| 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 ...
It’s a good thing God’s the one who sorts that kind of thing out.”
Yep. I’d sure like to claim head trauma as a reason for some of the stupid stuff I’ve done in my life. Including misremembering stuff I’ve not studied recently. Fortunately, God will sort it (and us) all out in the end.
Makes one wonder what the church would have been like had Rigdon become the successor.
"Although he never spent time in Utah, Sidney Rigdon was an important figure in the early history of Mormonism. As a trained minister he was able to lend structure and substance to much of the church's early theology and influenced Joseph Smith in a variety of ways.
Troubled by manic depression and an eccentric personality, he was destined to run afoul of church leaders eventually. With his final subjugation by Brigham Young in 1844, he relocated to Pittsburgh and then the Cumberland Valley, becoming the spiritual ancestor to a Church of Christ sect that still thrives today." From the Utah Historical Quarterly.
I'm wondering which COC sect this refers to, since it is still thriving today.
On the sixth day of April following he (Joseph Smith) proceeded to organize the "Church of Christ." Up to this time and for several years afterwards the prophet had not once even heard whether there be such an organization as the "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints." This sounding nomenclature followed first in the year 1834. On the contrary after the strictest propriety of the "dialect of Bethany," Mr. Smith organized the "Church of Christ;" no other designation was for a moment considered. [Possibly] this name for the new body is first mentioned in the title of Section 18 of the Book of D.&C., which belongs to the month of June 1829, which is commonly set down as its birthday (D&C, 21:11). In the title of Sect. 22, which was delivered only a few days later it again appears as nothing other than the "Church of Christ." The same thing may be read at D&C 42:78. In several of these places Joseph had the grace to designate it as "this Church of Christ," as if to distinguish his organization from another body which he was aware that Mr. Campbell stood at the head of.
Sidney Rigdon, The Real Founder of Mormonism by: William H. Whitsitt
“Will Romney’s religion make him unelectable?”
The three to five percent who will not vote Mormon under any circumstance are right at the edge of breaking Romney as a candidate. But even if he overcomes this, be wary what you wish for. Every tit and tittle of Mormon theology will come under scrutiny (as it has here). I don’t think the results will be as bad as at Nauvoo, but it will be 8 years of mud and distraction.
~”Every tit and tittle of Mormon theology will come under scrutiny (as it has here).”~
Yes, I have considered that possibility, as you will see if you continue reading through the thread.
I am growing into the idea that the nation’s need for Romney’s leadership abilities and conservative values (if he holds them - a debatable theory) outweigh the LDS’s Church’s need to escape scrutiny.
I’m not worried about honest scrutiny of the LDS Church; it’s withstood it all, and will continue to do so. I am a little daunted by the idea of having to refute the same falsehoods time and time again for the next ten years. Such a necessity would inevitably alter the mindset of the LDS membership - ten years under ecclesiastical siege would have very interesting consequences, for better or worse.
“For an item that is considered to be ‘scripture’, the Pearl of Great Price sure CHANGES around a lot!”
We believe in an open canon of scripture, so additions do not concern us. Someday there will further additions to our body of scripture, those might be additions to the D&C or PoGP, or even a new book altogether. Moving parts of it to the D&C, removing duplicated records and formating changes are hardly significant changes. Again you only show your deep desire to latch onto any excuset o heap scorn on us, no matter how invalid.
When BY says ‘I rather think it is’ about one thing or another, it should be clear to even you that he is expressing a personal opinion. Calling it a ‘teaching of Mormonism’ is dishonest of you.
Although the idea is outlandish by todays standards, science was not so advanced in that day. William Herschel, the 19th century astronomer who discovered the planet Uranus, also thought it possible that there was a region below the Sun’s surface where men might live according to Patrick Moore’s book, New Guide to the Moon (W.W. Norton & Company, New York: 1976).
Indeed, the Proclamation to the World (http://www.lds.org/library/display/0,4945,161-1-11-1,00.html) is known in some LDS circles as “Section 139, pending.”
God gives His children more truth as they are prepared to receive it. Line upon line, precept on precept. We believe in modern revelation; it would be inconsistent for us to preclude the possibility of forthcoming scripture.
Refuting falsehoods is something even I have tried to do where Mormonism is at issue. BUT you treat the truths raised about your religion and the actual sources from LDS materials as falsehoods in an effort to imprint the impression that all folks raise in opposition to Mormonism is false. THAT is deceit, tantiboh, that is what some of we Inmans are constantly striving against.
Let me give you an example.
In this discussion, we’ve seen the claim that the LDS Church teaches that the sun is inhabited.
Sources are rolled out; our leaders are quoted. It’s obvious, isn’t it? Your leaders said it right here! It’s documented, and it’s from LDS materials! The LDS Church teaches that the sun is inhabited!
Well, no it doesn’t. When we say it doesn’t, we are accused of obfuscation. We are accused of trying to mislead others about our beliefs.
This is just one of many examples I could cite. What about:
- The accusation that the LDS Church teaches that polygamy is necessary for salvation.
- The accusation that Joseph Smith exalted himself above Christ.
- The accusation that the LDS Church teaches that Adam and God are the same being.
- The accusation that we worship a different Christ from everybody else.
Need I continue?
Yet, we see these same tired falsehoods promulgated as means to discredit us time and time and time again. And their proponents always claim that their arguments are based on LDS sources. And they often state that we’re just trying to hide the truth when we refute their claims.
That is deceit, too, MGH. You, personally, are generally innocent of the more egregious examples; but you are an exception, even amongst the “Flying Inmans.”
Satan knows not to assert complete and utter falsehoods 100% of the time. There are many truths which Mormonism has held to, but it is the assertions of divine authority and divine revelation that some of us are opposed to and feel a need to expose. Impeaching the people who made the false claims and brought forth the fabricated ‘scriptures’ is part of clarifying why a religion claiming to be THE restored Christianity is a cult. You may have noticed my absence or scarcity on these latest Mormonism threads. But it doesn’t mean I’ve stopped lurking. I too can only suffer a limited amount/degree of deceit before chiming in yet again.
Membership requirements are different for each organization, but they ARE requirements, after all.
Dang!
That's too bad!
Feel blessed!
My whole FAMILY won't with me!
ROTL!!!
I gotcha beat..my family thinks it’s a “trivial pursuit” ;)
Gee, I thought we were contemplating electing a president- not a new deacon for our church.
I have never understood morons who would help Hitlary into power by abstaining from voting over theological differences with a pro-life GOP candidate.
And I’m a Fredhead. But you people who wouldn’t vote for “a mormon” in the general election may be the death of the country. Mitt leads in N.H. and Iowa.
Put down the Bible for one minute... step out of the church briefly....think of the country. The caliphate won’t agonize over these sectarian distinctions. Self-important narrow-minded extremists notwithstanding.
The logical flaw we are facing here is that you think we view our leaders as infallible. When a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, he is speaking scripture. We have the right to approach the Lord and confirm it as revelation; but it is prophecy, and should be treated as such. And I challenge you to find a bona fide revelation from an LDS President that has been objectively and conclusively proven wrong.
But our leaders are men, too, with all the attendant limitations. That means they have opinions, and sometimes those opinions are wrong. The early leaders were particularly free with their opinions.
That doesn’t make them false prophets. That makes them wrong men. And it is an invalid metric by which to disqualify a prophet from legitimacy, even by Biblical standards. The Bible is rife with examples of prophets who made human error. That doesn’t mean their prophecies are any less valuable or true.
HA Ha ha!!
And the LDS members are the ones telling US not to 'tell us what we believe!'
But, now say what the old RLDS folks DO believe???
That is why they aren’t Mormons.
Just because they don't 'use' the BoM??
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.