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 Gallups 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 Romneys Mormonism, the more important (but less-reported) number is that 73% say they hold no such reservations...
(Excerpt) Read more at romneyexperience.com ...
add 1093 1094
add 1093 1094
Can’t you answer the question? I haven’t seen the answer. Maybe I missed it.
Is there any scriptural authority to perform Temple ordinances? I think it is an excellent question.
wrong name
(which is in reference to Deuteronomy 23:1)
The Mormon PR you see deals with their emphasis on family values. They are trying to attract people who are concerned for their families well being. Many people, yourself included, base their opinions of Mormons on the perception that they are not a Christian faith. If the LDS church was trying to influence voters I think the ads you saw from them would challenge this perception.
Did you that the LDS has no Scriptural AUTHORITY for whast they do in their Temple?
I appreciate the fact that you posted the Blake Ostler works. He raised many of the same concerns that I have, but the basic questions remain unanswered. I pointed out some of the twisted logic and changed meanings of words he used to try to make his case.
You did not address my concerns, but then pasted the Geisler work to somehow show that God the Father has a body. I dont see the connection, and I wonder why you would do that other than to distract from original question.
But I will answer your questions, and I hope you will go back and try to answer mine.
in the next life we will have Jesus Christ and all that he saved with bodies, but darn it, God that Father will not have a Body!
Yes, in the next life we will have resurrected bodies. As a child, I actually hoped that in the next life I would be a spirit, just like an angel not bound by time and space. But that is not the way God made his plan.
The Bible tells us that when Jesus returns to earth, he will physically raise all those who have died, giving them back the bodies they lost at death. These will be the same bodies people had, but our resurrected bodies will not die and will be transformed into a glorified state, freed from suffering and pain, and enabled to do many of the amazing things Jesus could do with his glorified body. 1 Cor. 15:3544
I can see how from your background where you believe that you will become a god that this reality could be a disappointment. But that is Gods plan, and, after all, he created me and I thank Him for that. I plan to spend the rest of eternity in the presence of God, worshiping Him along with the angels.
Why then is resurrection of the flesh ESSENTIAL to the faith?
Because it is consistent with the revealed word of God in Scripture: "if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised. If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished" (1 Cor. 15:1318).
But, in your mistaken theology, if God is really only a spirit then when we are resurrected in the Flesh, we become not closer to God but we become further away?!?!?!
We cannot see God in these bodies of ours. In the next life, in our resurrected bodies, we can see God. I happen to believe that hell is the absence of that vision of God they will know what they are missing and it will burn for eternity. Being close to God, seeing Him and worshiping Him in His presence is being far closer than we are now. We dont have to become God to worship Him.
I would believe your point if you can show me where God is referenced as only spirit. I see references to God as light. Should I take that as God is only light?
We need to apply reason when it comes to reading Scripture, and look for consistency and context. When Christ said I am the vine, I am the door, we shouldnt think in literal terms. It just doesnt make sense that the example Christ was giving should be taken literally He is not a vine or a door, but we get thepoint. The same with the light. The same with Ps. 91:4"He will cover you with his feathers, and under his wings you will find refuge" I dont believe God has feathers or wings, but I get the point, and this is consistent with other Scripture, for example, when in Exodus God told Moses he carried them on eagles wings.
I find that when God uses the is word, it means is and not something else. Like when God said 17And a voice from heaven said, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased." Mat 3:17 I know Christ is the Son of God. So when Jesus teaches us: "God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth." John 4:24, this means God has no body, because a spirit is, by nature, an incorporeal being. This is also consistent where Jesus tells us elsewhere, "a spirit has not flesh and bones" (Luke 24:39).
So now I ask you, how is a changing God consistent with the unchanging God described in Mormon and Moroni?
-> 30-61% of Americans Won’t Vote for a Mormon, I wonder why,
Placemarker <-
In all due respect if there is or isn’t shoul I answer that question to someone who is hostile towards the Church!
LDS really don’t to answer every question of one who will could rend their words!
Believe what you want!
thats alright I am having typing trouble on my side too!
You see the buggers gone now but I smile anyways!
Cheerfully and Merrily
That’s true resty.
But you and I (and apparently elsie) know there is no scriptural authority to perform Temple ordinances. If so, we would like to see them.
The Bible tells us: But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:
--Resty
Oh dear there that other voice poping into the conversation.
Some things he can hear or see and it is driving him buggy!
No unclean thing can enter in....
What does the pope have to do with this conversation?
Is he the unclean thing you speak of?
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.