Finding Truth in the “Would Not Vote for a Mormon” Polls

RomneyExperience.com ^ | 7/26/07

[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...

[Elsie]

I don't recall the Saviour using that tactic during his ministry.

Dang!

You ought to read the GOSPELs sometime!

[Elsie]

While I knew that this was true...

Don't you mean:

While I FELT that this was true...?

[colorcountry]

Those ceremonies are just so weird. I don’t know how anyone can attend the Temple and not see how ridiculous those oaths and covenants and reinactments are!

Mitt believes them - - and people think he can serve as POTUS. Someitmes I feel like I’ve entered a second dimension where up is down and down is up.

Of course I’ve lived in Utah all my life, you’d think I’d be used to it by now.

[Elsie]

And then what happened to him later as a result of his dissing the Book of Mormon?? 8~)

"No soup for YOU!"

[Elsie]

And then what happened to him later as a result of his dissing the Book of Mormon?? 8~)

He was heard to mutter...

"Dang! I guess I WON'T be 'sealed' to Mary forever, after all!"

[Elsie]

At times it seems all is going along well and then somebody throws out a jab and the fight is on.

And at other times, a question (or two) is asked, and folks slink away from a fight.

[Elsie]

It's Monday evening, and your words have sickened and saddened me as I contemplate and pray for you to find peace in your heart.

Ahh...

The VoiceofReason has arrived!

[Elsie]

I thought you said before that you thought his liberalism would hurt him far more than his religion? That not many people cared about his religion as much as you do?

We have NO idea what the American voters will tolerate.

After all; they sure appeared not to 'care' that the previous POTUS recieved BJ's under his office desk and lied about it to the Nation.

[Elsie]

I feel sure in the witness I've received.

Did you receive that witness during a Temple ceremony?

They're not AUTHORIZED by any of your Scriptures you know.

[Elsie]

Religion Moderator RM, it’s been productive to leave this thread in News for the last couple of days; unfortunately, both sides have started issuing escalating jabs, and the political aspects of the thread are no longer present. I think it’s time for a move to Religion; hopefully that’ll help restore the civility.

Well; it looks like your wish was granted!

I doubt that it'll really make you happy though.

You've effectively taken your 'positive and graceful' demeanor away from veiw from a LOT of lurkers.

Poor way to attract others to your more complete truth.

[Elsie]

No you didn't say that, but that's how your words made me feel.

 

I have no clue as to what 'you feel'; but YOUR words make you sound like a Liberal!

[Elsie]

FM

Now THAT was NOT nice!

[Elsie]

There are a lot of closed minds in these parts.

 

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/js_h/1/19#19

  17 It no sooner appeared than I found myself ^adelivered from the enemy which held me bound. When the light rested upon me I ^bsaw two ^cPersonages, whose brightness and ^dglory defy all description, ^estanding above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other—This is My ^fBeloved ^gSon. Hear Him!

  18 My object in going to ^ainquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)—and which I should join.

  19 I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all ^awrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those ^bprofessors were all ^ccorrupt; that: “they ^ddraw near to me with their lips, but their ^ehearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the ^fcommandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the ^gpower thereof.”

  20 He again forbade me to join with any of them; and many other things did he say unto me, which I cannot write at this time. When I came to myself again, I found myself ^alying on my back, looking up into heaven. When the light had departed, I had no strength; but soon recovering in some degree, I went home. And as I leaned up to the fireplace, ^bmother inquired what the matter was. I replied, “Never mind, all is well—I am well enough off.” I then said to my mother, “I have learned for myself that Presbyterianism is not true.” 

 

 

 

You got THAT right!!!

 

--MormonDude(high fives all around!)

[Elsie]

I'll take my chances at being as ignorant and evil as you claim me and my kind to be...

Oh boy!!!

Now them Gentiles said we was EVIL!!

They truly must HATE us!

--MormonDude(Uh; WHERE did they say that again??)

[Elsie]

... as long as I did not show contempot for Him by thinking that it was all up to me -- which I have not...

Me neither!!

Only PART of it is 'up to me'!!

--MormonDude(I have done my part)

[Elsie]

 

Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.

 

'Cause if'n  ya don't; THIS'll happen to ya!

 

 

   

 

The Lord showed me by vision and revelation exactly what would take place if  we did not stop this practice. If  we had not stopped it, you would have had no use for . . . any of the men in this temple at Logan; for all ordinances would be stopped throughout the land of Zion. Confusion would reign throughout Israel, and many men would be made prisoners. This trouble would have come upon the whole Church, and we should have been compelled to stop the practice. Now, the question is, whether it should be stopped in this manner, or in the way the Lord has manifested to us, and leave our Prophets and Apostles and fathers free men, and the temples in the hands of the people, so that the dead may be redeemed. A large number has already been delivered from the prison house in the spirit world by this people, and shall the work go on or stop? This is the question I lay before the Latter-day Saints. You have to judge for yourselves. I want you to answer it for yourselves. I shall not answer it; but I say to you that that is exactly the condition we as a people would have been in had we not taken the course we have.

. . . I saw exactly what would come to pass if there was not something done. I have had this spirit upon me for a long time. But I want to say this: I should have let all the temples go out of our hands; I should have gone to prison myself, and let every other man go there, had not the God of heaven commanded me to do what I did do; and when the hour came that I was commanded to do that, it was all clear to me. I went before the Lord, and I wrote what the Lord told me to write. . . .

I leave this with you, for you to contemplate and consider. The Lord is at work with us. (Cache Stake Conference, Logan, Utah, Sunday, November 1, 1891. Reported in Deseret Weekly, November 14, 1891.)

Now I will tell you what was manifested to me and what the Son of God performed in this thing. . . . All these things would have come to pass, as God Almighty lives, had not that Manifesto been given. Therefore, the Son of God felt disposed to have that thing presented to the Church and to the world for purposes in his own mind. The Lord had decreed the establishment of Zion. He had decreed the finishing of this temple. He had decreed that the salvation of the living and the dead should be given in these valleys of the mountains. And Almighty God decreed that the Devil should not thwart it. If you can understand that, that is a key to it. (From a discourse at the sixth session of the dedication of the Salt Lake Temple, April 1893. Typescript of Dedicatory Services, Archives, Church Historical Department, Salt Lake City, Utah.)

 

 

[FatherofFive]

Don’t you, as a Christian (I assume), believe something similar?

Not at all. First, Moroni and Mormon refer to god the father as unchanging from eternity to eternity. Scripture tells us that the Son did change, when he became man. This is a mystery, but it is consistent throughout scripture. God the Father changing is not consistent with the Bible or the Book of Mormon.

An “unchanging” God who “changed” from being solely “nonmaterial” to “partially material” with God the Son assuming materiality 2000 years ago?

Your argument doesn’t make any sense. Your logic is wrong.

It’s like saying,

Bill is a man.

Bob is a man.

Therefore, Bill is Bob.

You can’t interchange God the Father and Jesus. Jesus is not God the Father, and you cannot substitute Jesus for the Father when reading Scripture and see the word God, as you are doing.

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.

By your logic, the Father did everything Jesus did. Unless they are the same person, this can’t be correct. It doesn’t make Jesus a liar.

Keep reading John 5:19 to get the proper context:

19Jesus gave them this answer: "I tell you the truth, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does. 20For the Father loves the Son and shows him all he does. Yes, to your amazement he will show him even greater things than these. 21For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son gives life to whom he is pleased to give it. 22Moreover, the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son, 23that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father, who sent him.

This is in no way implying that God the father became man, turned water into wine, or died on the cross. You are implying that the son cannot do anything the father didn’t do. Just not rational, and a gross distortion of scripture, logic and reason.

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.

Yes it is foolish. This is why I don’t trust Romney as a candidate. He can look at the clear language in the Bible, at the clear language in the BOM, and believe something that is clearly wrong.

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.

On the surface, and as deep as you can go. Stick with the clear and obvious reading of Scripture and the BOM and you see your belief is flawed.

However, there is one part of the Bible where man aspires to be god:

"You will not surely die," the serpent said to the woman. "For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." Gen 3:4-5

The real problem lies in the origin of God.

This is only a problem for Mormons. Moroni and Mormon affirm that God the Father is unchanging from eternity to eternity - He never changes. That is hard to accept, but it is what Scripture reveals about God. It is only the Mormon ‘man to god’ thingy that creates the ‘problem.’ But Gen 3:4-5 shows where this man to god belief comes from.

[Elsie]

 

Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.

---

 

THE DOCTRINE AND COVENANTS

SECTION 132

Revelation given through Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Nauvoo, Illinois, recorded July 12, 1843, relating to the new and everlasting covenant, including the eternity of the marriage covenant, as also plurality of wives. HC 5: 501—507. Although the revelation was recorded in 1843, it is evident from the historical records that the doctrines and principles involved in this revelation had been known by the Prophet since 1831.

 1—6, Exaltation is gained through the new and everlasting covenant; 7—14, The terms and conditions of that covenant are set forth; 15—20, Celestial marriage and a continuation of the family unit enable men to become gods; 21—25, The strait and narrow way that leads to eternal lives; 26—27, Law given relative to blasphemy against the Holy Ghost; 28—39, Promises of eternal increase and exaltation made to prophets and saints in all ages; 40—47, Joseph Smith is given the power to bind and seal on earth and in heaven; 48—50, The Lord seals upon him his exaltation; 51—57, Emma Smith is counseled to be faithful and true; 58—66, Laws governing the plurality of wives are set forth.
 

   

1 VERILY, thus saith the Lord unto you my servant Joseph, that inasmuch as you have inquired of my hand to know and understand wherein I, the Lord, justified my servants Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as also Moses, David and Solomon, my servants, as touching the principle and doctrine of their having many wives and concubines —

2 Behold, and lo, I am the Lord thy God, and will answer thee as touching this matter.

3 Therefore, prepare thy heart to receive and obey the instructions which I am about to give unto you; for all those who have this law revealed unto them must obey the same.

4 For behold, I reveal unto you a new and an everlasting covenant; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory.

 

[Elsie]

Teach and Testify Know the question that should have been asked!

The question that IS asked:

Why do you people do Temple Rites that are NOT autorized by your Scriptures?

[Elsie]

Ya’ll better play nice NOW! ;^)