Posted on 02/10/2008 11:25:15 AM PST by Reaganesque
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Akin
It seems torty, that not only “some evangelicals” are getting the message about Mormonism. It is a common view among a variety of denominations, religions and even agnostics and atheist. People aren’t going to shut up and go away, wimply because you want them to. Calling everybody who does not kow-tow to your dogma and doctrine, “bigot” is not helping your cause.
I sure wish your Church would quit focusing on superficial qualities like tatoos or how many piercings an individual may have, or if diet Coke, or green tea is prohibited, and focus on moer personal responsibity. Have you seen the recent stats on bankruptcy, mortgage fraud and depression in Utah. The stats are even worse in Utah County where over 80% of the residents are Mormon.
As a people, thinking you can become perfect will drive you bonkers....or at the very least make you a very dishonest person, trying to project your goodness and hiding your sin. Only through Christ is one able to overcome sin. It is the good news of the Bible.
I’m sorry, I forgot you guys can become perfect after all you can do. Good luck with that.
It’s a little breathless, but hardly ugly or bigoted.
“’>Think the Mormons are just a group of nice folks who uphold family values, clean living, and American patriotism? Think again.’
“Of course not. Mormons are a group of nasty folks who crap on family values, espouse perverted living, and spits on the American flag.”
The problem with your misinterpretation herein is that you’ve missed the word “just.” The author’s point is that Mormons typically are nice folks who uphold family values, clean living and American patriotism.
But that there is more to the LDS religion.
And, at least from a Catholic doctrinal point of view, that “more” is that the LDS organization is not part of Christianity. In going from Catholic to LDS, one is not moving from one part of Christianity to another, but from Christianity to non-Christian belief.
That is Catholic doctrine.
Catholicism does not recognize the LDS religion as being a Christian religion. Catholicism does not recognize the LDS god as being ontologically the same being as the God Whom Catholics (and Christians) worship.
Catholicism doesn’t consider LDS baptism to be valid.
If you think it’s bigoted to say what is true about Catholic teaching about the LDS organization then I think you need to reconsider your definitions. Drawing real distinctions between things isn’t bigotry.
sitetest
>Catholicism does not recognize the LDS religion as being a Christian religion
Cite please.
Colorcountry, I have no dog in this fight. You see, although I was raised Catholic, attended Catholic school and at one time actually considered the Monastery, I no longer practice the faith. Frankly, I haven’t found credibility with any of the faiths, thus far. While not aggressive, my search for the truth continues. Today, I am probably a Deist more than anything....but I really don’t know.
As long as I have said all of that, I might as well say this. The infighting between faiths is something as old as dirt and will be around long after were are gone. Even though I haven’t found a home, I have seen much good done for mankind, by most faiths. I have seen truly evil deeds by only a handful of faiths. There are good and evil folks in all faiths/religions.
I know some very good folks that are Catholic, and I know some very good folks that are Mormon, a few Baptists, Evangelicals, etc. Perhaps more than the faith/religion preference, what really matters is what is in ones heart, and the proof of that goodness, is in how they live.
I find the attacks against Mormons disgusting. As well, I would find attacks against Catholics just as offending. I would find attacks against Jews offending. I have taken a few shots at Baptist’s and Evangelicals lately. I give Huckabee and the religious “holier than thou crowd” credit for that. I really think that all of this “my church is better than your church” makes all religions look foolish and it pits away at the attacking religion’s credibility.
I find it ironic that while folks fought over what religion was the true religion, that the atheistic left, that wasn’t even in the debate, is now likely going to walk away with the White House. So, as it pertains to religion/faith....when this year is done and we see that a person of faith is no longer in the power....what will we have won?
Thank you for your reply.
I am a Mormon.
Here is your cite.
Don’t get confused by thinking that Catholics don’t recognize the baptisms of other Christian denominations. They do.
By stating that Catholicism doesn NOT recognize Mormon baptisms, this is a clear reference that the Pope doesn’t think Mormonism is Christian.
I meant to ping you to the above post.
“Catholicism does not recognize the LDS religion as being a Christian religion
Cite please.”
The recognized Catholic answer (Catholic Answers) web site lists Mormonism as non Christian here.
http://www.catholic.com/library/noncatholic_groups.asp
Many problems with this post:
(1) First of all this assumes that when a voter casts a ballot in a primary that only one candidate is "qualified." Are you seriously calling every voter a "bigot" who saw Romney as "qualified" but held less "qualities" in common with the voter & therefore he/she voted for another candidate? Wow! What a sweeping generalization!
(2) I take issue with the way you just framed the 94%-95% of LDS voters in Utah. I don't think that Romney was the only qualified candidate on the ballot in Utah. Therefore, since they chose Romney in a big way due to his "personal qualities" (exact words by the Salt Lake Trib), these voters therefore voted against the religion of other candidates in favor of Romney's religion. How dare you imply that LDS Utah voters are "bigots!"
(3) According to your logic & many other FReepers, a voter can't assess a polygamous fundamentalist Mormon candidate and vote against him on that basis because that would be discriminating against his implementation of D&C 132. (Are you consistent? Would you not consider the fundamentalist component of such a candidate?)
(4) Another poster one time made a similar claim. That to disqualify a candidate based upon their religion went against the spirit of the Constitution. But the Constitution never addressed how voters are or are not to assess "character" issues.
The liberal knee-jerk reaction we often see in society is to try to protect every perceived minority (example: alternative sexual minorities) with codifications galore & big govt crackdowns to the point where home owners can't even choose one renter over another if they are not wanting to be involved in sanctioning sexual behavior outside of marriage.
I've noticed the "conservative" approach to trying to club folks over the head is to try to use the "Constitution" approach mentioned above for that (Article VI) instead of new speech and sexual orientation types of codes.
The problem with this is that the Constitution or cultural codes could never provide enough information in advance about the character of the candidate. (That's why it leaves that issue up to voter discretion).
No matter how vehement some folks object, they can't get around the simple fact that "vulnerability to deception is a character issue. All or most of the POTUS candidates are usually qualified. But qualifications are what get candidates on the ballot. It's qualities--as the Utah LDS voters who voted primarily on the basis of "personal qualities" showed--that get candidates elected.
Some candidates' vulnerability to deception is in the area of their other-worldly commitments and their inability to define major world religions and their adherents. Other candidates' vulnerability to decption is in their sexual and partner life...for example, perhaps serial marriage or potentially scandalous affairs quite religiously.
Some voters won't care that a candidate has had three wives. Many FReepers have expressed a preference for a single-wife candidate. You can no more tell them that they shouldn't consider that quality of a candidates as to tell other voters to ignore the personal (religious) qualities--like LDS voters did NOT do.
You’d would have thought the reference to “hatefest” had to do with the constant early barrage on this thread against Christians. But, no, it didn’t seem to be coming from that direction.
The finger-pointing started with a line or two from “devotional” itself (which no one has yet to address). Then EverOnward accused non-Mormons of “assaulting and maligning” Mormons in post #10 when that wasn’t the topic of the “devotional.” Spiff seconded this comment in post #13. By post #17, Tortdog was calling folks “bigots.” By #21, Sandude was calling even voters who saw Romney as “qualified” yet voted for a more favored candidate as “bigots.” By post #33 tracer was accusing of others in past threads of engaging in a “hatefest.” By post #44, Tortdog was calling folks “the worst of the right.”
By post #52, P-Marlowe rightfully said: So the thread turned from one of a legitimate LDS devotional to a religious right and Free Republic bashing session at your prompting.
From the article: This belief distinguishes Latter-day Saints from many OTHER Christian denominations that teach that salvation is given to all who simply believe and confess that Jesus is the Christ.
Even minus all the poster rhetoric and the moderator determining that the above comments were open for rebuttal, this comment on the article was “game” for rebuttal from the get-go. (Notice that little word “other” slipped in)…So LDS are “other” Christians? (Is that like polygamous fundamentalist Mormons are “other” Mormons?)
People who argue that a person’s religion disqualifies him from running for the presidency is a religious bigot. It’s not my definition. It’s the dictionary’s. [Tortdog]
The very dictionary definition you’ve used once before Tort would qualify Moonies, Jehovah’s Witnesses and fundamentalist Mormons among others with aberrant beliefs to claim “Christianity” as home base. You might as well start claiming that all “New Age” groups are Hindu because they share common beliefs. Are you now going to say that Mormons are “Jews” because of shared common beliefs…plus other claimed overlaps?
We have Jews, and we have Jews for Jesus (Messianic Christians). But what if we had a third group: Jews for the Mormon Jesus? (Do you think either the Jews would be very happy if Jews for the Mormon Jesus claimed to be Jews just like them?...Or the Jews for Jesus folks would be happy in the same way if Jews for the Mormon Jesus also claimed to be Christians?)
Tell you what. Why don't you just start a Jews for the Mormon Jesus group. Be sure you alert every single major Jewish group...tell them that this group will make a special point of baptizing dead Jews...and inform the various Jews for Jesus types of groups. Put out one BIG press release saying: "The Mormon Jesus was Jewish. The key characters in the Book of Mormon were Jewish. We call all Non-Mormons 'Gentiles.' We call ourselves 'Zion.' We're Jews, too...So we are Mormon-Christian Jews."
Don’t forget, Colofornian, we must never discriminate against the age of Senator McCain in casting our vote. It would be unconstitutional according to the same article of the Constitution (if we are to use the same logic of some of the Romneybots).
I know my faith very well. I have read the Old & New Testaments, cover to cover several times throughout my life. As an adult, I have read the Catechism of the church, as well as many of the works of Augustine and Aquinas. My faith teaches me to avoid bigotry. This email is bigotry.
” . . . ((if we are to use the same logic of some of the Romneybots).
Your logic, Colofornian, in just about all your posts, is impeccable.
Whoops! I mean colorcountry. You have good posts too, Colofornian. ;)
(colocountry, see Post #113.)
Thanks.
It doesn’t say what you claim. It speaks only of recognition of baptism.
The LDS Church doesn’t recognize Catholic baptisms. But it recognizes that Catholics are Christian.
We’ve discussed this. Christianity as defined includes the LDS Church. Doesn’t matter that you have a private definition for it.
I ask that you not jump to conclusions regarding Catholicism and its recognition of Baptism.
When Catholicism recognizes the baptism of Presbyterians, Methodists and Baptist, it is recognizing their claim to Christianity.
By not recognizing the baptism of LDS, Jehovah Witness or scientology, the Pope is recognizing that these religions do NOT fall into the recognition of Christianity.
It is not the same as when Mormons don’t recognize Catholic baptisms. Mormons only recognize the baptisms by Mormons holding the proper authority. To compare the two views of Mormonism and Catholicism the same is either being dishonest or ignorant of Catholicism.
In Catholic theology, only those who are validly baptized are Christian.
That is why we recognize Protestants, generally, as Christian, because they have received a valid baptism.
To say that one’s baptism is not valid, by Catholic theology, is to say that one has not been incorporated into the Body of Christ, the Church, and thus, is not Christian, at least not formally.
sitetest
” Christianity as defined includes the LDS Church.”
Says who?
Perhaps you should read the discussion at this site and familiarize yourself with the practice of Catholics in accepting the baptisms of other denominations (of which Mormonism is not one)
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=128345
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.