Bachmann, Cain won't say Romney is a Christian

Dalls News ^ | Oct 9, 2011 | Wayne Slater

[Clairity]

Herman Cain and Michele Bachmann dodged questions Sunday whether Romney is a Christian. The issue arose during the just-completed Values Voters Summit in Washington, exposing tensions among evangelicals over Romney's religious faith, as we reported today. Dallas Baptist pastor Robert Jeffress kicked things off by endorsing Rick Perry and declaring that Mormonism is a cult and Romney is not a Christian.

Speakers went back and forth on the issue -- and Romney himself weighed in, denouncing "poisonous speech" that doesn't help the nominating process. Asked about Jeffress' comments, Perry said he doesn't believe Mormonism is a cult.

[HiTech RedNeck]

Mitt served what, four years as governor of Massachusetts, and the LDS has a supposedly conservative bent (though his local prophet might disagree with the mother church). Did any calls come through to him then?

[Realness]

It’s not the “left”, it’s the media in general. News television is about ratings and this is the current lightning rod. When people stop caring, they will stop talking about it, just as they stopped talking about Obama’s birth certificate when people stopped caring.

Right-wing publications and outlets are talking about this just as much, if not MORE than the “left.”

[UnwashedPeasant]

"I WILL NOT VOTE FOR SOMEONE WHO DOES NOT BELIEVE JESUS CHRIST IS GOD THE SON!"

What if the presidential election were between a Mormon and a Muslim? Who would you prefer?

[HiTech RedNeck]

Oh, a lot of people still care about Bummer’s birth certificate. The general conservative buzz is that he has most lately presented one that was faked. But the nooz has an uncanny way of pretending that a big chunk, if not half, of America caring doesn’t exist.

[SkyDancer]

Romney by embracing Mormon theology is telling everyone he’s not a Christian but a Mormon. Joseph Smith, Jr. threw Christianity under the bus, or wagon in this case when he asked about which church he should join. The answer that he wrote is telling.

[BlackFemaleArmyColonel]

Your scenarios does not scare or bother me. I know who I am in CHRIST and I know what I would do in a case like this, which would mean our country was already lost and blinded. My decision would be between CHRIST and me.:)

[Jeff Chandler]

I can give you quotes from LDS that would counter your assumption on at least a few of those things.

And I will read them. Go ahead and post them.

[BlackFemaleArmyColonel]

BINGO!

[delacoert]

I'm sure reaganaut on't mind if I jump in with my 2 cents.

A list compiled by Eric Barge on similarities of Muhammad and Joseph Smith:

- Visited by an angel.
- Given visions.
- Told that no true religion existed on the earth.
- Was sent to restore the long lost faith as the one true religion.
- A book produced from their teachings claimed to be "inspired by God."
- Each claimed to be illiterate or uneducated and used this as proof the book was inspired.
- Each claimed the Bible was lost, altered, corrupted and unreliable.
- Each claimed his new holy book was the most correct and perfect book on earth.
- Each claimed to be a final prophet of God.
- Each claimed he was persecuted because of his pure faith.
- Was a polygamist who had many wives.
- Immediately after his death a fight broke out from among the "faithful converts" as to who would succeed him.
- Both religions have those who follow the "original doctrine" of the founding leaders and like these founding leaders, have been violent, polygamists, and have revelations justifying their evil actions.
- Each has progressive revelation. ("New" revelation always replaces older revelation that became inconvenient to the prophet.)

A list compiled by former Mormon, Ed Decker on similarities of Islam and Mormonism:

Both belief systems teach that they have the only true and complete religion on face of the earth.
Both reject Christianity as corrupted.
Both taught the plurality of wives, both on earth and in here-after.
Both teach that the Bible is corrupt and mistranslated.
Both revealed God's true scripture.
Both reject original sin and the doctrine of the trinity.
Both teach a salvation by good works.
Both use a lay clergy.
Both founded by a holy uneducated prophet.
Both founding prophets had angelic visitations that they were to restore Adamic religion.
Both prophets' words were above scripture or earlier prophets.
Both teach a theocratic form of government.
Both teach a here-after with graded rewards for works.
Both claim to be the world's fastest growing religion.

[airborne]

ANd I have to ask what does this have to do with the price of tea in China?

Liberal tactics - divide and conquer.

[brytlea]

You may be right, but I think they will be far more concerned about the guy who is already occupying the White House. Or they should be. (I am NOT a Romney fan for plenty of reasons).

[Colofornian]

I would say it is not the business of Christians to be judging the relationship of other people to Christ. That’s between Christ and the individual. No one knows what goes on in someone else’s soul or how Christ may consider him.

Some elements of "judging" is in reality discernment -- such as being able to correctly read statements made by Jesus in the Bible. (Jesus didn't leave it all as sheer guesswork on how we are to proceed in life and in our relationship with God).

Here's an example -- just two verses after the infamous John 3:16:

18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son. (John 3:18)

Too many people make it sound like all condemnation from God -- whatever of it may come -- is future tense. Jesus basically assumes all condemnation is acomin' toward all of us...and in fact, rests upon such people NOW -- minus those who don't accept Christ's righteousness as a substitute for our own lack of it.

We are already under condemnation -- until -- and apart from receiving Christ's gracious gift of His exchanged righteousness (by faith/trust) on behalf of ours.

[sand lake bar]

I do not care who is or isn’t a Christian or about who thinks who is or isn’t one. I care about freedom and about which candidate possesses the principles to protect it.

[brytlea]

Maybe but you would have to see where the meme came from and grew. I don’t care enough to think about it I guess. I simply tossed the point out. I think the left loves anything that the right will agree to fight about.

[Colofornian]

...the LDS officially abandoned racism.

They did? What did they then do with all of those Book of Mormon passages (and one Lds "scriptural" verse from Doctrine & Covenants) that still teach racism? Scrub them white? Delete them? Recycled them?

I mean, I disagree quite a lot with LDS and think their theology weirds out America for good reason. But racism isn’t in their book of faults any more, neither is it Mitt’s.

Wow! I just didn't know that the Mormon authorities took a pair of scissors & excised 2 Nephi 5:21; 3 Nephi 2:15; Alma 3:6; Jacob 3:5; D&C 134:12. That's news to me. It's also news to me that you're saying Mitt Romney militantly disagrees with his "scriptures."

How many mainstream evangelical Christians of good conscience go to Southern Baptist churches, who for the virtues of their general theology bought into the “Ham-is-cursed” nonsense about Negroes, thought slavery had been an OK means of evangelism, and didn’t formally disavow that until recently?

#1 which ones didn't disavow that until recently? (Or do you always just shoot from the hip with no real bullets?)
#2 HUGE DIFFERENCE: When Southern Baptists (For example) in the 19th century linked up with promoting/justifying slavery, they had to (a) inject their own added assumptions slapped onto what the Bible really says re: Ham; and (b) They simply uttered their own spin (opinions) to do so. IOW, the Bible itself doesn't embrace racism.

That can't be said with Mormon "scriptures." Their 1978 shift was a mere policy/polity change. It didn't delete much of the root basis of their racist 'tudes and policies: Their Mormon "scriptures."

Here's five Book of Mormon verses below talking about how the "skin of blackness" is a "cursing" based upon their "iniquity" (2 Nephi 5:21; Alma 3:6; Jacob 3:5) and how when the curse would be removed, they would again become "white" (3 Nephi 2:15), which the Book of Mormon says is a "delightsome" color (2 Nephi 5:21; cf. older version of 2 Nephi 30:6):

* "And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceeding fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them." (2 Nephi 5:21)

* "...many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a white and delightsome people." (2 Nephi 30:6, pre-1981 versions...changed from unknown reasons in 1981 to "fair and delightsome")

* "And the skins of the Lamanites were dark, according to the mark which was set upon their fathers, which was a curse upon them because of their transgression and their rebellion against the their brethren..." (Alma 3:6)

* "Behold, the Lamanites your brethren, whom ye hate because of their filthiness and the cursing which hath come upon their skins..." (Jacob 3:5)

* "And their curse was taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites." (3 Nephi 2:15)

On the next post, I'll also highlight Mormon Doctrine & Covenants 134:12, also another racist Mormon sacred-book passage that hasn't been touched, revised, removed...

[Colofornian]

...the LDS officially abandoned racism...I mean, I disagree quite a lot with LDS and think their theology weirds out America for good reason. But racism isn’t in their book of faults any more, neither is it Mitt’s.

Please look at Lds Doctrine Covenants 134:12. It is still on the "books" as official Mormon doctrine. It's not been rescinded. It's not been publicly critiqued by any known Lds General Authority I know.

Are you going to look at this and then try exporting your ignorance that racism isn't in their book of faults any more"???

A bit of background: It’s mid-1835. Smith is churning out new “Scripture.” Smith is taking aim at new converts. But in that time, did he believe the Mormon “gospel” to be aimed at slaves? (No, not unless express “permission” was granted by their “owners”).

Could you imagine a verse -- say a verse from the Bible -- still applicable today—one similar to the Mormon scripture of Doctrine & Covenants 134:12—which would tell you in effect that yes, the gospel was for women who are sexually trafficked--but only if their Pimp-owner says "Yes?".

I mean, imagine if you will, for a moment, that you are the God of the universe; God of every planet; God of the earth; Creator of every person. Imagine for a moment you are speaking forth universal eternal truth. And then imagine that someone claims you (as God) made the following “Scriptural” statement:

”We believe it just to preach the gospel to the nations of the earth, and warn the righteous to save themselves from the corruption of the world; but we do not believe it right to interfere with bond-servants, neither preach the gospel to, nor baptize them contrary to the will and wish of their masters, nor to meddle with or influence them in the least to cause them to be dissatisfied with their situations in this life, thereby jeopardizing the lives of men; such interference we believe to be unlawful and unjust, and dangerous to the peace of every government allowing human beings to be held in servitude.”

D&C 134:12 is LDS “Doctrine” that has never been removed or rescinded!!! This passages makes it quite clear – in contrast to the apostle Paul who vied for the religious freedom of Onesimus while treating him as a full Christian brother and encouraged Philemon to do the same--somehow, LDS think that "religious freedom" applies to everyone except slaves!

D&C 134:12, written in 1835 pro-slavery America, made it quite clear that instead of the Mormons having a universal god who issued eternal truth applicable to all cultures, he is instead an American-sounding god who speaks only in King James English & was beholden to the American slavery industry.

D&C 134:12 "settles" the issue for the Mormon: Are slaves & trafficking victims worthy of the "gospel?" LDS Answer? Nope! "neither preach the gospel to, nor baptize them..." says LDS "Scripture.

And why not? Well, says D&C 134:12: We don't want ya ta meddle with the Mastuhs' business “property,” or to say it as precisely as LDS "scripture" says it: nor to meddle with or influence them in the least to cause them to be dissatisfied with their situations in this life...

(Nah. We can't have unhappy slaves or trafficking victims now, can we? Too disturbing to their "stations" of life, eh?)

Now what are the ultimate reasons for this again? D&C 134:12 provides the answer:

Reason #1: ...such interference we believe to be unlawful and unjust... (There ya have it...wouldn't want to be "unjust" by giving slaves the gospel & baptizing them, would ya?)

Reason #2: ...and dangerous to the peace of every government allowing human beings to be held in servitude. (And, of course, the "closer": Wouldn't want to disturb the peace & quiet of slavery-sanctioning governments, now would ya?)

[Colofornian]

Wright preached Marxism, hatred of whites, hatred of Jews, hatred of America and liberation theology. It is a dangerous religion just as islam is and both are antithetical to Western values in general and American values in particular. The Mormon religion preaches none of those things and is none of those things. I find the theology and practices of many religions to be goofy and ridiculous, but as long as they're not dangerous, I don't care.

Tell me, Jeff, let's say you & I were to (somehow) sit down and agree on a definition of "the Gospel of the Bible." Would you & I agree that deliberately withholding such a Gospel is a spiritually dangerous thing to do? (I emphasize deliberate withholding -- vs. vs. it being simply a lack-of-manpower issue to immediately reach all corners of the earth)

And when we consider this especially in light of verse where Jesus said: But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear him who, after your body has been killed, has authority to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him. (Luke 12:5)...

Is hell not a "dangerous" place to be -- even if you & I might disagree about its duration?

And yet, per my post on #117 highlight the Mormon Doctrine & Covenants 134:12...which true-believing Mormons not only uphold -- but pay from their wallets to have translated & distributed around the world -- advocates exactly this spiritually unhealthy, dangerous practice: That if ANYBODY around the world claims somebody as their property...why that person isn't to be "privvy" to the Gospel.

That my friend, is an open hatred toward women who are trafficked...toward slaves in countries like Sudan and Mauritania. In fact, in Mauritania, slavery is STILL an open "secret." Up to 5-10% of this Muslim nation are slaves!

But per your Joseph Smith...they aren't "eligible" for the "Gospel."

[Siena Dreaming]

but I think they will be far more concerned about the guy

Some will, some won't.

Many will be very, very focused on whether or not they should vote for a non-orthodox christian for the first time in US history.

[Colofornian]

Islamic And Mormonism Similarities: Similarities Between Joseph Smith and Muhammad [see the article & post #1]

[Associated note: the Lds church was even running an Islamic puff piece in its newspaper Friday: Muslim comics hope humor will lead to understanding ]