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.

[MHGinTN]

"I might append that this is a lifelong process, and will not be completed while we are in this life." tantiboh Have you been born again yet? Do you know that you are in Christ? Do you know the salient promise of God for believers in Christ, faithers in Christ, those whom trust Jesus as (as in right now) their Savior? Are you adding to Grace you do not yet believe has been accounted for you so you are doing all that you can do? Your insistence on 'in addition to' shows where your agenda is headed.

Answer the above questions for yourself, I really haven't the desire to continue with your game. You are trying to pretend you do not comprehend what I've written to you so I won't waste further words on you. Perhaps someone else will have pity on you and indulge your demonic inspirations.

[SkyPilot]

Wonderful post (#249).

[colorcountry]

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.

Delphi, you have claimed several times that you do not live in Utah, and in fact live in the midwest. Do you in fact live in Utah?

[tortdog]

What church do you go to, Nana? Why are you hiding?

Calling another person’s religion a “cult” says nothing. It’s name calling and evidence of bigotry. The early Christians were a “cult” (using your terms). That doesn’t mean that Christ was wrong, now, does it.

Cult - where a 13 million body of religion is considered small.

[tortdog]

The accepted version of the Bible by the LDS Church is the King James Version. You err.

[wagglebee]

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?

I am not denying that the First Nicene Council happened, what I am saying is that the Nicene Creed was approved at a different council.

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.

I NEVER said that these councils were less than three centuries after Christ's death, I said that Christianity was the dominant religion less than three centuries after the Lord's death. There is a huge difference, Christianity's dominance was not established by any council.

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

There is no such thing as the Roman Catholic Church and there never has been. There is the Catholic Church, within it the most common rite in the West is the Latin Rite and many adherents are called Roman Catholics, but there is no Roman Catholic Church. So, unless you want people to start referring to you as an adherent of "Joseph Smithism" you need to get your terms straight.

I do note that you completely avoided the question of why, if Christ was in America and preaching to the Indians, His message was not received by them.

[tantiboh]

MHG, because you accused me of misrepresenting your beliefs, I have repeatedly asked you to clarify your beliefs for me. You have done precisely what you regularly accuse Mormons of doing - you have refused to provide a clear answer to a simple question, instead dancing around it with various explanations and expositions of dogma and philosophy.

The best answer I can muddle out of what you have given me is that you believe that, indeed, we are -not- expected to strive to be obedient to God’s commandments in order to be saved.

The door is still open for you to clarify this, because I’m still uncertain what the answer is. Assuming I’m right, however:

1.) You before accused me of misrepresenting your beliefs by pointing out that this was what you actually believed. How dare you? You have accused me falsely of doing you harm by not being accurate, when it seems I was accurate the whole time. I don’t expect you will see the need to repent of this false witness, since works do not appear to be necessary to your salvation.

2.) I disagree vehemently with the doctrine. All you have to do is profess belief in Christ? You don’t actually have to -strive- to follow Him to be saved? It’s alright to go through life and sin a little here and there, not seeking repentance; it seems God will justify you in the end merely for your faith in Christ. You argue that obedience to Christ comes automatically with the indwelling of the Spirit, yet we’re not -really- expected to -do- what Christ -tells- us to do. Commandments are now guidelines, it seems. As long as you have faith in Christ, we see, they are optional. Indeed, the theological “easy button” appears to be a most appropriate analogy.

3.) It is remarkable to me that you have refused to directly answer the question. Do you sense that you’ve painted yourself into a logical corner? Do you sense that with one simple question, I’ve triumphed over you in this discussion? Do you sense that your only recourse is to run and hide? Why can you not answer this fundamental question directly? Why do you insist on obfuscating? And now, when I ask you for clarity, you turn around and accuse me of harboring “demonic inspirations?” How pathetically hypocritical of you, MHG. It’s pedantic sophistry, and does not speak well of your theological philosophies that they cannot stand the harsh light of day.

~”Have you been born again yet? Do you know that you are in Christ?”~

Yes.
Yes. I strive to remain so.
I’m pleased that your penchant for refusing direct answers to simple questions is not catching.

You have several times shared this conversation with your own friends. I shall now take the liberty of doing the same.

See posts 163, 164, 167, 169, 191, 242, 247, 248, 249, 253, 257, 260, and 261 to review this whole misbegotten conversation. It’s a fascinating glimpse into the mind and means of this particular opponent. The conversation appears over, however; further replies are probably not called for.

[sevenbak]

Thanks for the ping, but my life is not my own right now and I have no time to get into another Mormon bash discussion. Keep up the good fight. I only leave you with my new tag line in passing...

[Saundra Duffy]

When I used to be a Southern Baptist, I was told “once saved, always saved” and it never made sense to me. Not only that but folks would go to the alter Sunday after Sunday getting saved over and over again. It’s like they didn’t get it the first time and were never sure.

The pentecostals believe in “holiness” living; they don’t believe “once saved, always saved”. They believe you need to actually keep the Commandments and try to be holy. They also believe that speaking in tongues is a manifestation of being saved.

By the way, when I was a Southern Baptist, I was told that speaking in tongues was from the devil.

So there you have it.

I love the LDS Church. I am no longer confused and I feel safe.

CTR, brothers and sisters.

[restornu]

I feel you frustration but talking to many here is like talking to the man behind the curtain.

[DelphiUser]

Could you define “witness” for me? And locate the term in the Bible, if you will. (Hubby and I are having a discussion semi-sort of inspired by several posts.)

65 instances in the New testament KJV where the word witness is used.

Dictionary definitions for the word witness

In evangelical use "to "Witness" to someone is specifically to bear witness of Jesus Christ as your savior.

That was the easy part.

The most Famous witnessing event in the Bible is while on the road to Emmaus, some of the disciples meet the resurrected lord, and their hearts burn within them.

Many assume this burning in the bosom is the only witness that Momrons believe in this is not true, witnesses from God can be as individual as the people receiving the witness and will be exactly what you need, even if you don't think so at the time. Joseph saw God the father and Jesus Christ just as Stephen did.

I have seen witnesses come from completely unexpected sources, like people stopping and saying something that is completely out of character for them, but it answered a prayer, later the person who stopped does not even remember doing it.

My personal witness is very special to me and I know if I share it here it will just be made fun of. Suffice it to say that I did not have a burning in my bosom, and what I was told was a very specific answer to a very specific prayer, and actually a little humorous (God really does have a sense of humor). I have found that the more specific you are in your prayers, the more specific God will be in his answers, but that's just my experience, and not a doctrinal point. My witness was so specific it had to come from someone with a knowledge of my questions (which Satan would not have), and it contained both a witness of the Book of Mormon and of Jesus Christ (thus fulfilling the requirements found in first john 4:2 to be authenticated as a message from God) I did not even know the requirements at the time, but found them later. Thus I know that my witness, maybe I should say my "first witness" was of God. There have been many others. As a missionary, I was called to go to Taiwan, Mandarin Chinese speaking, I had taken French German and Spanish in high school and after trying all three, the teachers all got together to tell me that language was NOT my thing. I learned Chinese at a miraculous rate, was fluent in three months and found that if I did not know how to say something, I could just open my mouth and the right words would come out anyway. Several times I had to "go home" and look up what I had said to know how to answer a question the next time. I have blessed the sick and seen miraculous healings, I have seen visions, and been guided to souls who were praying for his gospel, my heart is full of the gratitude that comes from being blessed beyond all measure of any imaginings of worthiness that I might have had to the point where it's embarrassing. I have received more witnesses of the truthfulness of the Gospel than I could possibly recount.

I hope this has helped.

I would bear my testimony to you (another meaning of Witness) that Jesus is the Christ that he died for my sins and is the author of all salvation. If you have not yet cast your burdens on the lord I would exhort you to do so with all haste that you may bear a song away. I also Testify that the Book of Mormon is the word of God and that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God.

May god bless and keep you, may his knowledge and mercy distill upon you as the dews of heaven, and please ask me any other questions you feel to ask.

Amen.

[greyfoxx39]

I love the LDS Church. I am no longer confused and I feel safe.

I love my Savior, Jesus Christ. I am no longer confused and I feel safe.

[restornu]

Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWyCCJ6B2WE

[Old Mountain man]

ROFLOL. All the antimormons need is a rabies vaccination and they will be fine!

Happy new year to all!

[Tennessee Nana]

“I might append that this is a lifelong process, and will not be completed while we are in this life.”

Whatever you think you are suppose to be completing had better be completed while you are “in this life” because it is all the life and time you get..

Once you are dead, there will be no “works” to complete.

“As it is appointed unto man once to die, and afterwards the judgement” Hebrews 9:27

Jesus the Righteous will judge us only up to the point of death...

There is no sin in Heaven, so there is nothing to be judged on there ..

When you die you will either go to Heaven or to Hell...

Your long dead family members died and either went to Heaven or Hell....There’s no getting out of either...

At the point of death to your earthly body it is all over for you...you either go to Hell for rejecting Jesus...or if you are saved, you go to Heaven and get to worship Jesus, the Lamb of God, around the throne of God, forever...

No wonder it’s known as Paradise...I can think of no other thing I would like to do for eternity than hang out with Jesus, my Lord and Savior..

Soimetimes I think I’m teaching two year olds, and then I remember that a 2 yo is brighter, and gets it the first time...

[DelphiUser]

Frustration? Bwahahaha, not with your ilk!

Then I guess you rally don't care if you "Save" me or not.

I Said: "Wow! one of us is over reaching, and it's not me."

U Said: Delphi User Well, since the BofM contains contradictions to the Bible, it cannot be entirely true

Did you read my entire post, or just cherry pick the answers you want?

I guess at least you are consistent. God testifies of Truth in the bible even though in fact, it contradicts itself. So, if God can still testify of the Bible, then he can testify of the Book of Mormon While clarifying the Bible.

MHG, your logic seems to be "The book of Mormon is wrong, so any thing that supports that conclusion is Good!" That reminds me so much of the Global worming "religion" that it makes me laugh.

U Said: so you in fact over reached when you asked God to verify for you that it was true.

God is not limited by my inability to ask a good question. God can do anything he wants even testify of part of a book if only part is true.

Luke 18:27

27 And he said, The things which are impossible with men are possible with God.

If you believe the Bible, then stop this cockamamie "God can't do that" line of reasoning, you look silly.

U Said: You have been given over to your delusions.

If so, it is a delusion from God, and what if I am found a false witness of God is my lot so bad that in this life I had a hope in Christ? I will be in some very good company.

U Said: In that light, see how doing all that you can do to obtain Salvation works out for you.

OK, this is getting tiresome, but you have given me an Idea I can use for my page here. There are four possible combinations of Works and Grace.

1. Grace required, no works required.
2. Grace and works Both required.
3. No grace required, works required
4. neither Grace or Works are required.

If the Bible is true, and there is even one scripture that says that Grace is required, then it is.
If the Bible is true and there is even one scripture that says that Works are required, then it is.
If there are no such scriptures than neither are required.
If there are scriptures requiring both, then both are required.
Hmm.

Lets look at the Bible.

1. Ephesians 2:8 8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
2. James 1:22 22 But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves.

Are there any that list Both?

3. James 2:20 20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?

OK, so if you actually believe the whole Bible, not just cherry picked scriptures then you need faith and works.

A works only church would have only half the answer.

A grace only church would have only half the answer.

The LDS church believes you need both Faith and Works.

U Said: ... Your twisted reasoning is amusing though.

I will be happy to allow the lurkers to decide who is twisting and who is being straight forward. As a matter of fact, I suggest they pray about it. (you know to God to know truth from error...)

MHG, May God bless you and keep you and teach you his ways, amen.

Tantiboh, What do you think of the possibility matrix for Grace and works?

[DelphiUser]

Delphi, you have claimed several times that you do not live in Utah, and in fact live in the midwest. Do you in fact live in Utah?

Sorry for any confusion, I grew up in the midwest, and in fact we moved on average once every two years so nailing me to one spot in the midwest would be hard to do. I now live in American Fork Utah.

Again, sorry for any confusion.

[colorcountry]

Oh, really. Interesting.

[DelphiUser]

I Said: 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?

U Said: I am not denying that the First Nicene Council happened, what I am saying is that the Nicene Creed was approved at a different council.

OK, do you deny that a creed came from the First council at Nicea?

The records on new advent.org. This is the creed that was produced in that council:

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.

Are you denying that this, the first creed was commonly referred to as the Nicene creed (because they knew there would be another one later?) or was it not in fact referred to as "the Nicean Creed" until the second council replaced it with a new creed.

U Said: I NEVER said that these councils were less than three centuries after Christ's death, I said that Christianity was the dominant religion less than three centuries after the Lord's death. There is a huge difference, Christianity's dominance was not established by any council.

OK, I thought we were talking about the Councils at Nicea and your language was insufficiently clear to convey your meaning to me. I apologize for correcting you.

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

U Said: There is no such thing as the Roman Catholic Church and there never has been.

Somebody had better tell them The Roman Catholic church on Wikipedia, I have heard many "Catholics" call themselves "Roman Catholics", and it's not exactly an uncommon phrase, so I think you need to prove that one, good luck.

U Said: There is the Catholic Church, within it the most common rite in the West is the Latin Rite and many adherents are called Roman Catholics, but there is no Roman Catholic Church.

So there are Roman Catholics, but not Roman Catholic church, got it. (chuckle)

U Said: So, unless you want people to start referring to you as an adherent of "Joseph Smithism" you need to get your terms straight.

I have been so referred to on this thread, we are also called Momrons when we prefer LDS. your point is?

U Said: I do note that you completely avoided the question of why, if Christ was in America and preaching to the Indians, His message was not received by them.

They did, the Book of Mormon documents an extremely righteous period lasting over four hundred years, however, the Church here had an apostasy too, so by the time Columbus arrived, there were only remnants of Christianity left.

[DelphiUser]

Your long dead family members died and either went to Heaven or Hell....There’s no getting out of either...

Please explain this scripture in the light of your statement.

Acts 2:25-29

25 For David speaketh concerning him, I foresaw the Lord always before my face, for he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved:
26 Therefore did my heart rejoice, and my tongue was glad; moreover also my flesh shall rest in hope:
27 Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.
28 Thou hast made known to me the ways of life; thou shalt make me full of joy with thy countenance.
29 Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day.
30 Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;
31 He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.

I await with interest, your explanation.

Soimetimes I think I’m teaching two year olds, and then I remember that a 2 yo is brighter, and gets it the first time...

I know exactly what you mean.