Replies

* Did Mormons all of a sudden change their theology?
* Did Graham change his definition of a “cult”?
* Have LDS Church members repudiated the Book of Mormon as “another testament of Jesus Christ” or their view that the Bible is the word of God only “as far as it is correctly translated”?
* Have they accepted the Trinity?
* Rejected their teaching that there are many gods?

[Verum ago, perhaps you could also suggest how Evangelical Christian leaders should handle the above questions

I'll bite, (assuming FR loads!):

* Did Mormons all of a sudden change their theology?
No.
* Did Graham change his definition of a “cult”?
Not that I know of.
* Have LDS Church members repudiated the Book of Mormon as “another testament of Jesus Christ” or their view that the Bible is the word of God only “as far as it is correctly translated”?
No.
* Have they accepted the Trinity?
No.
* Rejected their teaching that there are many gods?
No.

~~So, rather than liberal-like, simply engaging in slime-by-association spamming, D-fendr,~~ why don't you suggest how Evangelical Christian leaders should handle Prothero's questions...questions like [the questions above]

Answer them the way I have. Then realize that since it's not like Mittens is going to make Mormonism the state religion, it's not his personal beliefs that matters vis-a-vis how to vote based on religion. It's how he's going to treat religious freedoms and government encroachment thereupon in general, which is a heck of a lot better than the lying Godless Marxist bastard we have in office right now.

you can't just pull out D-fendr's handy-dandy slime-by-association FAQ response

*shrug* Had to go to plan B.

We live in a practical world. There are only two viable candidates for the office of President of the United States of America this year. One is a Mormon who shares most stances on religion-related governmental issues with Christians. The other is the aforementioned lying Godless Marxist bastard, Barack Obama. Being a practical world, we should take the better of the two alternatives, and that would be Romney.

HOWEVER, living in a state that is totally in the bag for Romney already, I will vote for a third party whom I find more agreeable. But if I didn't like in a "solid Romney" state, I would vote for Romney.

I suspect there is an irreconcilable difference in our opinions. Let me ask you a question as a test:

If Mitt Romney had the exact same stance on every issue as you, but believed in a set of Gods that were flying hairy lava lamps, would he have your vote?

My answer to that question is yes; it's the actions he takes, not his beliefs that impact the lives of citizens.

We live in a practical world. There are only two viable candidates for the office of President of the United States of America this year. One is a Mormon who shares most stances on religion-related governmental issues with Christians.

Let's say we had one representative GoP FREEPER voter from all 51 contests (50 states + D.C.) in the room with us.
Then let's say we asked the obvious swing-state reps to leave the room...Ohio, PA, WI, IA, NH, -- and we'll even include CO and MI -- tho the "experts" are telling us even now that Romney is up 3-4 pct pts in CO while Romney still trails in MI...

So, now we're down to 44 reps...and while you might quibble about a few more reps of other states...we'd probably agree upon a number in the low 40s if we realize how many states are solid (enough) blue -- or red.

So, let's say I then get up on the platform before these 40-odd reps, and I told them the following, incorporating some of your language from above (your phrasing is italicized below):
"'We live in a practical world.' In your SOLID blue and red states, 'There' is 'only' one viable candidate in your given state who will take ALL of the electoral votes for that state 'for the office of President of the United States of America this year. One is a Mormon' who will be the obvious winner of the red states; one is the current POTUS who will win the blue states. Your vote will NOT effect the difference one iota of those electoral votes in 40-plus states. Therefore, even IF the GENUINE swing-state voters feel pressured to act upon the pragmatic utilitarian political relativistic 'ethic' of voting anti-Obama, guess what? You are hereby released from that pressure. That pragmatic utilitarian political relativism applies -- at best -- to a mere handful of states. Don't let the political "bullies" pressure you into doing the wrong thing by voting for a pro-abort 'god in embryo.' Thank you for your time...

If Mitt Romney had the exact same stance on every issue as you, but believed in a set of Gods that were flying hairy lava lamps, would he have your vote? My answer to that question is yes; it's the actions he takes, not his beliefs that impact the lives of citizens.

Please read my response (post #62) to another poster carefully re this...

Your comment here is half the equation of the key questions...when you mentioned "the actions he takes"...for the Lord indeed repeatedly commented in places like 2 Kings "he did right in the eyes of the Lord" and "he did evil in the eyes of the Lord" re: the various rulers listed there...

But what was the second relevant filter that seemed to get the great attention of the Lord?

Answer? It was how various rulers handled false worship centers in their midst -- false worship centers that most of them had Nothing to do with their establishment!

I listed a dozen kings there -- with specific verses as to how God evaluated their rulership re: "other gods"... Now why would we think what was front & center to God whose very Name is Jealous (Exodus 34:14) is suddenly going to deem it 100% "out of bounds" today?

Do we not have a same God who is interested in ensuring that people don't embrace strange gods?