| 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 ...
We believe in the Holy Bible, too. I love the Psalms. One time I read the Song of Solomon and I felt the Savior’s love for me - He loves me so much. I felt He was singing to me. I’ll never forget that experience.
I find great comfort and enlightenment in reading the Scriptures.
I suppose because the Catholics have extra books in their Bible (the Macabees for example) that you dismiss all the Catholics as a bunch of deceived idiots bound for hell.
Again, I want to say that ONLY the Savior is worthy and has authority to judge the heart. Not you and sure as heck not me.
You wonder why it hurts our feelings when you say we’re going to hell? Come on. I am not ashamed of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and I am not ashamed of Him.
~”As I stated earlier, I do not believe that is what Mormonism teaches.”~
It’s a risky proposition to tell a Mormon (or member of any faith for that matter) what they do or do not believe. Nowandlater is LDS.
I submit that we know better what we believe than do those who have told you what we believe.
It strikes me that if more Protestants and Evangelicals actually took the time to learn about Mormon beliefs instead of buying into the propaganda about us, that they would feel far better about him being the nominee.
They shoot Mormons, don’t they?
Thank you for your thoughtful posts.
~”I find it curious that so many of you are so defensive about your religion.”~
Some of us are overly defensive about our faith. I suspect Pavlov’s dog could provide some clues.
It seems that Mormons and Catholics are the two denominations that it’s acceptable for the balance of American Christians to assault. There are, naturally, psychological consequences to that.
I, for one, find your honesty refreshing. You disagree vehemently with us; but you’ve refrained from the falsehoods and attacks that we’re used to seeing from our regular detractors.
I do, however, respectfully submit that you are not authorized or qualified to determine if I am a follower of Christ, or that I’m going to Hell. Only one Being has earned that right.
By the way, I suspect neither of us is going to Hell. I’ll be sure to say hello when I meet you.
“You wonder why it hurts our feelings when you say we’re going to hell? Come on. I am not ashamed of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and I am not ashamed of Him.”
Saundra, I am curious as to why you’re defensive about your religion. You believe that Baptists and Pentecostals are wrong, or else you would be going to one of their churches every week. It’s ok to disagree.
As I’ve said numerous times, I do not make my decisions about what I believe based on my own emotions or reasoning. Emotions can be detrimental sometimes, and our own reasoning can be deceptive. So our beliefs must be based on something that has authority. I believe that to be the Bible. The Gospel message of the Bible does not support your Mormon beliefs. That is what I believe based on Scripture.
I have staked my entire eternity on its truth. You are staking your eternity on the doctrines taught in Mormonism.
“I, for one, find your honesty refreshing. You disagree vehemently with us; but you’ve refrained from the falsehoods and attacks that we’re used to seeing from our regular detractors.”
I have not read any other threads on this topic, so I will take your word about being attacked. I’ve stayed away from FR for a while simply because I need a break from politics at times. I tend to become obsessed. ;-)
Thanks for the lively discussion tonight, My boys and I have stayed up far too late to reply, though, and need to be off to bed. Have a lovely night!
“The Gospel message of the Bible does not support your Mormon beliefs.”
As Ronald Reagan would say: “There you go again!”
You obviously do not know what I believe yet you tell me what I believe.
Jesus Christ is my Savior, Lord, Messiah and soon coming King. I love Him with all my heart. I believe in keeping the Commandments though I fail at times and count on the Savior’s atoning sacrifice and GRACE (a free gift) to help me recover and get back on track.
When all else fails, you accuse us of “emotionalism”. It is a waste of time and effort to continue this discussion with you. God bless your heart. I wish you nothing but the best.
I appears, then, that you are faced with a Hobson’s choice, assuming that Clinton and Romney are the nominees:
A.) Support the Mormon at the risk that more people will go to Hell due to the heresies that his faith teaches them.
B.) Support the secular-humanist at the risk that her policies will result in a further deterioration of family and social values, thereby condemning more people to Hell due to increase levels of sin and reduced levels of acceptance of Christ’s Gospel.
What to do? I do not accept the third-party vote as a viable alternative; it’s the same as voting for the winner, you just give yourself a psychological escape clause.
Would it not be more appropriate to vote for the candidate more likely to promote the core goodness of America, and therefore your own religious values?
~”Have a lovely night!”~
Likewise to you. I hope to see your reply to my previous post; but in the meantime, my best regards.
I actually studied this when I was researching my book.
So, according to you, a recollection by Oliver Huntingdon of a statement allegedly given by Joseph Smith FORTY years earlier, corroborated by no other contemporary (or later) witness, in a place and time Joseph Smith was NOT known to be; is OFFICIAL MORMON DOCTRINE - regardless of the fact NO Mormon I know believes it????
What are you smoking???
As for Galatians saying the Book of Mormon is from Satan, well, [lol!] now I know the level of your hermeneutics ...
You know, I can play this “false witness” game just as well with your own religion, so knock it off.
I believe one of your other prophets said people live on the sun... nutcases.
Well, there you go. The unimpeachable hearsay of... of... (Who is this guy again?)
...combined with what you believe "one of [our] prophets said".
That there is some powerful evidence, AMPU.
Sheesh!
For those who want to know what Mormons really believe... *cue spooky music* ...try reading it for yourself.
The entire church curriculum, used to teach Sunday School, etc., as well as the complete text of our scriptures, is available online. You can simply look for yourself.
Gospel Principles (a good, basic manual of LDS doctrine, used to teach "beginner" class)
"I know that God is not a partial God, neither a changeable being; but he is unchangeable from all eternity to all eternity" (Moroni 8:18).
"For do we not read that God is the same yesterday, today and forever, and in him there is no variableness, neither shadow of changing? And now, if ye have imagined up unto yourselves a god who doth vary, and in whom there is shadow of changing, then ye have imagined up unto yourselves a god who is not a God of miracles" (Mormon 9:9-10).
"Here, then, is eternal life--to know the only wise and true God. And you have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves--to be kings and priests to God, the same as all Gods have done--by going from a small degree to another, from grace to grace, from exaltation to exaltation, until you are able to sit in glory as do those who sit enthroned in everlasting power." - King Follett Discourse
Moroni and Mormon describe God as immutable and unchanging. TheKFD shows something else. How can you believe that God is at the same time immutable and changing, that from all eternity he was as he now is, but he somehow evolved from a mere mortal?
God evolved or he didn't. Mormans seem to have it both ways.
How is this possible?
It appears that Joseph Smith copied much of the BOM from the KJV of the bible when he created his new religion. In his later years, he made up the "man become god" part, and this just doesn't work with a singular god.
Over the years, I have recieved answers to this contradiction ranging from "multiple eternities" to "And hence, in response to the kind of philosophical and/or metaphysical thought you forward in your argument, we’re happy to say things like, “I don’t know much about that” and not worry one whit about it. Sorry." (This last quote was from a discussion I had on the FAIR site)
I can appreciate a devine mystery, but I can't understand how a thinking person can live with such obvious contradiction in reason. I could not vote for someone who bets his eternal soul on something so obviously wrong.
So far, by and large, they’re doing pretty well.
You're a generous person! I've long hoped that Hillary will tick off black voters by what she has to do to shoot down Obama, after reading the attacks on the faith of our LDS FReepers, I'm sorely afraid that Mitt Romney supporters may be tempted to feel that way about a non-Mitt Republican candidate. I'm reassured only by the fact that every Mormon I've ever met is a much more sensible person than the average gimme-gimme Obama voter. (Sorry if that sounds like damning with faint praise!)
Look at how the Masons and Quakers have taken over the country!
One big fat difference: when's the last time the Masons or Quakers sent a couple of nicely-dressed, articulate folks to your doorstep to tell you about what their beliefs are? The method that your faith uses to extend itself is what motivates a lot of distrust, unfortunately.
Many people who agreed with what David Duke would do politically were justifiably worried that a vote for him in Louisiana would legitimize the KKK. I'm sorry to use that comparison, as I don't wish to equate the LDS faith tradition with something as vile as KKK racism, but it is the only clear example I can think of in politics where people had to choose between the lesser of two evils. (I remember the pro-Edwin Edwards slogan, "Vote for the crook, it's important!")
Surely some evangelical swing-state voters faced with a choice of Mitt Romney or Hillary Clinton will feel like they are in the position of either ratifying a religion that they have been taught to abhor, or of approving of a socialism that they hate even worse. In my case, if its Giuliani vs. Hillary, I take comfort in the fact that NY will not be a swing state, whichever of those New Yorkers takes NY, the die will be cast for the rest of the nation, and I can vote for a third party candidate with a clear conscience.
...every little policy difference that some people have will automatically be attributed to Romney’s faith, resulting in a lower estimation of the LDS Church.
I can't think of any other faith tradition that has been hurt by having one of its members become President. When a nation is willing to elect a person from a previously unrepresented religious path to the highest office in the land, it's saying in effect, "We've gotten past this." Joe Lieberman's very observant Jewish faith was not an issue in 2000, and it is clear that if he had been elected as Vice President (and then ascended to the Presidency), even when it came to issues of dealing with Israel, only the terminally bigoted would have attributed his faith in Judaism to his policy initiatives.
Oddly enough, it is this, "We've gotten past this," that anti-Mormon voters are not willing to confer. They don't really oppose Romney on issues relating to the economy or the military (although I can understand that social conservatives have legitimate worries about the "flip-flop" problem), but they know that his nomination and election mean that their anti-Mormon rhetoric looks more like bigoted ramblings that their fellow Americans have repudiated at the ballot box.
I’m looking for someone to inspire me as a member of the conservative base. Romney seems to fit that bill.
I'm looking forward to the coming debates between Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson. It's my hope that whoever tops the other becomes a better general election candidate in the process, on the strength of ideas and the ability to communicate them effectively.
Like I said above, if it's Clinton and Giuliani, I consider them functionally identical, they're both social liberals. Frankly, I think they'd have nearly equal effects on this country's economic and military policies.
Would it not be more appropriate to vote for the candidate more likely to promote the core goodness of America, and therefore your own religious values?
In my case, neither Clinton or Giuliani shares my religious/philosophical beliefs (atheist) and frankly, I believe that Hillary Clinton as President for two years brings us back a Republican Congress, much like what happened in 1994. A Republican loss of large proportions next year means the party does the soul searching it needs to do to get back to its roots. It's the only chance we'd field a better candidate that Rudy in 2012.
Don’t you, as a Christian (I assume), believe something similar? An “unchanging” God who “changed” from being solely “nonmaterial” to “partially material” with God the Son assuming materiality 2000 years ago?
As I wrote in my book:
[MORMONISM. The Faith of the Twenty-first Century. Volume 1. Edward K. Watson. (Liahona Publications. Copyright © 1998 Edward K. Watson.) pp. 117-120. MORMONISM: Section 1, Chapter 12. All rights reserved.]
CHAPTER 12
Is God Unchanging? Did He Create Everything?
A) Is God unchanging?
Despite the misrepresentations of our opponents, the Latter-day Scriptures teach God is immutable. He’s unchangeable from eternity to eternity and is the same yesterday, today and forever (1 Ne 10:18; 2 Ne 2:4; 26:12; Alma 11:38-39,44; 3 Ne 24:6; Morm 9:9-10,19; Moro 7:22; 8:18; D&C 20:12,17,28; 35:1-2; 76:4; 78:16; Mos 1:3) which is identical to what the Bible says (Deut 33:27; Ps 90:2; 93:2; 102:24-27; Hab 1:12; Mal 3:6; Heb 1:12; 6:17-18; Jas 1:17). Wouldn’t it be foolish for Joseph Smith to teach a doctrine that would contradict what God taught numerous times in the Bible and the Latter-day Scriptures? God doesn’t change. He’s consistent, always reliable and trustworthy. He keeps his side of the covenant even if man doesn’t.
On the surface it appears that our belief that Heavenly Father was once a man like ourselves who developed into the God he currently is seems contradicted by our other doctrine that he is unchanging. Let us examine this doctrine in depth.
The Traditional Christian view of God understands him as possessing three persons but being one essence. God is immutable, he doesn’t change according to the Bible but at the same time describes a changing God!
Heb 13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.
Is Jesus, “God”? We say yes. Is he the same yesterday, today and tomorrow? We say yes (also see Moro 10:19). But, did he change? Yes! He was an incorporeal (not nonmaterial) spirit being for billions of years before being born to Mary 2,000 years ago. Jesus (God) changed from being completely nonhuman to human! He changed from an embryo to a fetus, to an infant, to a child, to an adolescent, to an adult. He changed! Since Jesus is God, and Jesus changed, it means God changed! God changed physically and in essence (purely nonhuman to part-human).
Luke 2:52 And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man.
Did Jesus increase in wisdom? Did he change? Isn’t an “increase” a “change”?
John 5:19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.
What did Jesus do? Did he do what Heavenly Father did before him? If God the Son changed and replicated what God the Father did before him, did God the Father change? If not, Jesus is a liar.
Our opponents claim to be the true followers of Christ but they don’t believe what Jesus said about his emulation of the Father, the significance of the humanity of Jesus or the implications of his incarnation. Neither do they seem to understand how God can be unchanging and changing at the same time. Their argument in reality isn’t with us Mormons, it’s with Jesus and the NT. We are merely believing what is clearly espoused in the Bible.
This needs to be clarified. The immutability of God is in reference to his nature. His nature as God doesn’t change,1 in relation to the universe. Jesus was always “God” despite changing from being purely incorporeal to having a physical body.
If the Christian anti-Mormons truly believe God’s `unchangeness’ excludes a mortal incarnation and development; they have no other choice but to abandon Jesus as being God and member of the Godhead! They must abandon the NT since it clearly refers to Jesus as God and at the same time describes a “changing” (evolving) Jesus. (He did get circumcised and “grew” a beard didn’t he?) Their only options are to convert to either Judaism or Islam.
The real problem lies in the origin of God. How did God come into existence? From the Scriptures it can be gathered that the universe was created by God therefore he had to precede this universe. As I understand it, the church teaches that Heavenly Father was once a man like us and resided on a world similar to ours. He eventually attained Godhood, and then created this universe and everything within. Such an idea drives anti-Mormons to rage. “How dare you Mormons say that God was once a man! Blasphemy!” The thing is, why be on the defensive? We should put the ball back in their corner and ask them, “What did God do before he created this universe?” If they’re trained in philosophy, they’ll say there never was a period before the creation and God was a hypostasis present. (See Chapter 14 and MORMONISM: Section 4). Usually, they won’t be able to answer. “You don’t know? How can you then say that the Mormon concept is wrong when you don’t have an alternate idea?”
In order for an individual to say that this idea (God was once a mortal humanoid in another universe) is wrong, he or she must be able to prove why it’s false. Since we teach that this occurred before the universe was created in an ancestral universe, they must be able to show that he was always [a] God before the universe was made. Can they do it? Absolutely not, since there isn’t a single verse in the Bible that says what God was doing before he created the universe. All we have is when he created this heaven (universe? sky?) and earth.
The Mormon belief of God’s mortal origin is based upon what is now known as the “multiverse cosmology” which resolves the unchanging God passages with the changing God described by the incarnation. It shows the “unchangeable God” passages are about God’s status, not about a mortal evolution. He was God before creating time and the universe. he will still be God after time and the universe cease to exist.
[ENDNOTES]:
1.NIBD. Immutability.
***************************
Did Joseph Smith copy SOME of the Book of Mormon from the Bible, most especially the Beatitudes? Most definitely! A comparative analysis shows a gradual convergence of the texts, with the greatest differences at the beginning.
Does this prove the Book of Mormon false? Of course not since EVERY NT WRITER, most especially PAUL, copied OT passages into their writings, often without credit.
(I have a chapter with a side-by-side comparison of fifty specific NT instances).
Why then do I still believe the New Testament is Scripture?
As I said in an article I wrote (Tanner Worship and Real Scholarship; FAIR journal):
“In my opinion, there isn’t any question Joseph Smith used the text from his AV Bible in writing parts of the Book of Mormon. A textual comparison of 3 Nephi 12-14 with Matthew 5-7 shows a gradual convergence of the texts with the greatest deviation existing at the very beginning of 3 Nephi 12. This gradual dovetailing reveals Joseph Smith “cheated”; not in the sense of committing fraud, but in shying away from the painstaking and difficult translation process of examining each engraved character, trying to discern what it meant by relying upon God’s inspiration, and then verbalizing the revealed impression. When he realized he was quoting the Beatitudes, he “popped open his Bible”; continued the slow translation but eventually acquiesced to a wholesale importation of the remainder of the Beatitudes after deducing minimal difference between the two accounts.
“This also explains the similarities of the Isaiah and Malachi quotations from what’s found in the AV and why some Book of Mormon passages that parallel those found in the Bible contain the same textual errors found in the AV. Does this mean the Book of Mormon is false? Of course not. Why should a later prophet’s unacknowledged usage of the writing of an earlier prophet be grounds for invalidating his own writings? Don’t the anti-Mormons know biblical writers frequently copied or paraphrased from earlier writers without acknowledging their “plagiarism”? [e.g., Heb 8:8-12 cf. Jer 31:31-34; Matt 13:13/Mark 4:12 cf. Isa 6:9-10; Heb 3:7-11 cf. Ps 95:7-11; Matt 10:35-36 cf. Micah 7:6; Luke 19:40 cf. Hab 2:11; Acts 13:41 cf. Hab 1:5; 1 Cor 4:13 cf. Lam 3:45; Jas 2:9 cf. Prov 28:21; 1 Pet 3:10-12 cf. Ps 34:12-16; Rev 1:15 cf. Ezek 43:2; 2 Kng 18-20 is actually copied from Isa 36-39 and Mic 4:1-3 is copied from Isa 2:2-4; etc.
**************************
As for “man become God” - I’m too tired to enter another discussion on it (need to go back to sleep) so just read my book on the matter at http://www.fortunecity.com/meltingpot/bicycleroad/21/id33.htm
******************
Lastly, I’m also the father of five (boys)!
~”One big fat difference: when’s the last time the Masons or Quakers sent a couple of nicely-dressed, articulate folks to your doorstep to tell you about what their beliefs are? The method that your faith uses to extend itself is what motivates a lot of distrust, unfortunately.”~
Goodness, I hope you’re wrong. We are a faith that proselytes aggressively; I’m afraid I fail to understand what is threatening about that, though. If a person is unwilling to listen, we smile and walk on.
Interestingly, the LDS Church encourages its members to find the new members, rather than the missionaries. In an ideal world, I invite you over as a friend to hear the missionaries; the only role they would serve is to teach. It doesn’t always work like that, so they go from door to door to fill time.
But what is it about a knock on the door that would engender mistrust? From my perspective, I fail to understand it.
~”I can’t think of any other faith tradition that has been hurt by having one of its members become President.”~
I hope that you’re right, but Mormons seem to be treated differently in many other ways. I suppose it remains to be seen if this will be one of them.
~”Oddly enough, it is this, “We’ve gotten past this,” that anti-Mormon voters are not willing to confer. They don’t really oppose Romney on issues relating to the economy or the military (although I can understand that social conservatives have legitimate worries about the “flip-flop” problem), but they know that his nomination and election mean that their anti-Mormon rhetoric looks more like bigoted ramblings that their fellow Americans have repudiated at the ballot box.”~
Excellently stated. Another dimension that must be considered is that anti-Mormonism is quite a lucrative business; pamphlets, books, tapes, speeches are all sold. Those whose livelihoods depend on the business are taking advantage of Romney’s election as an excellent opportunity to play on the fears they market so well, and they’re stirring the pot for two reasons: 1. they get to sell more stuff right now, and 2. if Romney wins, they lose support, and therefore business.
I must admit that some of my excitement over Romney is generated by the anticipation I have for the deeply satisfying sense of schadenfreude I would experience for these people if Romney were to be president. It’s not a terribly intellectual response, so I try to look past it; but it is a growing factor in my decisions as such people attack what I love day after day.
~”When he realized he was quoting the Beatitudes, he “popped open his Bible”; continued the slow translation but eventually acquiesced to a wholesale importation of the remainder of the Beatitudes after deducing minimal difference between the two accounts.”~
I do not agree with this interpretation. I am no scholar on the topic; but I see nothing wrong with the idea that Christ quoted Himself verbatim where appropriate. Is it shocking that He would teach the same principles to two different groups of His followers? To me, it’s a testament to the Book of Mormon’s veracity; if Smith were “making it up,” would he not have preferred a version of the beatitudes that supported the principles that he wanted to espouse?
We seem to be diving inexorably into religion, and away from the original political discussion. Thankfully, this hasn’t been caused by anti-Mormon screed in this instance, but rather by honest theological discussions.
Still, consistency is consistency, so I request that this thread be moved to the Religion forum, if you, RM, see fit to do so.
Any discussion on the political ramifications of Romney’s faith would certainly still be appropriate; but the attention span for that sort of thing appears to be short.
Thanks to all who have participated in a civil manner.
I’m sorry to say this, but many evangelical Christians that would otherwise be considered respectable openly admit they would never vote for a Mormon because of religious differences. That is not speculation. It is something that has been openly stated and I have heard.
There are, of course, numerous lefties who relfexively vote against anyone who openly professes a conservative Judeo-Christian belief, whether that belief be evangelical Christian, traditional Catholic, Orthodox Jewish or Mormon.
That’s a dangerous, and probably fatal combination, if you are Mitt Romney.
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.