| 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 ...
~”Well you could say your first post was “prophetic” if I can use that term without being called a heretic.”~
Let’s just say I was using my intelligence guided by experience.
It was a great thread for several days, though. Had some good discussion and thought going on.
If you were completely open and honest you would clearly state that he in fact, can’t pass the temple recomment interview.
He is not a baptized member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.
Let me see if I can pin you down on an answere. Is it possible for the Pope TODAY, to attend the Temple. Is it even possible for him to meet the requirements in one month?
It would be interesting to ask Homeschoolmom, what her opinion was of the posts to her during the first few days.
You see, oft times we only see the experience from our viewpoint. From where I stand, it seems that you asked posters to state their position on voting for a Mormon. Whenever someone said they would not, they were promptly called, uninformed, ignorant, bigot....you know the drill.
That’s my experience anyway. And AFAIC it was this kind of setting-up the responders to the thread that brought us to where we are in the conversation today.
Have a nice evening!
Just because the Pope is not a member in no way implies he is unclean.
I am sure the Pope respects ordinance and therefore would not be offended.
Stop trying to stir the pot CC!
~”Let me see if I can pin you down on an answere. Is it possible for the Pope TODAY, to attend the Temple. Is it even possible for him to meet the requirements in one month?”~
No. As you said, he’s not a member of the LDS Church. But that wasn’t what you originally asked. The fact remains, if he wants to attend the temple, he needs to make the appropriate decisions. Just like you and me.
I’m still trying to comprehend what, exactly, your point is.
~”You see, oft times we only see the experience from our viewpoint.”~
That’s true. But, then, I was stating my opinion, and not yours, wasn’t I?
~”From where I stand, it seems that you asked posters to state their position on voting for a Mormon.”~
If you interpreted it like that, that’s fine. I don’t know how you took that interpretation, as my exact statement was: “Will Romney’s religion make him unelectable? I’m optimistic that it won’t; but many here disagree with me. Let’s talk about it...We’ve spent plenty of time discussing the “kookiness” of Mormonism. I hope we can stay within the realm of political commentary.”
I’m not sure how that translates to “state your position of voting for a Mormon,” but hey, that’s just me.
~”Whenever someone said they would not, they were promptly called, uninformed, ignorant, bigot....you know the drill.”~
As you said, oft times we only see the experience from our viewpoint.
I called the attitude bigotry when a given person states that they would refuse to vote for (or, for that matter, decide to vote for) a specific candidate because they are of a given faith. I stand by that.
It doesn’t help, though, to bandy about terms such as “cult,” “heresy,” and “not Christians.” That tends to get up the dander of us non-Christian cultist heretics.
So it boils down to this:
uninformed, ignorant, bigot
vs.
cult, heretic, non-Christian
A pox on both our houses, I say.
I’m sure there are a number of Catholic rites that would be refused me if I were to ask to partake today. I don’t feel particularly threatened or left out by that fact. Let them worship according to the dictates of their own conscience, and I shall do the same.
30-61% of Americans Across the Board Say They Will NOT Vote for a Mormon Placemarker...
Questions to ponder about this:
1. Why is that?
2. What do Americans know about Mormons that is such a turnoff to everyone, regardless of age or political affiliation, or race or gender or religion (according to the Rasmussen poll)?
3. If mormonism is the true cult, why is it growing more
slowly than other American cults like Jehovah’s Witnesses?
Not true at all. There's a HUGE difference between a man-become-god (the LDS god) and a God-become-man (the historic Christian Jesus).
Jesus Christ posseses all qualities all the Father. (If you disagree then please describe a quality that he does not have which God the Father has).
Character qualities, yes! Manifestation qualities, no. The Father is spirit, and must be worshipped in spirit (John 4)...the Book of Mormon & the Bible agree on this (BoM- Alma 18:24-28 & 22:9-11...God is SPIRIT). NOWHERE DOES IT SAY IN THE BOOK OF MORMON THAT THE FATHER EVER HAD A PHYSICAL HUMAN BODY! If that was at least within the range of being "the fulness of the everlasting gospel" (what D&C calls the BoM), it would have been mentioned if relevant or important. (It wasn't.)
Whereas Jesus took on a human body (doctrine of incarnation).
Therefore, God the Father has always been God, he has always been omniscient, divine, all powerful, etc.
Well, I'm glad you've come to this conclusion. But how many actual LDS, including the original one, actually believed this all of their/his lives/life?
To quote Joe Smith: "I will go back to the beginning before the world was, to show what kind of being God was. . . . God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens . . . it is necessary we should understand the character and being of God and how he came to be so; for I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and suppose that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see. These are incomprehensible ideas to some, but they are simple. It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the Character of God, and to know that we may converse with him as one man converses with another, and that he was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did; and I will show it from the Bible. Here then, is eternal life--to know the only wise and true God; and you have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves, and to be kings and priest to God, the same as all Gods have done before you, namely by going from one small degree to another, and from a small capacity to a great one..." (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 345-47)
Ah, a fresh angle I had not yet pondered. Very good. If anybody's keepin' a list, a worthwhile one to note & not keep buried.
Nor would he appoint an all-Mormon WH admin. But certainly, since he could draw from LDS across the country & not just a select small MASS pool, would be a significant difference.
“the same as Jesus Christ himself did”
I would emphasize that part of the quote! Which matches Ostler’s position and mine.
Bye the way, the Book of Mormon uses heavily throne imagery, coming into the bosom of the Father, etc., which incidentaly resembles 2nd temple Jewish imagery which heavily focused on a corpeal God.
:)
Prayers for victims of the Minnesota bridge collapse.
It is my call.
;)
Quick!
Let's get the Catholics upset and maybe they'll leave US alone!
(And maybe that troubling QUESTION asker will BACK OFF!)
--MormonDude
Thank you!
Sorry, I got to get a thicker skin for this. :)
Prayers again for the awful tragedy.
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.