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:

U Said: You leave it out there as if it stands alone.

That's because to anyone not steeped in the Traditions of Men reading the Bible makes that obvious.

U Said: First you overlay the assault interpretation onto 'Persons', totally ignoring the Catholic definition.

Actually, I am quoting form the Catholic encyclopedia...

U Said: Next you say that this is proof of how the doctrine has been changed.

That's because a linguist examining the original texts says that the Apostles indisputably say God and Jesus are distinct persons.

U Said: However the context of the passage will not allow your adulterated interpretation to stand. In the VERY next paragraph it states:

So you knew I was quoting, but said it was my words only?

U Quote: Thus, in the words of the Athanasian Creed: "the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and yet there are not three Gods but one God."

And when he gets through Quoting the Creed, he says:

"This, the Church teaches, is the revelation regarding God's nature which Jesus Christ, the Son of God, came upon earth to deliver to the world: and which she proposes to man as the foundation of her whole dogmatic system. "

So he is saying that the church has been teaching something besides what the apostles said which is exactly what Dan and I have been saying!

U Said: "Thus" - thus what?

Thus the church has changed the meaning of the word "God" with the Nicene Creed, and fulfilled the prophecy of the falling away before Christ comes.

U Said: The preceding paragraph Du. The use of "Persons" is used in the orthodox manner and definition - not the assault as is clearly stated in the fuller citation.

The orthodox structure of english is to contain points in the same paragraph and not bridge them with "Thus" Thus is also typically used in the start of a paragraph as a lead up to show something, "Thusly" and since he ends with the church using this as the foundation of it's dogmatic system.

U Said: The bold paragraph above is 180 degrees off of assault definition.

Yes, and it's 180 degrees off from the Apostles' definition too.

U Said: Finally, you have no clue that to be 'distinct' does not equal being not of common, shared substance.

Excuse me?
distinct

distinguished as not being the same; not identical; separate (sometimes fol. by from): His private and public lives are distinct.
different in nature or quality; dissimilar (sometimes fol. by from): Gold is distinct from iron.
clear to the senses or intellect; plain; unmistakable: The ship appeared as a distinct silhouette.
distinguishing or perceiving clearly: distinct vision.
unquestionably exceptional or notable: a distinct honor.
Archaic. distinctively decorated or adorned.

Distinct has exactly that meaning, it's English, not Greek.

Now you are trying to redefine words to mean what you want them to mean instead of using the "Orthodox" meaning. ROTFLOL!

U Said: Mormonism solves this by calling upon greek myological polytheism and not the bible.

I knew you were going to go there, How about this quote:

In Scripture there is as yet no single term by which the Three Divine Persons are denoted together.

So nowhere in the scriptures is there a word that denotes them as one substance.

It is manifest that a dogma so mysterious presupposes a Divine revelation. When the fact of revelation, understood in its full sense as the speech of God to man, is no longer admitted, the rejection of the doctrine follows as a necessary consequence. For this reason it has no place in the Liberal Protestantism of today. The writers of this school contend that the doctrine of the Trinity, as professed by the Church, is not contained in the New Testament, but that it was first formulated in the second century and received final approbation in the fourth, as the result of the Arian and Macedonian controversies. In view of this assertion it is necessary to consider in some detail the evidence afforded by Holy Scripture. Attempts have been made recently to apply the more extreme theories of comparative religion to the doctrine of the Trinity, and to account for it by an imaginary law of nature compelling men to group the objects of their worship in threes. It seems needless to give more than a reference to these extravagant views, which serious thinkers of every school reject as destitute of foundation.

It's english, and it puts a final nail in the coffin for the trinity as you want to see it, The trinity in the Bible, it's just not there, it was made up by the council under threat of death from a pagan, it was APOSTASY in action, and you and most of the world have fallen for it.

I'll quote the opening salvo again:

The Trinity is the term employed to signify the central doctrine of the Christian religion -- the truth that in the unity of the Godhead there are Three Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, these Three Persons being truly distinct one from another.

The Godhead, it's in the Bible, the Trinity was made up 325 years later. You believe a lie, I'm sorry, but that's the truth.

The whole premise of this thread and many others has been that Momrons don't know what a "Can of worms" will be opened by a Romeny presidency, The Question evangelicals need to ask, is will the backlash be worth it, for they are going to look worse than we will.

I have no control over Mitt and his run for th president, right now, it looks as if he will win the Nomination on Tuesday, if so he will have my vote because his last name is not Clinton. Should McCain prevail, he will have my Vote for the same reason. The only Guy I was excited about Voting for will still win tennessee, but that is about it. You have complete control over your attacks on Mormonism, if you attack, someone will defend. If someone defends, they may find a take that hurts you far more than you wanted to hurt them.

LEt me break this down for you. I can destroy every religion out there from Buddhism to Hinduism to Catholics and everything in between by their own tenants. REligions are not perfect because they are for this world. It you start this "Armageddon" you will regret it because the way I read it, Armageddon as spoken of in the Scriptures is a cake walk for no one, sinners suffer right along side the saints.

Sweet dreams...

I Said: If a temporal being exists, then escapes from time, is it now an eternal being or not? Can you ever point to a time and say it did not exist then? U Said: Delphi User The flawed reasoning resultant from being immersed in Mormonism results in this sort of flawed syllogistic effort.

Actually, I was just asking a question from the basics of temporal mechanics, but it does apply here, you should study science more...

IMHO, true science is merely another form of theology for we are studying this world that God left for us to study and come to know him better.

U Said: You simply do not realize that 'eternity' is a temporal function.

No, Time is a function of eternity, and brief one at that.

U Said: ONLY the God Who created the space-time continuum (which is far more than merely the 4D brane that you perceive, as shown with events recorded in Daniel 5, for instance) is, was, or ever will be 'outside of time' for that which is created by The Word and through The Word is woven into space-time. Because you use fallacious legs to stand up your straw experiment, you cannot expect someone immediately recognizing the fallacy to address the remainder of your twisted, failed thought experiment.

The pomposity with which you post has to get to you some times... No?

It's not even my question, just one of many I have entertained in the name of science. As for your understanding of Time, from your posts here, it's a very simple perspective. U Said: Perhaps it will eventually dawn on you where your delusion originates in the following, based as it is in works mentality woven into the fabric of illogic and fallacious thinking that hallmarks Mormonism:

Such Circular logic deserves a graphic...
$Circular Reasoning works because$ I Said: Stop believing the Lie MHG, come out from the Delusion and worship God in Truth and light. You can't hide from him forever...

U Said: Delphi User The lie of your religion is that someone can 'escape time'.

Do the words thought experiment ring a bell, this is most certainly not doctrine, and I never said it was...

U Said: As created beings, even Mormons doing all that they can do to earn God's Grace in Christ, will never, ever escape time for they are created and will remain created regardless of how much time they exist in ... and they will always exist in some expression of time else they would not be.

While I cannot say for certain you are right, I also cannot say for certain you are wrong, truth is, we don't know if God has that in mind or Not. Are you saying he could not elevate a created being into the eternities? I thought all things were possible with God...

So basically your question assumes facts not in evidence. If you can't produce the evidence, don't complain when I call you a liar : )

For example, almost everyone of you has claimed that Joseph Smith was a polygamist and had 33 wives. Yet when I ask for any contemporaneous evidence, all I get is silence or a changing of the subject. Why is that? Because there is no contemporaneous evidence. The dirty little secret is that Emma ruled the roost and she wouldn't have allowed it.

And yet not a thread goes by where this lie isn't restated and restated, by people that have been called on it. That makes them liars.

Most of the cabal members are lying, trying to promote truth. So the question is where else are they lying? That is the question that I like to ask : ) And the answer is that they are lying to themselves about their own beliefs.

2,355 posted on 01/31/2008 9:08:34 AM CST by LeGrande

[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2294 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

Your problem, ElGee, is that you ALMOST slander EVERYONE, but manage to slip by without penalty by using words like 'almost, most, all'.

THIS tactic avoids calling a SPECIFIC person a liar, yet you manage to smear the WHOLE GROUP with your tar brush.

Then you leap from that accustion to a queation, which you manage to ANSWER yourself!

MY question is: why do you even need us 'antis' to talk with at all?

So basically your question assumes facts not in evidence. If you can't produce the evidence, don't complain when I call you a liar : )

For example, almost everyone of you has claimed that Joseph Smith was a polygamist and had 33 wives. Yet when I ask for any contemporaneous evidence, all I get is silence or a changing of the subject. Why is that? Because there is no contemporaneous evidence. The dirty little secret is that Emma ruled the roost and she wouldn't have allowed it.

And yet not a thread goes by where this lie isn't restated and restated, by people that have been called on it. That makes them liars.

Most of the cabal members are lying, trying to promote truth. So the question is where else are they lying? That is the question that I like to ask : ) And the answer is that they are lying to themselves about their own beliefs.

2,355 posted on 01/31/2008 9:08:34 AM CST by LeGrande

[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2294 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

Mr. Pott; Mr. Black notices that you have some 'splainin' to do!

Here are facts IN evidence to the contrary...

THE
DOCTRINE AND COVENANTS
OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS

SECTION 132

51–57, Emma Smith is counseled (commanded) to be faithful and true; 58–66, Laws governing the plurality of wives are set forth.

51 Verily, I say unto you: A commandment I give unto mine handmaid, Emma Smith, your wife, whom I have given unto you, that she stay herself and partake not of that which I commanded you to offer unto her; for I did it, saith the Lord, to ^aprove you all, as I did Abraham, and that I might require an offering at your hand, by covenant and sacrifice.

52 And let mine handmaid, Emma Smith, ^areceive all those that have been given unto my servant Joseph, and who are virtuous and pure before me; and those who are not pure, and have said they were pure, shall be destroyed, saith the Lord God.

53 For I am the Lord thy God, and ye shall obey my voice; and I give unto my servant Joseph that he shall be made ruler over many things; for he hath been ^afaithful over a few things, and from henceforth I will strengthen him.

54 And I command mine handmaid, Emma Smith, to abide and ^acleave unto my servant Joseph, and to none else. But if she will not abide this commandment she shall be ^bdestroyed, saith the Lord; for I am the Lord thy God, and will destroy her if she abide not in my law.

55 But if she will not abide this commandment, then shall my servant Joseph do all things for her, even as he hath said; and I will bless him and multiply him and give unto him an ^ahundredfold in this world, of fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters, houses and lands, wives and children, and crowns of ^beternal lives in the eternal worlds.

56 And again, verily I say, let mine handmaid ^aforgive my servant Joseph his trespasses; and then shall she be forgiven her trespasses, wherein she has trespassed against me; and I, the Lord thy God, will bless her, and multiply her, and make her heart to ^brejoice.

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.