Evangelicals Against Mitt

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.

I Said: 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?

U Said: Considerable portions of the NT were written in response to false teaching that were trying to enter the church at the time.

They succeeded.

U Said: Many times, these false teachings involved the redefinition of the Person, nature and work of Christ.

I couldn't agree more.

U Said: They thought, like you, that their definition of 'Jesus' was the authentic one.

And like you that yours is. This is my point from earlier posts there is only one way to know what is truth and what is error, "Ask God". I did.

U Said: They were rebuffed by the writers of the NT.

I could not agree more, the Writers of the new testament were trying hard to keep the Greeks and the Hellenists from changing the church, they even prophesied that they would fail. 2nd Thessalonians 2:3

2 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

U Said: Were your standards to be applied, we would need to accept gnostics and other cults into Christianity,

If they have faith on Christ then they are in fact Christian regardless of your labels.

U Said: and I doubt you would welcome them into a Mormon temple (although they would be 'christian' like yourself).

The Momrons Temple is for Mormons, not Christians. this is yet another specious argument.

U Said: Time and time again the Apostles reminded believers to defend their faith against corruption.

Yes, they did.

U Said: The definition of who Christ is was being challenged.

Yes, and that Challenge culminated in the Council of Nicea, go read the record.

U Said: 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.

Now you see exactly what i have been saying, but the fact that you believe a lie does not make you a non Mormon for you believe in him who is mighty to save, even if you misunderstand him.

BTW, you wave the Flag of Orthodoxy like it legitimatizes what you are saying, it is merely consensus, the majority belief is "Orthodox" it's the establishment of truth by voting on it. Jesus was many things one of them was unorthodox, that is one reason the Jews kept trying to stone him.

U Said: 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). Yes, and since the principle Creed he was talking about was the Nicean creed, he was spot on, it is a corruption of Godly knowledge.

U Said: The Mormon founder himself rejected the Christian church as being non-christian (no other way the use of ‘abomination’ can be interpreted).

Actually, Joseph rejected the creed as an abomination, not the people, and the "Church" is not Christianity, it's an earthly construct, like a club or a business. The Business of the Church is to preach the Gospel.

U Said: 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).

This is yet another place where you are wrong, we believe protestants are Christian because, you believe in Jesus Christ. We just have more we can add to your existing faith.

U Said: Thus it makes one wonder why Mormons would want to associate themselves with something defined as an ‘abomination’.

We don't associate ourselves with the Creed that is an abomination, we don not abhor other Christians, but would minister unto them. You seem to have trouble differentiating what Joseph said was an abomination, it was the creeds:
Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight

See? He said the professors were corrupt, but we don't want to be called by their names either, be are not calvanists, or baptists, or even Josephests, we are members of the church of Jesus Christ of Latter day saints, it is you (non members) who have nicknamed us Mormons.

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

I could not agree more, so my Christian Friend MHGinTN, would you be willing to sit down with your Mormon friend DelphiUser sometime when you are in Utah for a friendly meal? I'm buying and no religious talk during dinner.

And here is a chart on the many variations of Smith's 'vision' [Dr. Bennett, Smith's private physician for a time, would get a kick out of this]

Chart on Smith’s vision variations: Various Versions of First Vision Account:

Version Number When Published Brief Description	Age Year	Pillar of light?	# of Person- ages?	God Present?	Jesus Present?	Join What Sect?	Remarks
1. Offical version, written 1838, although first published in 1842; see Ensign January 1985, p. 14	14 1820	Yes	2	Yes. Both Spoke	Yes	Join None	Lucy Mack Smith, Hyrum Smith , Samuel Smith, and Sophronia Smith join the Presbyterian Church - JSH, pp. 49-50, 1981; Times & Seasons, March, April 1842; Ensign January 1985, p. 14
2. Dictated by Joseph Smith, Jr. to F.G. Williams, ca. Nov. 1832	14 or 15	Yes	1	No	Yes. Saw and heard him.	No question, told "None doeth good", sins forgiven	see Joseph Smith's First Vision, Appendix A, page 155f
3. Written by Joseph Smith, Jr., in his own hand in his 1832 diary.	15	Yes	1	No	Yes. Saw him.	No question, sins forgiven, all sects do no good.	see Ensign, December 1984, pp. 24-26
4. Joseph Smith Jr.'s diary of 1835, recorded by Warren Cowdery, November 9, 1835	About 14	Yes	One, then another like unto the first	?	? Saw many angels	No question, sins forgiven, Jesus is the Son.	Joseph Smith's First Vision, Appendix B
5. Letter from Joseph Smith, Jr. to John Wentworth, editor of Chicago Democrat	None	No	2	? They spoke	?	No question	Joseph Smith's First Vision, Appendix D
6. Brigham Young, G.A.Smith, and John Taylor	15	No	1 Saw angel, asked angel	No	No	Join none	See Journal of Discourses, 2:17; 18:239; 13:77, 78; 20:167; 12:333, 334.

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.

Man so many points so small a space, but run-on sentences are like that.

The religion is founded on Jesus Christ, it's his church Joseph Smith was a prophet of Gad called to restore the church.
There is much more than "Joseph's word involved here, virtually everyone who joins has a personal experience with God telling them it's true.
Stories are always told to the audience, for example, I would tell a story differently to children then I would to adults.
Mormons believe in the Godhead which is in the Bible, not in the Trinity which was created as a creed in 325 AD by a pagan Emperor.

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.

God and Christ are always painted exactly the same for Jesus is in the Express image of God, his father.
God and Christ are always above Joseph for that is how he always described it.

The Bible teaches that Satan comes as an angel of light,

Taking a little license with the Bible, are we?

Corinthians 11:14

14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.

The scriptures are talking about Satan sending forth false apostles to mislead and how he can appear as an angel of light for them to help mislead. Nowhere in the Scriptures does it say that Satan can appear in response to a prayer to God, nowhere does it say that God will not himself respond, instead, we are told: Luke 11:9

9 And I say unto you, Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you.

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!]

By putting things together from different places, you can make the Bible say almost anything. I will quote one scripture which I believe you are alluding to here. Luke 8:28

27 And when he went forth to land, there met him out of the city a certain man, which had devils long time, and ware no clothes, neither abode in any house, but in the tombs.
28 When he saw Jesus, he cried out, and fell down before him, and with a loud voice said, What have I to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God most high? I beseech thee, torment me not.
29 (For he had commanded the unclean spirit to come out of the man. For oftentimes it had caught him: and he was kept bound with chains and in fetters; and he brake the bands, and was driven of the devil into the wilderness.)
30 And Jesus asked him, saying, What is thy name? And he said, Legion: because many devils were entered into him.
31 And they besought him that he would not command them to go out into the deep.
32 And there was there an herd of many swine feeding on the mountain: and they besought him that he would suffer them to enter into them. And he suffered them.
33 Then went the devils out of the man, and entered into the swine: and the herd ran violently down a steep place into the lake, and were choked.

So you have some devils who have possessed a man and Jesus has come to cast them out, and they plead for him not to cast them into the "Deep" or the pit and he allows them to go into some swine instead. This is so far from answering a prayer and testifying of Jesus that I am truly embarrassed for you to have made this argument. Please show me one scripture that says Satan can answer a prayer in God's stead, just one.

I will show you a scripture that says to pray, and how to know if the answer is of God and I will not need to "Jump around" to do it.

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 more, but this will do. Lurkers, consider the Misleading nature of MHG's post here He was trying to tell you not to pray about the truth.

I have another scripture form the Book of Mormon: Second Nephi 32:8

8 And now, my beloved brethren, I perceive that ye ponder still in your hearts; and it grieveth me that I must speak concerning this thing. For if ye would hearken unto the Spirit which teacheth a man to pray ye would know that ye must pray; for the evil spirit teacheth not a man to pray, but teacheth him that he must not pray.

I do not ask you to believe me that the Book of Mormon is true. I do not ask you to believe Joseph Smith when he tells you his tale, I ask you to ask of God and see if he will not give you an answer of peace, please, Put our religion to "the test" I testify to you that by the power of the holy spirit of God you can know the truthfulness of all things whether it be my words, or MHGinTN's words, God will never allow Satan to answer a prayer to him, or he would cease to be God for Satan would be more powerful than God and God would not be keeping the promises he made in the Bible, and God always keeps his word.

I further testify to you that I know that Jesus Christ is my savior and that he came to earth suffered and died for my sins, he will not leave me alone for I, unworthy as I am, am loved by him. Jesus loves you too, I plead with you let him into your life, you will not regrets his companionship ever.

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.

They may also ask to meet with the person alone if they feel they are being pressured to leave, but a lawyer? To remove a record from a private institution that is not publicly available? You have to admit, that's pretty extreme, and pretty determined.

I hope everything works out for her.

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.

Well, it sounds like they were not following the rules anyway, so why stay? I think you will agree with me that these are exceptions, and not the rule? right?

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.

Hold the phone while I laugh... Thanks.

The first council of Nicea produced a creed known as the Nicene creed. Later the inerrant Catholic church decides to hold a second council to correct what is by definition correct for it is the doctrine of the church (which makes it correct" to a form that will now be called Correct. do you know what this sounds like?

Do you deny the First council of Nicea happened?

Do you deny the Circumstances surrounding that Council as recorded by the Catholic Church?

If so, who cares what came out of the second council, god does not need Mulligan's.

But let’s look at things from a historical perspective.

I am trying too

Less than three centuries after our Lord’s death,

I'm sorry but if we are going to speak historically, lets get our dates straight AD does not mean after death, it means Anno Domini or essentially the year of Jesus birth.

325 AD is less than three centuries (325 - 33 (Jesus' age at Crucifixion)= 292 years) 381 (381 - 33 = 348 years) so it's more than three hundred years. (Call me a picker if you want...) Christianity was the dominant religion throughout the Roman Empire.

Of course it was, the first council of Nicea resulted in the "Roman Catholic church" the sate church of Rome was now Christianity!

This occurred despite the fact that the Roman emperors did everything in their power to stop it, Christianity prevailed because He wanted it to.

BZZT! Wrong! Go read the First council's proceedings, Constantine's offered to make the Church the state church if they would settle the "heated controversies regarding questions of no practical importanceFirst paragraph about three fourths of the way down.

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.

Do you believe man has Agency or not? Men chose to apostatize. It was prophesied in the Bible: second Thessolonians 2:3

3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

So all we are seeing here is fulfillment of Scripture, surprised?

“My page is indexed by topics, and I would appreciate any suggestions on things to add or enhancements to the discussion, I truly want to help people with it.”

Sure, glad you want to help us. Do you have this updated information (see below) listed on your home page? I’m curious, did you Mormons here have to get neked and touch each other’s bodies during this secret ritual? How did that make you feel and how do you justify this secret ritual no longer being practiced?

~Mormon Church Eliminates Naked Touching from Secret Temple Rituals~

March 5, 2005 (Press Release) — SALT LAKE CITY, UT - The LDS-Mormon Church ended the practice of non-consenting naked touching during a secret temple ordinance called “washing and anointing.” The unannounced, secret change came on January 18, 2005. The LDS-Mormon Church, a religious organization headquartered in Salt Lake City UT with approximately 11 million members and 119 temples worldwide, refuses to apologize or even discuss the exposure of church members to a sexually intimidating ritual for over 170 years.

Mike Norton, a former Mormon who can verify the change, said, “Removing naked touching from the Mormon temple ordinance represents one of the biggest changes ever to Mormon temple doctrine and practice.”

For over 170 years, faithful LDS members have started the temple ordinance by completely undressing and then donning an open poncho called a “shield.” During this temple ordinance, certain parts of the patron’s naked body were touched with water and oil under the shield, including the forehead, chest and thigh. This “washing and anointing” ordinance is necessary to prepare members to receive their new temple garments, which faithful members must then wear as their only form of underwear for the rest of their lives.

One of the most disturbing aspects of the washing and anointing ritual is that first-time temple patrons do not consent in advance to the naked touching. First time temple patrons typically attend “temple preparation classes”, but those informal sessions do not reveal the rituals performed in the temple. Furthermore, Mormons are not allowed to discuss temple rituals outside of the temple. A first-time temple patron only finds out about the naked touching as it occurs.

The last time the Mormon Church made changes to its secret temple ritual in 1990, it eliminated some “penalties” for revealing temple secrets that had temple patrons acting our their own disembowelment and the slitting of their throats. The most recent changes are more significant because it represents a major alteration of gospel ordinances that church leaders have historically declared were unchangeable and required for salvation.

There’s evidence that the move to change this sacred ceremony was done rather quickly. The new “shields” worn by temple patrons are just the old open ones, which have been sewn shut. Temple workers started this week sewing the shields shut, so it does not appear that this was planned in advance. There’s speculation that this was done due to lawsuit against the church - either in connection with recent cases of child molestation in the church, or one directly tied to the naked touching in the washing and anointing temple ordinance. In either case, the Mormon Church refuses to discuss the changes to the secret temple rituals. And individual Mormons are instructed in temple rituals to protect the temple’s secrets with their life if need be.

This article is posted here: http://www.free-press-release.com/news/200503/1110038628.html

More information here: http://www.josephlied.com

Thanks in advance for your input on this.

I could not agree more, the Writers of the new testament were trying hard to keep the Greeks and the Hellenists from changing the church, they even prophesied that they would fail. 2nd Thessalonians 2:3

You understandably misinterpret the passage, the son of perdition has not been revealed yet, therefore it is not related to anything Smith may have seen....context, context.

If they have faith on Christ then they are in fact Christian regardless of your labels.

Just because I place a label on a bottle of grape juice and call it champaign doesn't make it so. They are defined as two different things even though they share one thing in common - grapes.

The Momrons Temple is for Mormons, not Christians. this is yet another specious argument.

Lets see here Mormon = Christian while Christian doesn't = mormon, right, who's being specious.

Yes, and that Challenge culminated in the Council of Nicea, go read the record.

No, the challenge has continued on through the ages. Nicea was in response to one of many challenges and at Nicea the teachings of the apostles was reaffirmed.

Now you see exactly what i have been saying, but the fact that you believe a lie does not make you a non Mormon for you believe in him who is mighty to save, even if you misunderstand him.

What a bizzaro twist, so now I am a mormon? You sound confused.

BTW, you wave the Flag of Orthodoxy like it legitimatizes what you are saying, it is merely consensus, the majority belief is "Orthodox" it's the establishment of truth by voting on it. Jesus was many things one of them was unorthodox, that is one reason the Jews kept trying to stone him.

You are apparently ignorant of its use within this context. It is the core teachings of Christianity common to its primary branches, not to confuse it with the denomination or any minor theological differences. These are the things that one believes as a Christian. Any voting (probably a reference to Nicea) was to confirm the construct of the doctrinal statement, not establish new doctrine but confirm existing doctrine. IIRC, nothing becomes mormon doctrine with out a vote too.

Regarding Jesus' 'unorthodoxy', be clear. You are inferring to the mormon doctrine that Jesus was a being separate from God. However, according to mormonism, one only becomes a god after passing from this physical life having all the boxes checked off (readers digest condensed version). Jesus had yet to go through this process, so he could not legitimally claim godhood like he did. Spirit children cannot become gods if I understand correctly, and this cannot happen until they have been born and given flesh and bone. Althought McConkie says that Jesus some how attained godhood while still in pre-existance, I've been told by mormons here that he cannot be relied upon for doctrinal teaching of lds. According to what I've read Jesus first had to become flesh and then work our his salvation, then eventually after his resurrection he attained godhood, and thus couldn't claim such at the time. To maintain that Jesus was a God in his preexistence, before He eternally progressed,contradicts the LDS fundamental doctrine of Eternal Progression.

Now, having contorted my mind, what does the Bible really say? Jesus claimed: ‘I and the Father are one’, meaning in essence not just purpose (from the Greek construction), a statement the Jews clearly understood because they "took up stones again to stone Him" (Jn. 10:30-31). Jesus allowed Himself to be worshipped, despite the biblical edict that 'only God may be worshipped' (Acts 10:25-26; Rev. 19:10; 22:9). Jesus was not unorthodox here, only lds interpretation.

Actually, Joseph rejected the creed as an abomination, not the people, and the "Church" is not Christianity, it's an earthly construct, like a club or a business.

The context of the passage doesn't lead one to believe that. A Christian is a professor - one who professes - and we are refered to as 'gentiles' in a derrogatory manner as a result.

This is yet another place where you are wrong, we believe protestants are Christian because, you believe in Jesus Christ. We just have more we can add to your existing faith.

Straight up, the additional things are suspect.
1. Teachings of a documented peep stone viewer.
2. Manuscripts (BOM and POGP) with absent MS or contradictory MS support, absence of archaelogical support and highly questionable justifications for changes in the absence of such.
3. Polytheistic, quasi gnostic theology.
Thats just for starters. Nothing there I want to associate with.

we are members of the church of Jesus Christ of Latter day saints, it is you (non members) who have nicknamed us Mormons.

Ummmm better take that up with your church leadership, they are the ones who have adopted the phrase and keep it in the forfront, as well as those here refer to themselves as such.

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.