Posted on 08/11/2011 4:29:28 AM PDT by Colofornian
...we pretty much know what kind of re-election campaign Barack Obama is going to wage: A relentlessly negative one, which...will focus almost exclusively on making the challenger seem unacceptable rather than defending the sitting president’s accomplishments. Thanks to Ben Smith at Politico, we also know roughly how the White House plans to “destroy Mitt Romney,”...By “attacking him as inauthentic, unprincipled and, in a word used repeatedly by Obama’s advisers in about a dozen interviews, ‘weird.’”
Weird how, you ask? Here’s Smith:
The character attacks on Romney will focus on what critics view as a makeover, both personal (skinny jeans) and political (abortion) … Democrats also plan to amplify what Obama strategists described as the “weirdness” quotient, the sum of awkward public encounters and famous off-kilter anecdotes, first among them the tale of Romney having strapped his dog to the roof of his car.
SNIP
...The crucial thing to understand here is that Romney’s Latter Day Saint affiliation isn’t just a potential liability among evangelical voters in Republican primaries. It’s a potential general election liability as well. In a recent Gallup poll, 18 percent of Republicans described themselves as unwilling to vote for a Mormon candidate — but that number actually climbed to 19 percent among Independents, and 27 percent among Democrats.
Who are these non-conservative Mormon skeptics?... theologically conservative/politically liberal Christians (mainly African American and Hispanic) who regard Mormonism as a dangerous heresy...secular liberals...who dislike L.D.S...positions...people who don’t have a particular theological or political ax to grind, who know Mormonism primarily through pop culture (from “Big Love” and “Sister Wives” to “South Park” and “The Book of Mormon”) and the occasional encounter with bicycling missionaries, and who have a vague sense of the L.D.S. church as little bit cultish, a little bit outside-the-mainstream, and a little bit, well, weird...
(Excerpt) Read more at douthat.blogs.nytimes.com ...
Every person who falls into this cult and buys all the damnable lies are just that, damned. I have a great concern for where others spend eternity and I'd never validate mormonism with my vote.
My prayers are for those wrapped up in this cult, I pray that they all find the true Jesus and abandon the Jesus as taught by mormonism.
You are allowed to repent - so then why haven't you? You still sin TP don't you? - therefore you have never repented according to the doctrine of mormonism. Furthermore -
DOCTRINE AND COVENANTS 25:15: “Keep my commandments continually, and a crown of righteousness thou shalt receive. And except thou do this, where I am you cannot come.”
Not only can you NOT claim to be perfect TP, you cannot even claim to be following these commandments "continually" now can you?
I assume you're not a Protestant...otherwise, you'd try to get your facts straight before pontificating.
As an Evangelical who has researched all of the prominent Evangelical Protestant denominations, I can tell you that what you cite as official "Lutheran doctrine" just isn't so.
Martin Luther was an opinionated man. He said a lot of things about a lot of things -- one of those being his vociferous denouncement of the Papal position. Just because Luther said something hasn't made it automatically translate into "Lutheran doctrine" in any & all Lutheran denominations. In fact, from my research, I've yet to find any Lutheran denomination that currently teaches this as official doctrine. There may be one. But I've yet to land upon that.
(Sorry to burst your straw man)
Now that doesn't mean Bachmann is beyond being questioned on anything Luther said. She is an open target on that -- no different than any Lutheran from that regard. Likewise, I'm sure there are Lutherans who take Luther at his word and may indeed regard the Papacy (vs. any specific Pope) with the deepest of suspicions. But opinions offered by either grassroots or even leaders does not = official doctrine taught.
By comparison here, what's funny is that Mormons don't want confusion between what the LDS teach vs. what the fLDS teach vs. what the rLDS teach; yet Lds or their allies suddenly don't mind issuing statements which confuse similar distinctions between Lutheran or Presbyterian or Baptist or Wesleyan-based denominations.
Maybe you should just mind your own business. You don’t know the fate of anyone’s eternal soul any more than anyone else, even though you might claim to.
If you go back to post #56 she was specifically referring to voting for either a muslim or a Mormon saying she would not vote for either. Neither would I.
And, yes, I believe both Mormonism and Islam are evil and of Satan. And I say this having been Mormon.
A Mormon in office IS bad for the country. Read “When Salt Lake City Calls” for a full explanation as to why and the author, Rocky Hulse (a 4th/6th generation Mormon), isn’t talking about just Mitt.
I would call it a statement of fact. At least muslims admit to being anti-Christ. Mormons pretend to be Christians while changing who Christ is and what He did, while lying to outsiders (”Gentiles”) about their teachings. That is evil.
The questions was, "Would you rather sit next to a devout Mormon or Muslim?" It had nothing to do with elected office.
Saying Mormonism is evil is a dodge. Do you agree with caww that all devout Mormons themselves are evil people?
To reiterate what I said in my last post, there is a vast difference between accountability for what Protestant leaders say vs. what Mormon leaders tout.
Why? Because what Protestant leaders say doesn't always carry the weight of "Scripture" -- and certainly is not to be regarded as new "scripture."
Mormons, on the other hand, not only have said many controversial things about Christian sects in their "scriptures" (see Joseph Smith History vv. 18-20 in Pearl of Great Price, for example)...but go beyond that re: what their leaders have stated.
Take Lds Doctrine & Covenants 68: And, behold, and lo, this is an ensample unto ALL those who were ordained unto this priesthood...And this is the ensample unto them, that they shall speak as they are moved upon by the Holy Ghost. And whatsoever they shall sopeak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost SHALL BE SCRIPTURE, SHALL BE THE WILL OF THE LORD, SHALL BE THE MIND OF THE LORD, SHALL BE THE WORD OF THE LORD, SHALL BE THE VOICE OF THE LORD, and the power of God unto salvation." (D&C 68:2-4)
Therefore, greater weight is assigned to what Mormon "prophets," "apostles" & other general authorities have stated--especially if Mormon leaders have never rescinded or directly labeled those previous statements as false teachings.
'Tis a big difference, therefore, if somebody criticizes what Martin Luther said as an opinionated leader; vs. what the Mormon "god" has said speaking thru the lips of a Mormon wannabe god...a Mormon leader.
Therefore, when a Mormon leader (Romney or any other) pronounces all Christian sects as "apostate," they are NOT just offering their "opinion" on that -- but claim to represent "God" on that. As such, Mormon leaders have been provoking the Christian church into a division that isn't new...so matter how much you pretend this division to be somehow "new."
My prayers are for those wrapped up in this cult, I pray that they all find the true Jesus and abandon the Jesus as taught by mormonism.
- - - - - -
Amen and Amen!
Let me make this easier for you TP, has there ever been a mormon (since mormonism came into being) that indisputably and continually kept ALL of the commandments as well lived a perfectly sinless life of repentance?
This is an open forum, which you don't own, as long as the owner allows me to express my opinions, I will do so.
You don’t know the fate of anyone’s eternal soul any more than anyone else, even though you might claim to.
Never made such a claim number one, that's just something you attributed to me falsely and number two, my living God has laid down some specific rules concerning our souls and the cult of Mormonism is as far from God's law as east from west.
Follow the false prophet at your own peril, if you are one of his followers, as for me and my house, we will follow the living and true and only God.
Tell me you are a Mormon and I'll add you in my prayers. A little prayer can't hurt you can it? Besides, I need the practice, my 66 year old knees need a better work out.
reaganaut - so be it, so be it, thank you.
Jesus taught that reaching souls is our business. While it’s true that no human can read the thoughts and beliefs of another, we have been given discernment to know what doctrinal statements are true and which ones are false.
You're correct I would not vote for either Romney or Obama. The thing about Obama is we do know exactly what we got there....crystal clear to everyone. With Romney his deception has no boundaries whatsoever....he's playing the public as always and protecting his mask from falling off. You would think smart people could tell what's going on...but then the enemy of men's souls is the master of deception....he knows everyones weaknesses.
Ya know I hear time and again how “nice” Mormons are....or how much they care about their families, (if they only knew).... they remind me of Scientologists in that respect. ..both put on happy faces not only to the public but to one another....both brag about their community help programs....and just like abuse victims...they are afraid to let anyone know what's really going on.....when they do we see the same denial as here on FR...they willfully remain devoted to their leadership and their church regardless of ‘the facts’....fear seems to rein for many.
Of course there's a difference between those who ‘are’ the grunt workers and those who ‘use’ the grunt workers...I am speaking of leadership and their Priesthood as some have stated. But the bottom line is the level of deception is just huge!..the grunts are too busy trying to be approved...but the leadership is well aware of their deception...and Romney is one of them. Evil is right!
I'm going to take a look at “when Salt Lake City Calls” now.
CW
You know I called you on an issue in post #61, and you dodged and ducked it in your post #62 response. So I'll ask you again...and then extend the questions with further comments:
Question I asked you in Post #61: In light of Matthew 23:15 & other verses, you're not going to also start accusing Jesus of anti-Pharisee hatred, are you?
How did you respond, and why haven't you been consistent in your posts to that end? You said:
I'm not religious, so I'll leave arguments over religious doctrine to religious people... [Post #62]
Tell us, GunRunner, if you're not "religious" and you are supposedly "leav[ing] arguments over religious doctrine to religious people," why did you say to CAWW in post #57?:
I've known Mormons who are good people despite their wacky beliefs, and there's a good number of LDS Freepers as well. Like I told you before, as a non-religious person I find transubstantiation and young Earth creationism just as wacky as anything the Mormons believe. {Post #57 to CAWW]
Well, well, well. You certainly stepped out of your...
...alleged "unReligious zone"...
...long enough to offer religious beliefs...
...on a number of vague & specific religious beliefs held by others...
--beliefs that you deem "wacky."
So...here you share your anti-religious beliefs -- which are in fact based upon your specific & personal religious worldview/beliefs...and then less than 90 minutes later, you tell me that since...
...you're unreligious,
...you leave religious commentary...
...to the religious folks.
Hmm...can you say two-faced? Inconsistent? Religious hypocrisy on your part? [Btw, just because people may not have some overt religious adherency, doesn't automatically mean they are irreligious or are silent with exporting their religious and/or irreligious commentaries...and that certainly sizes up you!]
What other "religious-laced" conviction have you repeatedly shared on this thread? I see that in posts #57, 114, 115, and 126 you've shared from GunRunner chapter 3, v. 16 your very religious sentiment on who is to be labeled "evil" and who isn't. You do know that since Jesus covered this same subject with His famous "Sermon on the Mount" that this does indeed fall under a religious banner/umbrella, don't you?
This "religious sermon" on Jesus' part takes up three whole chapters in the book of Matthew. Anybody who's read it knows that assessing who is evil -- and who isn't -- is indeed a religious worldview/conviction.
If you, then, though YOU ARE EVIL, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him! 12 So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets. (Jesus, Matthew 7:11-12)
Tell us, GunRunner, since you've already strayed far into this religious commentary, who is Jesus talking to when He says, "though YOU are EVIL?" Is He talking to religious people here? Well, yes -- and no. Matthew 5:1 and 7:28 says this sermon was directed to "the crowds" -- a crowd no doubt consisting of people all over the map religiously/unreligiously-wise.
IOW, Jesus was assuming that ALL of His hearers were "evil."
So I NOW ask you a second question like the first. And this question is based upon your comment in Post #118:
I don't know how to characterize the statement that all devout Muslims and all devout Mormons are evil and bad for the country other than to call it deranged. [GunRunner, post #118]
Here's the Q: Do you think Jesus was also "deranged" for labeling EVERYBODY ("you" is plural there) He gave that sermon to as "evil?"
Jesus' worldview of people obviously runs 100% counter to yours. He assumed people have an "evil" dimension about them; you obviously don't -- which is your prerogative. But please don't insult our intelligence by pretending that you haven't proffered up a religious vantage point -- just because you lack some specific religious fixed point of reference.
I simply took issue with the fact that devout Mormons are 'evil'. Amazing that I'm being criticized for calling that statement into question. [GunRunner, Post #114]
You know that's what happens when you stray into religious commentary -- religious commentary that directly opposes Jesus' worldview of people.
I know devout Muslims and devout Mormons and the ones I know are not evil.. [GunRunner, Post #115]
As a further explanation of what Jesus said in this sermon on the mount, He didn't totally diss the religious legalists of His day. In fact, earlier in that sermon, He gave them quite a compliment: For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven. (Jesus, Matthew 5:21)
IOW, like you Jesus saw the outward deeds of the Pharisees and complimented them. In fact, Jesus told the crowd that unless their outward righteousness surpassed/exceeded the Pharisees, they could forget about entering heaven.
But Jesus didn't stop there during His public ministry with His assessment of the Pharisees:
27 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of the bones of the dead and everything unclean. 28 In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness. (Jesus, Matthew 23:27-28)
The foremost legalists of our day -- the Mormons -- would be similar to the Pharisees. I believe if Jesus was here, he would compliment the Mormons' outward deeds just like He did the Pharisees in Matt. 5:21. But then I believe He would dissect the inward heart of the Mormons just like He did in Matt. 23.
Obviously we believe Jesus had the ability to dissect the hearts of men and women as He did so of both the Pharisees (Matt. 23) as well as the crowds (Matt. 7:11).
I think it's fair for you to pronounce a positive spin on Mormons' outward acts -- as Jesus did on the Pharisees.
But do you pretend to speak with "inside knowledge" as to the hearts of all men, Mormons included? I know you qualified one of your comments (#114) by saying you were "wary of lumping anyone into a collective like that as there are good and bad of all stripes" -- but tell us, why do you presume to know the inner hearts of those devout Mormons that you mention?
This is all quite pertinent...
...'cause you've gone even further than that by being highly -- and religiously --
--critical of a worldview that says that even though people have various outward degrees of evil/righteousness...
...evil permeates our hearts.
That doesn't mean that inwardly we're as bad as we can be. It just means no part of our being has escaped sin. And by definition, sin = evil.
Yet you find this worldview to be deranged, hateful, etc. Ah, the irony. You are provoked by others being labeled as "evil," yet you find it deranged/hateful -- code words for sinful/taboo/"evil"/wrong -- for people to use the word "evil."
Yes you did. I'll repost just in case you forgot what you said:
"Every person who falls into this cult and buys all the damnable lies are just that, damned. I have a great concern for where others spend eternity and I'd never validate mormonism with my vote."
You're claiming to know that these people are damned, clear as day. How can you so easily forget your own words?
I’m not a Mormon nor am I the least bit religious. I take issue with other calling people they don’t know evil because of religious differences.
Because it's true.
I've been perfectly consistent. I am in no way interested in arguing over who is a 'real Christian' and who is not. You and your Mormon opponents can argue about that until the cows come home. I have no interest in debating that question because I don't care.
I don't have any religious worldview. If I'm religious, then 'not' collecting stamps is a hobby. They are not anti-religious beliefs, they are non-religious beliefs.
If you want to call people whom you don't know evil because you have religious differences with them, and these religious differences do not involve killing, maiming, or harming other people, then I'm going to take issue with that. No amount of "non-belief is belief" nonsense is going to convince me that you are justified in calling other people evil who are clearly not.
Do you think Jesus was also "deranged" for labeling EVERYBODY ("you" is plural there) He gave that sermon to as "evil?"
Yes, if that's what he meant that he was clearly deranged. I would classify "follow me or you're evil" as a deranged statement.
However, that's your interpretation of what he said. There's plenty of Christians who do not agree with you that all non-Christians are evil, that all non-Christians (Mormons and Muslims included) go to hell and burn in the fires for eternity, and that you have to be a Christian who conforms to Colofornian's religious worldview to be a good person.
But once again, I'll let you toss that little nugget of argument around with your fellow Christians. I'm not interested.
But do you pretend to speak with "inside knowledge" as to the hearts of all men, Mormons included? I know you qualified one of your comments (#114) by saying you were "wary of lumping anyone into a collective like that as there are good and bad of all stripes" -- but tell us, why do you presume to know the inner hearts of those devout Mormons that you mention?
I don't claim to presume to know the inner hearts of people. I judge them by their actions, whereas you judge them by what you estimation of their religious belief system is and whether you approve of it. Big difference.
If you do not wish to see RF posts, do NOT use the "everything" option on the browse. Instead, browse by "News/Activism." When you log back in, the browse will reset to "everything" - so be sure to set it back to "News/Activism."
I’m arguing about Mitt’s religion, not doctrine.
Analogy: If I claim that the content of a person's stamp-collection is "wacky" (similar your #57 claim), that means I've made a stamp-collection evaluation. For me to then claim that I haven't made a stamp collection eval, just because I'm not a stamp collector, is disengenous. Once I enter into the realm of judging/evaluating/assessing the wackiness or non-wackiness of the specific CONTENT of specific stamp collections... (similar to your comment upon transsubstantiation)...I have crossed that border.
You are the one who claimed that people who presume "evil" of others are deranged. That means, according to Jesus' similar statement in Matthew 7:11, that you assign guilt by association to Jesus...which must mean you deem Him "deranged" as well.
If you don't want that to happen, then stop making blanket statements that have underpinnings to what Jesus has commented about.
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.