Mitt Romney is a “savage wolf” to the Christian Koinonia as referred to by St. Paul? If Mitt Romney were to use his position as President to promote or establish Mormonism, I would agree, but he is doing nothing of the sort, and it is slanderous to suggest that he is. Again, if Mormons are proslytizing in the broader society, they are legally free to do so. They are wrong about their religion, but we have a free country, and in this country, the cure to bad speech is better speech. So get out their and evangelize like crazy. Go for it! Prevent the savage wolves from turning Christians away from the true faith. No problem. But that has NOTHING to do with politics. Sheesh. I suppose you want to toss out the US Constitution and establish an Evangelistic theocratic regime? Do you only vote for Evangelicals for office? Is every Evangelical pure as the driven snow and sinless? I suppose you must have voted for George Bush and Jimmy Carter. I don’t know who else would have met your religious test for public office. To say that St. Paul in the Bible is telling us not to vote for Romney, solely because he is a Mormon, and allow someone who may well be a minion of the prince of darkness who wants to turn the US into a state socialist free abortion, free contraception, same sex marriage promoting hell hole, i.e., Obama, I just say that is total nonsense.
Go back to what I already told you in post #295...[Not sure why I am having to retreat the same ground]: I said in that post, "Romney wouldn't even have to do anything. The Mormon Public relations campaign...hundreds of $mllions worth -- would kick into high gear to take advantage of this "Mormon moment."
So I was referencing the Mormon church leadership & missionary force as indeed "savage wolves"; and, yes, Romney belongs to a "savage wolf" sect that pounces on the spiritually vulnerable, and take some from the Kingdom of Light into the Kingdom of legalism.
Per the apostle Paul -- not me -- what "makes" for a "savage wolf?" Well, it's right there in the Acts 20 passage I highlighted in my last post (see vv. 29-30): They do/will "...not spare the flock. 30 Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth.../u>"
Therefore, bottom-line, "savage wolves" are truth-distorters -- cultists -- who by means of distorting Biblical truth, wind up ensnaring the flock.
Sounds like the Mormon church's 55,000 missionaries to me. Oh...and guess what? The Lds church just decided to lower its required minimum age requirements for missionaries: For men, from age 19 to 18; for women, from age 21 to 19. Guess what that means? Well, the Mormon church, in anticipation of a Romney victory...is shooting for 100,000+ missionaries in 2013 and beyond.
No, every Evangelical -- or every Christian -- isn't "pure...snow and sinless."
But at least a fair number of Christian candidates who aren't Christians in wolf suits actually call upon the right God when in a time of crisis...vs. the potential Mormon prez who will call upon a former "man" who got the Mormon god job from a "council of gods" who appointed him...Good "luck" with that actually helping our nation in need -- calling upon some low-level "god" ...
I suppose you want to toss out the US Constitution...I don’t know who else would have met your religious test for public office.
Ya know, U.S...I once read an Lds news release that said: The framers of our constitution included a provision that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States” (Article VI). That constitutional principle forbids a religious test as a legal requirement...
So, I guess, now you're spewing Mormon public relations on behalf of the Mormon church P.R. team? What? And you're not even asking for a P.R. check from their office?
This Mormon church release was part of a discussion by Lds "apostle" Dallin Oaks.
I'm afraid you -- Unam Sanctam -- like Mr. Oaks...BADLY misconstrues candidacy eligibility issues.
All the constitution says is that an eligible candidate cannot be kept from running on religious test grounds.
Ya know, even Mr. Oaks recognized how ludicrous some of his rhetoric was sounding and needed to offset it a bit with a qualifier: "...but it of course leaves citizens free to cast their votes on the basis of ANY preference they choose."
Would you Unam Sanctam, at least go as far as the Mormon church P.R. release and likewise concede, "...but it of course leaves citizens free to cast their votes on the basis of ANY preference they choose?" Or are you some jack-boot dictator who would come in and force your sorry interpretation of Article VI of the Constitution upon ALL voters?
****************
So...here's a Constitutional "primer" for you so that you don't keep exporting confusion to others:
Point 1- RELIGION: Religion IS NOT a qualification or disqualification for public office; but it's certainly one quality of voter discernment among many others...namely, voting record, present position statements & rampant inconsistency of past position statements, social issues' stances, character, viability, scandal-free past, etc. Article VI, section 3 of the Constitution is aimed at the candidate (must be of a certain age and must have resided in our country for a certain number of years) and the government so that religion does not become a disqualification to keep somebody otherwise eligible for running for public office. Article VI, section 3, is not aimed at the voter. Otherwise, voters would have to 100% disregard character, beliefs, other-dimensionly commitments, and spiritual discernment in weighing candidates.
POINT 2 - ELIGIBILITY: Newsflash!! Every person on the ballot, & even most write-in candidates, have proper "qualifications" to not be excluded from office consideration (based upon religious grounds). Of course, millions of us have the "qualifications" to be considered a potential POTUS & shouldn't be excluded outright from a ballot because of the religion we hold! Nobody has a "Religious Ineligibility" tattoo on their forehead!
POINT 3- BOTTOM LINE: You don't, US, really want to join Lds "apostles" in their confusion by emphasizing words similar to "qualifications" (language within the Constitution) with words like "qualities." (language that’s NOT in the Constitution)...do you?
I focus on what voters base their votes on in the "real world": Qualities
Otherwise, Article VI says absolutely...
...nothing...
....nada...
...zero...
...about how voters must weigh--or not weigh--the "qualities" of a candidate...
Nowhere does Article VI say that voters MUST 100% disregard character, beliefs, other-dimensionly commitments, and spiritual discernment in weighing candidates!
"Qualifications" have to do with what gets a man on a ballot. "Qualities" has to do with who gets elected.
(Btw, even 88%-95% of Mormons -- most voting upon the fellow personal "qualities" of a candidate like Romney -- can tell you that!)
So...why, therefore aren't you lecturing Lds voters if anywhere from 88% to 95% of Mormons will only vote for a Mormon?
(For some reason, the "Article 6 Religious Test" lecture tour never seems to hit Utah, Eastern Nevada, Southwest Wyoming or Southern Idaho)
Mitt Romney is a “savage wolf” to the Christian Koinonia as referred to by St. Paul? If Mitt Romney were to use his position as President to promote or establish Mormonism, I would agree,
_________________________________________
Every time Willard uses his position as GOP candidate for presidnet to prosytize his Mortmon religion, hes acting like you r savage wolf...
Just as he did at the debate this week when As a Mormon archbishop he preached the Mormon doctrine and said “You are all God’s children...”
No we are not...
Not in Christianity...
We are not born children of God...
As new born again Christians we are grafted into the vine and become adopted children of God through the shed blood of the LORD Jesus Christ...
Until we repent and believe in Jesus and are born again we are not children of God..
Yet to all who received Him, to those who believed in His name, He gave the right to become children of God— children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God. John 1:11-13
Willard himself is not a born again Bible believing Christian and child of God and nor were several in the debate audience...
Everytime Willard speaks he uses the oppotunity to declare Mormon doctrine from his bully pulpit..
Because many who hear him dont know Mormonism, they dont recognize that he is pushing his false religion onto them..
While they wouldnt have let him into their houses as a Mormon obeying his religions demands and knocking on doors to tell them they as Christians were wrong to believe the Bible, and would go to Hell unless they were converted in Mormonism, they accept the same lies from him during his campaign for president...
If he was ever truthful and told them he believed Joseph Smith was the prophet of God and was to be worshiped as a lord and god, what would they do ???
If he was truthful and said hre believed that a male must have multiple “wives” in order to become a god and go to the highest level of the Mormon afterlife, what would they do ???
If he was truthful and said that he believed the Christians amongst them were apostates and beneath him what would they do ???
If he was truthful and admitted he believed he was fullfilling prophecy and would be president-for-life and king over the US if he was elected, what would they do ???
If he was truthful and admotted he hated the Christians amongst them and mocked them in his pagan temple rituals, what would they do ???
Willard has them so bamboozled and sucked in I doubt they would do anything at this point...
Meanwhile he keeps on giving his Mormon “talks” and baby Christian lap it up because they dont know their Bible...
Allow me to "reinforce" my last post by citing two other FREEPERS, Springfield Reformer, and Commerce Comet.
We were having a Constitution Article VI discussion with a fourth FREEPER last April 9...when he likewise raised the faulty Article VI "religious test" argument.
Allow me to quote those two FREEPERS:
...back to Constitution 101 for you. Colofornian is exactly right - this limitation is imposed on the GOVERNMENT, not private citizens. Remember that the original colonies were set up as religious enclaves. The Constitution prevented the state from imposing a religious requirement that its elected officials must be of the recognized state religion. In other words, an elected official in Maryland didn't have to be Catholic, or an official in Rhode Island, Baptist, etc.
So what are the courts going to do if I vote based on religious grounds? Declare me unconstitutional? Nullify my vote? How are they going to know that was my basis for voting? The Founding Fathers wouldn't put something as foolish into the Constitution as your are suggesting. They knew that you can't put unenforceable provisions into a ruling document - it just opens the whole document to be held in contempt.
Source: Commerce Comet's Article VI response
Colofornian is right. Article VI is a limitation on the fed, not on you and I. All it means is that a person of any religion or no religion cannot be blocked by the fed from running for federal office. That means that whether a person believes in the God of Israel or in the tooth fairy or in no god at all, the federal government cannot deny that person a place on the ballot.
However, I venture to guess that if you knew a candidate was on the ballot who seriously believed in the tooth fairy, you might give the other, more, um, traditional candidates a closer look. And you would have a constitutional right to do so. Election law under our Constitution liberates both the candidate and the voter to express their views freely under the First Amendment, whether those views are religious or otherwise. Your advocacy of Article VI as a limitation on what the *voter* may consider is a perfect inversion of that principle, and an argument against those costly liberties, paid for in blood, and enshrined for us in the First Amendment of our Constitution. Your argument has no basis in fact or law, and is not to be taken seriously. We will vote with eyes wide open, but thank you for your concern.
Source: Springfield Reformer's Article VI response