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?
It’s interesting that you have now complained twice about a “thread hijack”, and yet your comment doesn’t deal at all with the subject of the thread.
This thread suits my sensibilities just fine, thank you, and I’d say you probably shouldn’t try to guess what people’s sensibilities are.
I don’t generally lecture people who are defending their religion, and I’d have no reason to lecture people defending the mormon religion, as there are more than enough other freepers who see that as their calling here.
maybe but why did you have to burn down the house of the lil old wider woman Hannah DeForest Secord ???
http://www.ontarioplaques.com/Plaques_MNO/Plaque_Niagara30.html
I’m not worried about the PCA church dying. And I find most denominational issues to be more of a personal choice, so I find little desire to push people into a particular denomination.
I’ll argue doctrine; if people agree with the doctrine, they’ll join the church that espouses it. But I have no interest in prosyletizing on Free Republic. I don’t fault people who do, I presume that’s one purpose of allowing the religion forum, but it’s existance doesn’t compell me to use it in that way.
Hannah was my 4th great grandmother...
We didn't do it. It was the nasssty tricksy Americans.
I would like to say that I apologize for the time that I have accuse another Freepers of telling a lie.
CharlesWayneCT, post 633 was meant for you, I got the order of the pings backwards.
You should give one of your deep, honest, responses to post 572.
You shouldn’t jump into the middle of someone else’s conversations if you can’t follow them. Both statements are “it”, whatever you mean by “it”. They are not contradictory, and if you did full quotes instead of selective quotes your error would be clear.
In post 621, I was countering a false claim that I defended the mormon religion. Since I was refuting that claim, honesty compelled me to note that I did, IN THE PAST, post things about the fLDS vs LDS church that could be interpreted as a “defense” of LDS (in that I was defending the LDS faith from the attacks on the fLDS faith).
One would think that good Christians would appreciate the attempt at complete honesty and disclosure, rather than using it to open the door to an off-topic discussion, and a personal attack on another person in a religion forum.
I am NOT here to discuss fLDS vs LDS. It’s not a topic of this thread.
Post 621 wasn’t “false”, you are one of the most devoted Mormonism defenders, you fight for the religion constantly in your own, unique way.
As the “BEST” Romney defender at freerepublic, you also do a great job of defending Mormonism against Christians.
No, I don’t. Your claim is false, and you have provided no evidence for it.
Since I don’t actually support the mormon religion, don’t believe it is Christian, and witness to my Mormon friends, it is simply absurd to think that I would defend the Mormon religion against Christianity.
You have confused my political defense of conservative mormons against attacks on their religious beliefs, with a defense of those beliefs.
I didn’t say that you directly defend their beliefs, you defend the cult itself, you defend Mormonism, the mother church, the host.
As the best defender of Mitt Romney that freerepublic has ever known, you are also a determined, Church of the Latter Day Saints defender.
You are wrong again, but I guess if you keep re-defining the charges, you’ll eventually find one that actually applies. But since this is totally off-topic, and way off-base for a religion forum (since you aren’t discussing me defending a religious belief, it no longer is a religion forum topic), and since others have complained about thread hijack, which this line of argument certainly is, I think I’ll just move on now.
It’s clear nobody is going to offer any more evidence to back the claim that Reid got a majority of the Mormon vote in the november election.
What a Guy.
Let's go from this specific case, to the general:
Do you think that a generic MORMON candidate, regardless of party or politics, would recieve a majority of the Mormon vote compared to a non-MORMON?
2. A 'person' of the MORMON faith HAS written something about your religion; just not here.
3. Persons of the MORMON faith ARE in these threads.
4. They evidently feel the SAME WAY ABOUT YOUR RELIGION as the earlier person who wrote about your faith, because they've said NOTHING to disavow the things the earlier person has written.
5. It seems that you do not care what other people think about your religion, or you by extension, enough to respond either to the earlier person, not here, who wrote things about your religion, or to those who ARE HERE that evidently feel the same way about your religion, but have not directly said so in these threads.
Is my analysis essentially correct?
He ALSO used the percurser of the LOL in the first line: the Laughing Loudly acronymn.
What a GENIUS!
And the FLDS folks MUST be the TRUE 'mormons', because THEY are the ones who now actually FOLLOW the MORMON commands found in D&C 132!
Remember the MORMON Mantra: Ye shall know them by their fruits.
Ha ha!
Battle it says: not WAR!
There you go again; holding onto traditions instead of actually reading the text!
(Or maybe ya just got bad EYES! ;^)
I'd say that you appear NOT to know the debating tactics of some posters.
They give you TWO selections to choose from; thus pushing your answer in the direction they wish it to go!
Example: WHY do you HATE Mother Thresa and LOVE Bill Maher? What kind of 'conservative' are YOU: a recycled DUmmy?
Besides; I Googleplexed one time; and got an infinity of results - nearly going blind.
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.