples were to have. I could make, much fun of the disciples joining together into some Giant super apostle, however that is not what happened, they became of the same heart might mind and strength, this is what Jesus means by I and my father are one, one in heart, one in might, one in mind, one in strength. Truly, Jesus and his father are one, the questions is, did we understand this translated and retranslated scripture correctly.

I have in the past had a discussion with others about the translations the Bible has gone through and I hold out that a translation involves some measure of interpretation, as proof, I have challenged anyone to take a web page, like today's MSN page for example and run it through Google's Translation page translate it into say Chinese, then back to English, hand it to someone who has not seen the original MSN page, to read, laughter to follow. The fact that the Bible makes any sense what so ever is nothing short of a modern miracle to me.

The fact that many in the crowd wanted to stone the Lord for this statement indicates that He very clearly meant what he said.

Either interpretation would have gotten him stoned.

And He clarifies it again here:
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. (Matthew 28:19, KJV)

Yes, he lists three personages, not me myself and I.

The difference in what you read and what I read is not in the words, it is in what we have been taught about reality, it is in our indoctrination. Indoctrination is not necessarily a bad thing, Parents indoctrinate their children (at least they are supposed to) all Churches indoctrinate members, schools indoctrinate students TV shows, movies, news broadcasts, etc. Not all of it is good, not all of it is bad, differing levels of Good and bag for episodes, classes, etc. the trick is to be aware of what you have accepted without questioning, and not reject it, but just know that it is supposition at this point, then you can go forward and when challenged, know what you know, and know what you assume.

the things that are worthwhile in life are often the hardest things to do. Most in this world who have been indoctrinated in a religion are unaware of their indoctrination. One of the things that sets people apart who join the Mormon church is the awareness they tend to have of both the indoctrination the had, and the indoctrination they are accepting as Mormons. Once you can see the things you have taken for granted in your religion for the indoctrination that it is you will be in a position to embrace your religion more fully, or choose to go to some thing better.

Notice here that it DOES NOT say names, it says name, this indicates that They are One.

I am going to the Store for Bob and George and Mike, want anything?

Your exercise in semantics breaks down in the real world.

Another myth, the Nicene Creed was approved in 381 A.D., by this time Christianity was already the dominant religion in the Roman Empire and the Empire itself was in chaos anyway. In other words, the Church was far more dominant than the weakened Empire. However, aside from its clear illustration of the Trinity, what exactly do you disagree with in the Nicene Creed.

You see, this is exactly what i am talking about, how do you know this? It has been taught to you by those you accepted to be in "Authority". Unfortunately for you, the actual records kept by Constantine's record keeper are published on the Web by the Catholic church in their encyclopedia, Here. Let me give you some Quotes from that link:

1. Title "The First Council of Nicaea"
2. The year 325 is accepted without hesitation as that of the First Council of Nicaea (so you even had the date wrong.)
3. The Emperor (still a pagan) was only interested in solidifying the Roman Empire recently reunited. "Finally Constantine, having conquered Licinius and become sole emperor, concerned himself with the re-establishment of religious peace as well as of civil order. He addressed letters to St. Alexander and to Arius deprecating these heated controversies regarding questions of no practical importance, and advising the adversaries to agree without delay.
4. The Dispute was between Arianism (A belief that God and Christ are separate entities who make up the Godhead) and Trinitarianism (A belief that God and Christ are of the Same substance.)
5. This attempt at quick reconciliation failed and a council was called.
6. "The emperor himself, in very respectful letters, begged the bishops of every country to come promptly to Nicaea."
7. The Council was run By Constantine (who is still a pagan sun worshiper)
8. "The emperor began by making the bishops understand that they had a greater and better business in hand than personal quarrels and interminable recriminations. Nevertheless, he had to submit to the infliction of hearing the last words of debates which had been going on previous to his arrival."
9. The Council finally mostly agreed upon the following

   We believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten of the Father, that is, of the substance [ek tes ousias] of the Father, God of God, light of light, true God of true God, begotten not made, of the same substance with the Father [homoousion to patri], through whom all things were made both in heaven and on earth; who for us men and our salvation descended, was incarnate, and was made man, suffered and rose again the third day, ascended into heaven and cometh to judge the living and the dead. And in the Holy Ghost. Those who say: There was a time when He was not, and He was not before He was begotten; and that He was made our of nothing (ex ouk onton); or who maintain that He is of another hypostasis or another substance [than the Father], or that the Son of God is created, or mutable, or subject to change, [them] the Catholic Church anathematizes.

10. Of the same substance is the problem, for if God is of the same substance as Jesus then God could not have a physical reality, the greeks who were the majority believe that nothing physical could be perfect (that was their indoctrination, from Greek Hellinistic paganisem from which they or their fore fathers had been converted.)
11. There were five bishops who refused to accept this bastardisation of what they believed, other accounts speak of the first two being put to the sword, the third changing his mind this record says "The adhesion was general and enthusiastic. All the bishops save five declared themselves ready to subscribe to this formula, convince that it contained the ancient faith of the Apostolic Church. The opponents were soon reduced to two" The "Two" were too famous to just kill, so they were exiled.

This is the Council of Nicea as recorded at the link I gave Above and I will repeat it Here

NewAdvent. org is registered to the Catholic Church in America, this is an English translation of a document originally written in Latin, this is their record, not mine, Go read learn. Then you will understand the only point I am trying to make with this is we have the support of history to claim what we claim to be a restoration, we have much more to back up our position with, if you really want to know, ask, however, I really don't want to do this in open forum, as there will undoubtedly be many posting in response to me "Attacking" their faith. I am not attacking anyone's faith I am supporting my own with Documents people on this thread are saying don't exist.

The important thing is that Jesus is the Christ and that we all have faith on him.

God be with you in your studies.

[DelphiUser]

"God was the FReeper who posted those words"

Wow. Who is He voting for?

ROTFLOL!

[CommerceComet]

I'm not in regular contact with either of these people but I'll try to find out. I know one of them told me that she wouldn't be released until she met with the leaders of the ward (sorry, I don't remember their exact titles). She refused since she had already met with them several times and felt that it was just a stalling technique. I don't know if she was asking to have the record of her baptism expunged or not but she might have been.

The other person was trying to become a formal member of an evangelical church and the pastor of the church insisted that the man present documentation that he had left the LDS church. The ward or stake (I'm not sure) refused, probably because the man's father was very influential in the local LDS Church and the family was upset about the son leaving, claiming he had been brainwashed by some campus ministers. The ward finally relented when the son's attorney called. Ironically, the family which fought this so hard has since left the LDS Church and has joined the evangelical church.

[DelphiUser]

I dont know, DU, did something happen to Luke6:37

Nothing, It's still there, and I still am being Judeged by you, so?

I just quoted to Tant the Words of God in Hebrews about what faith is and how God feels about faith...

It's not the quotations that were the problem, it was all the editorializing in between...

You need to argue with God...They are His words not mine...

Rule # 1 in religion, never argue with God (He knows everything...)

Rule # 2 Whatever FReeper you argue with will think he is God...

God was the FReeper who posted those words to Tant (and to DU and Nana and everyone else) not me...Jump on Him....

I saw your handle, wait does that mean you think... Never mind besides you probably think you know what I was going to say anyway.

:)

Oh yeah Well >:^P </humor>

[DelphiUser]

Hey, my kids like Vegitales...

So do I.

Wait, did we actually agree on something?

I won't tell if you don't...

[DelphiUser]

It is not surprising that you would frame your plea in this flawed way ... you don't see the fallacy woven into it!

I would ask you to explain it, but then you follow with this

I would tell you, yet again, that I do not believe God told you anything which you could take as a stamp of approval for the fabricated story of Joe Smith, peepstone prophet. Up your meds, you're becoming emotional and thus irrational.

So, your argument is that since you don't believe me, I should change in spite of what I experienced?

I think you are the one having a pharmocutiacal experience that did not even make sense.

[MHGinTN]

Youtube of Smith’s different accounts for his ‘first vision’:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J86PXBEzx7A&feature=related

[tortdog]

That was an excellent post.

[MHGinTN]

And here's a fun video about the peepstone 'prophet':

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4RPpWfvVNs&feature=related

[wagglebee]

Here is where your error starts, the creed put forth at the First Nicean Council IS NOT the Nicene Creed. The Nicene Creed was approved at the Council of Constantinople in 381.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11049a.htm

But let’s look at things from a historical perspective. Less than three centuries after our Lord’s death, Christianity was the dominant religion throughout the Roman Empire. This occurred despite the fact that the Roman emporers did everything in their power to stop it, Christianity prevailed because He wanted it to.

Now, by Joseph Smith’s account of things, the Lord also brought Christianity to America. If this is true, it must mean that He DID NOT want it to prevail here, otherwise when Columbus came ashore he would have been met by Christians.