But it does PROVEN that JS was, indeed, a prophet!
Who ELSE but him could have foreseen the Wireless Mouse??!!
3rc line, 3rd 'caractor'
Posted on 07/16/2011 7:24:33 AM PDT by greyfoxx39
In response to whether the public should vote for a Mormon for president, one should know what beliefs a candidate had.
Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman have Mormon roots and they have been vague about their beliefs and loyalty to the LDS church.
Mormon theology includes ideas like their priesthood brethren will become the government leaders, or future kings of the world, in a globalized theocracy, and that their male leaders will take over when a second coming of Christ occurs. They believe they are the pre-ordained leaders to rule over a coming theocratic kingdom.
Worthy Mormon males are temple attending, dressing in white with special learned handshakes, altar rituals, Masonic rites and gestures and do secretive activities different from normal society.
They believe they are the future gods of new worlds in a life after this one. They follow prophets with ever-changing doctrine and change their fictional "Book of Mormon" every time it is found to be un-politically correct.
Their women are taught they are good for breeding, to have large families.
A member of this cult is loyal to its church leaders and to whatever their modern prophets tell them is gospel, which changes at their will.
They claim to be Christian, but Mormon polytheism of many gods/goddesses in a hereafter, rituals that must be performed in their temples, garment wearing and works (not grace) that saves a person is different ideology.
It is debatable whether Mormons are Christians, and they have other scriptures special to Mormonism written by their leaders, not just the New Testament, like their Doctrine and Covenants and Book of Mormon.
To learn about them and their practices, beliefs and personal character will help us determine whether they are the future leaders of Americans. Or are they really stuck in their controversial past?
But it does PROVEN that JS was, indeed, a prophet!
Who ELSE but him could have foreseen the Wireless Mouse??!!
3rc line, 3rd 'caractor'
I guess I need an imparitial judgement call on where I rank on the civil/jerk scale.
With 0 being Mother Theresa and 10 being Bill Maher.
A true prophet ....
I'm not aware of anyone right or left, who is trying to throw out Mormon or Muslim votes for their side, but when it comes to religion, Christians have issues to discuss.
Now you are going to start pushing Islam on us?
That was a beautiful post, it came from the heart, and spoke to charles’s heart, but I knew that it would be ignored and brushed aside, because it must be or he wouldn’t be what he has become.
Not in the religion forums, on religious issues. And I’m not a candidate for public office.
I think candidates can, and should, profess their faith, and I think they can also say why the don’t agree with other faiths. I think you can do this without calling people who believe differently than you stupid, or evil, as a stereotyped characterization.
I have supported a conservative who professed the Muslim faith for a local office, and I know there were freepers who thought that was crazy. I knew other conservatives who ended up supporting the democrat for that office, rather than the conservative republican, because the conservative was a muslim. However, that was a candidate for office, not a voter. I think it was a wrong choice, but I understand why people wouldn’t vote for a muslim, and I wish those on the other side would at least acknowledge that a person CAN be a conservative and have a different opinion on the subject of electing non-Christians to office, when they are the conservative.
But I would never “push” any religion on you. I certainly have never suggested anybody should become Mormon; heck, I’m pretty sure I’ve never actually told people they should become Presbyterian.
Anyway, this has gone far astray of my point, which was to question the claim that Harry Reid recieved a majority of the Mormon vote.
BTW, shorter response: Do you think a person would vote for a candidate after the candidate called them stupid for their religious beliefs, or said they were cult members?
The question isn’t about whether a candidate SHOULD say those things; it’s about whether you actually disagreed with my statement, which was that a candidate can’t expect to get the vote of a person if the candidate attacks that person’s religion.
My point is this: A candidate needs 50%+1 to win an election. A candidate has things they will do in office, and those things should be what is right for the country, and if they can be trusted, they should be able to sell those ideas and get 50%+1. It appears counter-productive to me to ask a candidate to take stands on matters of religion for which there is no government involvement, which therefore will not matter for the office they are seeking, when taking those stands will turn off voters who would otherwise be inclined to vote for them.
The “muslim” issue I think is unique, because it is clear that a good number of muslim leaders do seek to use the political world to impose their religious beliefs, and it is reasonable therefore to make sure a candidate will stand for freedom of religion, and against the imposition of religious restrictions that favor muslims.
I never see you devoting great amounts of time and effort to defending Islam and Christianity, only Mormonism.
Yes, if YOU said something about my religion, I might respond to you. Is that such a hard concept to understand?
But if you post some quote from some Mormon document that attacks my faith, why would I respond here? It’s not like I’m arguing with the person who SAID it. They aren’t here. And it’s not like any freeper is AGREEING with it, that I might have to persuade otherwise. It would be a complete waste of time.
If a person of the Mormon faith wrote something against my religion here, I would respond to them. Just as I respond to anybody who writes things I disagree with.
I would hope you could understand the difference. In one case, I am discussing my beliefs with a person who has a difference of opinion; in the other I am ignoring someone who is attempting to start an argument for argument’s sake.
Post 570 described the situation perfectly, nothing will deter you from your mission as you see it.
You’re getting a little bit personal there for the religion forum. We all have opinions, and we express them, and in an open religion thread we are free to express our opinions and our opinion of other people’s opinions.
Thin-skinned people who would be upset at opinions, and be asking those with disagreeable opinions to get out of the threads, are the disrupters.
3rc line, 3rd ‘caractor’
______________________________________
And here I was thinking a ladybug had dropped into an inksplotch and got glued there
The “revelation of the mouse”
Of course !!!
:)
Where was that?
My point is this: A candidate needs 50%+1 to win an election.
_____________________________________________
Bill Clinton didnt
Perot was in the mix...
Why God forbid that should happen, Chuck! Why, if too many of you Presbyterians did that, the Presbyterian church might actually grow...and, golly-gee-whiz-gob-smack!...It might not eventually die!
(And then we'd have to write a new psalm just to proclaim that as a modern-day miracle by God!)
But I could just imagine that new psalm being written to praise God about that hypothetical Presbyterian miracle...and then...some Presbyterian council would get together...and put that new psalm quietly down...
Why? "Well," they'd reason..."What would happen if people found out God was doing actual dynamic things in the Presbyterian church? Why, that might be tantamount to telling people to come to the Presbyterian church! And we just couldn't let that become some 'new' tradition or custom amongst Presbyterians...could we?"
Please point us to a thread in which you lecture the mormonism defenders, just for the heck of it.
Besides, Romney isn’t a Presbyterian.
I haven't counted up, but there are a number of people who have attempted to derail this thread for their own personal reasons...they've called names, picked fights and now are just trying to deflect the actual point of the original article with off subject lectures..."Know Mormons' beliefs before voting for them"
I smell Romney bucks and retreads.
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.