Mitt Romney is a Mormon and I am a Baptist: Get Over It!

North Star Writers Group ^ | October 29, 2007 | Herman Cain

[Invisigoth]

The Baptists, Methodists, Catholics, Lutherans, Pentecostals, Mormons and a few other faiths have three things in common – they believe in Jesus Christ, that He is the Son of God and that He died and was resurrected for our sins.

So what’s the problem?

The political pundits continue to try and make Mitt Romney’s religious beliefs a big issue as he runs for the Republican presidential nomination. Different denominations of Christianity are just that – different denominations – which means different worship practices of the same fundamental Christian beliefs.

Some people have commented that they cannot support Mitt Romney because he is a Mormon. When they are pressed to explain why that is objectionable, they stutter. Still others are skeptical of Mitt Romney based solely on hearsay or lack of knowledge about Mormons.

[Elsie]

And I asked him the question, “What is your belief about God?” and he answered, “I believe I will be a god someday.”

Genesis 3
1. Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God really say, `You must not eat from any tree in the garden'?"
2. The woman said to the serpent, "We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden,
3. but God did say, `You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.'"
4. "You will not surely die," the serpent said to the woman.
5. "For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."

[Utah Binger]

Mormon Fundamentalists in Colorado City

I hear dueling banjos playing.

[Elsie]

If Mitt is a faithful Mormon as he seems to be, he intends to do his best to

faithfully keep ANY vows he has made to the LDS organization.

[Elsie]

You've got it, that is the attitude of some Christians.

"You're not going to get ALL the blessings of GOD unless you do the things the LDS organization requires of you."

[Elsie]

They are one in purpose, 3 distinct beings.

Well, so do WE!

But we DON'T think that the Holy Ghost Spirit has a BODY.

[Elsie]

On this thread alone, there is enough said that were Romney to be a) Repub nominee, b) elected POTUS, it would mean the end of the Republican party...and by extension conservatism.

Dang!

I thought it was them dumb CREATIONISTS that were going to destroy CONSERVATISM!

[Elsie]

They are EVERYWHERE!!!

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=HPIC,HPIC:2005-18,HPIC:en&q=%e2%80%9cMorman+Road%e2%80%9d

[chesley]

LOL!

I wonder if there is a MORMON place of worship at the end of the road.

There is another road I sometimes pass when I’m traveling from Sulligent to Birmingham called “Kingdom Hall Road”. Gues what is at the end of it?

[Elsie]

Timothy 2:1-3 which states:

1 I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men;
2 For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.
3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour

I would actually enjoy knowing that Colofornian, the anti-Mormon, anti-Romney basher, would be praying for the success of Romney—because that would be “good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour.”

 

Strange; I didn't see THIS in those Scriptures!

 

But then; I have no magic spectacles!

 

---

---

---

Development of the Translation Process Story

Date	Joseph Smith's Activity	Function of Medium Used	Results
1827-June 1828	Reads and translates characters.	Stone and spectacles mediums of translation	Open plates stone, and spectacles needed
July 1828-April 1829	Reads and translates characters; receives revelations.	Spectacles medium or receiving translation and revelation. Mind and heart medium of translation	Stone and plates not always used, but spectacles used.
April 1829	Explains why Cowdery cannot translate.	Mind and heart medium of translation, revision, and revelation.	Spectacles not needed, but used.
July 1829-June 1830	Gives plates and spectacles to angel; still receives revelations; corrects manuscript for printer.	Mind and heartmedium of translation	Spectacles and plates gone; notneeded, not used.
June 1830 on	Writes Book of Moses; revises Bible; corrects and revises Book of Mormon.	Mind and heart medium of translation, revision and revelation.	Spectacles gone, not needed.

After completing the manuscript of the Book of Mormon in 1829, Smith handed the plates and glasses back to the angel.¹⁶ From that time the revelations he received came from his "heart" and "mind." To produce the 1837 edition of the Book of Mormon, 3,000 changes were made to the 1830 edition¹⁷ from revelation and intuition, without the aid of eyeglasses, as did the parenthetical phrase which Smith added to 1 Nephi 20:1 in the 1840 edition.¹⁸ Smith began to write his revision of the Bible, the Book of Moses, in June 1830 and received it by means of a vision, not through glasses.¹⁹ All the work of revising the Bible, the founding revelations, and the making of an alphabet for Egyptian hieroglyphics was done without the glasses, solely by revelation. Smith was no longer merely a "reader."

[Elsie]

He was resurrected and through him we too will live again. That is the good news. Nothing more or less.

HA Ha ha!

[Elsie]

 I do have a problem with people not voting for Mitt because he is a Mormon, it is wrong to be so judgemental.

 

Oh my!

 

---

Luke 7:43
   Simon replied, "I suppose the one who had the bigger debt canceled."   "You have judged correctly," Jesus said.

1 Corinthians 5:12-13
 12.  What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside?
 13.  God will judge those outside. "Expel the wicked man from among you."

 

1 Corinthians 6:2-5
 2.  Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if you are to judge the world, are you not competent to judge trivial cases?
 3.  Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more the things of this life!
 4.  Therefore, if you have disputes about such matters, appoint as judges even men of little account in the church!
 5.  I say this to shame you. Is it possible that there is nobody among you wise enough to judge a dispute between believers?

[Elsie]

I think it is wrong when people get into a debate over who and who is not Christian. In my opnion, the ones who like to be offensive and tell others they aren’t Christian these people are usually the last ones who would be Christian because they have the wrong focus.

Likewise...

I think it is wrong when people get into a debate over who and who is not MORMON. In my opnion, the ones who like to be offensive and tell others they aren’t MORMON these people are usually the last ones who would be MORMON because they have the wrong focus.

(Like them Colorado City folks who ain't MORMON or them wishy-washy EX-RLDS folks who NEVER had the blessing the SLC branch has had!)

--MormonDude(A TRUE one!)

[Elsie]

I can’t stand it when people lie about the Mormons...

And I can't stand it when the TRUTH is told about them and the LDS members get their noses out of joint!

[Elsie]

 Sorry to bother the mods, but what you posted is an out and out lie.

 

HUH?

 

 

To: broncobilly

I think it was Billy Graham who was asked why Baptist are so narrow minded as to believe that they were the only ones going to heaven. The response was that we are more narrow minded than that; we don’t think half of us are going to heaven.

Theological liberalism is destroying some of the mainstream protestant denominations. Southern Baptist churches can vary quite a bit in what they think you have to do to be a Christian.

46 posted on 10/29/2007 11:24:33 AM CDT by fungoking

[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 |

 

 

 How thin is your skin today??

[Elsie]

May Dad once told me "If you can't laugh at yourself, everyone else will."

Even if you DO laugh at yourself; many times you'll STILL find the rest of us are laughing at you, too!

[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

Wasn't it you that said that a person's actual record is the paramount qualifier? But now you've quoted a bunch of things that Mitt Romney has SAID, not his actual record of governance - as it specifically relates to abortion - as Governor of Massachusetts. And even now you promised to reveal Mitt's actual record, yet all you could produce were cherry-picked quotes he may have made one time or another.

Looking at the list you provided of Mitt's pro-life record, I should note a few things:

• It also is largely things Mitt has said, not what he has done (which you criticised my earlier post for). Pointing to what a man SAYS is just as much a part of his record as what he has voted for, unless you wish to argue that Mitt is two-faced enough to say one thing while simultaneously meaning something else - which I doubt you want to do.

• Much of what you point to, like abstinance education, may be socially conservative, but isn't necessarily an abortion issue, which is what we're talking about. In other words, you're trying to deflect from the issue at hand.

• Most importantly - and which actually helps to SUPPORT the belief that Mitt is a flip-flop who is pro-life just to win the nomination - all of the quotes and vetos you cite, except for the one about parental notification laws (which characterises only a "soft" pro-life position, at best) are from 2005 or after. Mitt only became pro-life in 2005, right about the time we began to hear that he was considering a run for the GOP nomination.

This explains the seemingly contradictory information coming out about Mitt's record. This is why Marie Sturgis could call Mitt an "abortion rights supporter" in 1995, but in 2007 she calls him a pro-life asset. This is why in early 2005, National Review looked back on Mitt's record and said he was a supporter of ESC research, but that he then later vetoed it in Massachusetts. It's because Mitt did an about-face on life issues in 2005. All your list does is CONFIRMS that Mitt is a flip-flop, and a potential Trojan Horse, on this issue.

So, now you're on the pro-radical gay agenda Log Cabin Republicans' side in opposing Mitt Romney due to the fact that Romney is AGAINST the gay agenda, opposes gay marriage, and is the only frontrunning candidate who has supported the Federal Marriage Amendment. Their very opposition to Mitt Romney, that you have cited, proves that Romney is against their agenda. Yet you're trying to attack Romney as if he was for their agenda. You're not making sense.

The reason I'm "not making sense" is because you missed the point entirely. I pointed out that an attack ad (from the Log Cabin "Republicans") said he was pro-choice, and a non-partisan review organisation AGREED. The fact that the ad comes from the LC"R"s is largely irrelevant - the content of the ad itself was truthfully marking Romney as pro-choice. Your attempt to cast me as some supporter of the radical gay agenda solely on the basis of this IS dishonest, and DOES make you a liar, or at least an exceedingly uninformed and ignorant person.

The fact of the matter is, simply, that Fred Thompson did NOT receive 100% pro-life records from the premiere pro-life organization in America.

Did you even bother to LOOK at the links I posted previously? They were to the actual scorecards from the NRTL Committee. The vote breakdowns are shown. Fred voted pro-life every single time. They just dinged him for voting for campaign finance reform each year. Get it through your thick skull - every single ABORTION vote on those scorecards was a pro-life vote by FDT, every single one.

So, because you don't agree with this prominent pro-life leader, you cast aspersions about his intelligence, call him stupid, or pretend to read his mind. You're trying to rationalize away this important and unsurpassed pro-life endorsement.

Tell you what - why don't you go back and reread what I wrote, and show me where I called Dr. Willke "stupid". Now he IS shilling for Mitt - anyone who's seen Mitt's record knows he was pro-choice until he suddenly became pro-life in 2005. If this fooled Dr. Willke, then shame on Dr. Willke.

You're making statements, basically calling me a liar, about this specific vote and the contents of the amendment on this and a previous thread, but you've just admitted that you don't know what you're talking about and have not actually looked at the Congressional Record to even know if the accusation you directed at me was remotely true. Verifiably false - that's what you called what I said about his vote on this amendment. Well, verify it then, or retract your accusation.

That's the point - I HAVE looked at the Congressional Record. I've looked at every bit of information about the votes and amendments to H.R. 2020, 104th Congress, 1st Session (1995) that I could find - and DID NOT FIND what you describe. The information you claim exists does not, in fact, seem to exist. If it does, then you need to show the rest of us where it is that you are getting the specific information that page 76, lines 10-17 was abortion related, and that Fred voting to remove it was a pro-choice vote. Until you do this, I have to assume that either you, or the source which you cut-and-pasted the claim from, are blowing smoke.

You keep saying that like it is true, or something. But all you can provide are a few things that he SAID, not his actual record that you keep SAYING is stridently pro-choice. Other people disagree with you on your interpretation of his record. People like pro-life leaders, pro-life organizations, etc.

Pro-life leaders and organisations thought Mitt was pro-choice before 2005. It is only NOW that they think he is pro-life. Why is that? It's because Mitt changed his position, seemingly overnight, when he began to seriously think about running for the GOP nomination, that's why.

[Elsie]

V=gt²

[Elsie]

Another 2 hours shot at this terminal!

Lord, may ALL of our eyes be opened to see Your truth around us, and our ears be able to filter out YOUR voice from the daily noises that surround us.

[trisham]

I do have a problem with people not voting for Mitt because he is a Mormon, it is wrong to be so judgemental.

*************

It's hurtful!

[Colofornian]

I had “non denominational” on my dog tags when I went into the armed service many years ago.

I think a lot of the non denominational churches are doing a great job both with expository preaching of the Bible, small group structures, relevant programs and events for younger generations, etc. Sometimes it can still be "hit and miss" in some areas.

Would you give me some hints as to which churches teach the true gospel and which I should avoid?

Generally speaking: I would recommend any of the following: Calvary churches, Assemblies of God (charismatic); Presbyterian Church of America (not the more liberal Presbyterian USA); Wesleyan churches and Free Methodist (not the United Methodist churches, although some of them are undergoing renewal); Southern Baptist and many of the other Baptist groups (American Baptist denomination tends to be the most liberal); several Lutheran denominations (Missouri Synod, Wisconsin Synod, Lutheran Brethren, etc. but not Evangelical Lutherans of America--which tends to be the most liberal, although like the Methodists, some of them are undergoing renewal); Evangelical Free; Salvation Army; The Vineyard; and Evangelical churches in general. I know I've left off many, but those are the more prominent streams.

The ones I would specifically avoid are Unitarian Universalist; Congregational churches--the first to ordain homosexuals...although a few exceptions exist--like Lake Avenue Congregational in CA; Unity School of Christianity; Jehovah's Witnesses; Christian Science; Religious Science; Christ's Church (Reorganized Church of Latter-day Saints), etc.