*Notice the lack of saltiness in the spam.
| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 08/03/2007 6:34:01 AM PDT by Religion Moderator, reason:
Poor behavior |
Posted on 07/26/2007 5:03:33 PM PDT by tantiboh
Democratic political consultant Mark Mellman has a very good piece up today at The Hill on the baffling and illegitimate opposition among voters to Mitt Romney due to his religion. I liked his closing paragraphs:
In July of 1958, 24 percent of respondents told Gallup they would not vote for a Catholic for president, almost identical to Gallup’s reading on Mormons today. Two years later, John F. Kennedy became the first Catholic to assume the oath of office. Within eight months, the number refusing to vote for a Catholic was cut almost in half.
[snip]
Mellman also discusses an interesting poll he helped construct, in which the pollsters asked half of their respondents whether they would support a candidate with certain characteristics, and asked the other half about another candidate with the exact same characteristics, with one difference. The first candidate was Baptist, the second candidate was Mormon. The Baptist had a huge advantage over the Mormon candidate, by about 20 points.
[snip]
However, more recent polls have attempted to fix the anonymity problem. A recent Time Magazine poll (read the original report here), for example, got to the heart of the question by asking respondents if they are less likely to vote for Mitt Romney specifically because he is a Mormon. The result is not as bad as some reporting on the poll has suggested. For example, while 30% of Republicans say they are less likely to vote for Romney because of his religion, fully 15% of other Republicans say that characteristic makes them more likely to vote for him. And while many have reported the finding that 23% of Republicans are “worried” by Romney’s Mormonism, the more important (but less-reported) number is that 73% say they hold no such reservations...
(Excerpt) Read more at romneyexperience.com ...
So because Harry is crooked, then Mitt must be corrupt also because...? What do you imagine Mitt would do as POTUS to benefit the church?
And another question comes to mind. Do the Reids hold current temple recommends? Millions of mormons go into the Bishop's office and honestly answer whether they are worthy for a recommend, and honestly try to be
I have no idea if the Reids have current recommends. There are people who do not answer the Bishops questions honestly.
*Notice the lack of saltiness in the spam.
Pray tell what's wrong with honey the oppositions sure does not pocesse any?
Isa 7
14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
15 Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good.
16 For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.
Hey, this thread is in the religion forum. I am responding to a specific charge which is not easily answered with a simple response.
Some things come to mind, the opening up of mission fields now closed, the easing of the way for temples to be built...there have been cases of communities disputing the building of temples....
Who knows, the polygamy question keeps burbling to the top, and there may be a movement to include it in protected classes like the homosexual class. Why should homosexuals have a right to marriage, and ploygamists be discriminated against? With the huge numbers of LDS-owned properties and companies, what would a little Presidential influence have on future deals?
I think this would be a fertile field for FReepers to till.....
Of course. The rest of us do just fine with fewer words.
Hey, here is a novel idea......POST A LINK. We’ll go to it if you can pique our interest, if not, then we don’t have to scroll through endless amounts of the imaginings of Mormon apologists and their baseless, unfounded information.
Because resty, if you follow the thread you can see that our discussion started with my post #795
In Colossians 4:6 Paul tells us that we are to present our message with grace, seasoned with salt.
There is nothing wrong with honey, but salt is different than honey, dear.
And Colorado City and Hildale will become Wards in the Arizona Strip Stake. Man, we can add thousands of new members. They gotta be re-baptized though.
It's easy to post a link. If you don't know how, NAL, you can go to HTML Bootcamp
I don’t see the logic in this conclusion. Christ has a body, yes. But Christ also told us that God the Father does not.
Look at John 4:23-24, where Jesus teaches us: " Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth." This means God the Father has no body, because a spirit is, by nature, an incorporeal being. As Jesus tells us elsewhere, "a spirit has not flesh and bones" (Luke 24:39). There is a big difference between being a spirit and having a spirit. Jesus says that the Father is a spirit, not that the Father has a spirit; this means that he lacks a body entirely. Unless Jesus is lying.
I’m really missing your point here.
The church does the heavy lifting in these areas. If Mitt was an effective and popular president it could help the church overcome bias' against opening missions and building temples. On the other hand if Mitt was not effective and unpopular then it would hurt the churches efforts. I don't think that Kennedy's presidency had much effect on the Catholic church and I would suspect the result with Romney would be the same.
Who knows, the polygamy question keeps burbling to the top, and there may be a movement to include it in protected classes like the homosexual class.
Who would lead this kind of effort? Certainly not Mormons.
With the huge numbers of LDS-owned properties and companies, what would a little Presidential influence have on future deals?
I would think that there would be a tremendous amount of scrutiny placed on Mitt in these kinds of areas. Any hint of executive action that would benefit the church would be foolish on Mitt's part.
(Did you know there is nothing in your Scriptures that tell you what to do in the Temple?
I think they must be Traditions of Men.)
Do you, Restornu, realize that the Temple ceremonies have no basis that is to be found in your Scriptures??
Now you KNOW that you CANNOT say this with any assurance!!
Why...
...we might have some REVELATION from GOD about you guys: you know the LDS' that do NOT have all the truth (found in this thread).
We might have some SACRED (secret) doctrine that even YOU guys haven't received!!
Come back to the fold, say that you're sorry; really, REALLY sorry, and we will begin the process to purify your stained soul. If, after intensive and extensive investigation, our esteemed panel of Judges find you have, indeed, been cleansed PROPERLY from past impurities, then, and ONLY then, will the %^@%*()#%&*^*(#^&@ (self censored gobbley-gook) be applied in your instance; to the betterment of your soul.
You left out part three:
There ARE no Scriptures to back it up, or you'd post them!
No honey, and no dear!
"Sometimes a cigar is merely a cigar."
I do!
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.
