Do you support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?
Posted on 06/10/2012 9:38:54 AM PDT by Colofornian
TORRANCE, Calif., June 7, 2012 /Christian Newswire/ -- There are more than a dozen key differences in the beliefs of Christians and Mormons, yet most Christians have no idea.
In a recent article in the Christian magazine, World, author Joel Belz made this statement:
"A huge majority of the American public has no idea what Mormons claim to believe. If those holding to the Mormon faith were to place their distinctive truth claims front and center, the public response would be probing, negative, and nasty." -- World Magazine, God's World Publications, online June 16, 2012 edition (Vol. 27, No. 12)
For starters, official Mormon teachings include the belief that God the Father was once a man who progressed to godhood and that worthy men may one day become gods themselves.
On the topic of Jesus, official Mormon doctrine holds that Jesus' death on the cross did not provide full atonement for all sin. There is no concept of the Trinity. Rather, Mormonism is polytheistic, having multiple gods.
Everyone -- whether you are religious or just curious -- should know the differences. A free side-by-side comparison chart showing differences between Mormonism and Christianity is available as a free download for your computer or iPad. It can be printed for personal or group use. This objective chart simple compares the beliefs of Mormonism and Christianity in eight key areas.
Go to: www.rose-publishing.com/Assets/ClientPages/mormon_landing.aspx to download the free comparison chart.
Rose Publishing is a Christian publishing company that specializes in comparison charts of religious groups and church denominations that help Christians understand biblical basics. The company takes no political stance.
LOL...the definition of "demented" is someone with "h8" in their screen name spending hours claiming to be a Christian while spreading h8 against others...others who could care less about the opinions of those whose viewpoint is skewed toward seeing h8 in truth about a cult.
Not when it is wrapped up in "Holier than thou, condescending Christian"
You are bigot.
You are a mormon hater.
THX 1138
place marker
HMMmm...
bigotry: some one who is a bigot
bigot: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions: one who regards or treats the members of a group with intolerance.
Well, there you have it.
I guess I am a bigot because I am intolerant towards anyone or group who mocks God Almighty.
I guess I am a bigot because I am intolerant towards anyone or group who bastardizes the Word of God for their personal gain and political control.
I guess I am a bigot because I am intolerant towards anyone or group who defends those listed above.
Reminds me of the illustration of a British elderly couple driving down the road in their old pickup. She's in the passenger seat (way to the left in the UK) -- and starts to complain about why they are aren't so snuggy-snuggy, anymore. So he asks her, "Who moved way left?"
Once upon a time, Romney was both WAY to the left of so many FREEPERs -- as well as literally out-of-this-world worldview-style (Kolob-wise and otherwise).
Now so many FREEPERs are so morally and politically relativistic, they forget the "Who moved?" reality when they complain about why FREEPers are so snuggle-buggle, anymore.
Yet another crawls out from under...... Y'all are like cockroaches. (Libh8ter to Osage Orange, 6:23 p.m.)
Ah...Libh8ter -- Conservative h8ter might be a better screenname -- couldn't wait even a half-hour to either...
(a) ... exemplify what FR "nastiness" is...
or (b)... flat out refute whatever pulpit sermon she was trying to preach.
You do realize, don't you, libh8ter, that it was the Hutu people in Rwanda 18 years ago who referenced the Tutsis as "cockroaches" to be "exterminated" -- depersonalizing them first as cockroaches to make the process easier?
Wanna apologize for upping the ante to the extreme with your verbal attacks upon complete strangers here? Are we your "fit-for-extermination" critters crawling around? Or is this just par for the course for you?
Do you support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?
Letter # 10 “Recognizing the Traps of Becoming a Duplicitous Christian” MY DEAR WORMWOOD, I was delighted to hear from Triptweeze that your patient has made some very desirable new acquaintances and that you seem to have used this event in a really promising manner. I gather that the middle-aged married couple who called at his office are just the sort of people we want him to know—rich, smart, superficially intellectual, and brightly skeptical about everything in the world. I gather they are even vaguely pacifist, not on moral grounds but from an ingrained habit of belittling anything that concerns the great mass of their fellow men and from a dash of purely fashionable and literary communism. This is excellent. And you seem to have made good use of all his social, sexual, and intellectual vanity. Tell me more. Did he commit himself deeply? I don't mean in words. There is a subtle play of looks and tones and laughs by which a Mortal can imply that he is of the same party as those to whom he is speaking. That is the kind of betrayal you should specially encourage, because the man does not fully realize it himself; and by the time he does you will have made withdrawal difficult. No doubt he must very soon realize that his own faith is in direct opposition to the assumptions on which all the conversation of his new friends is based. I don't think that matters much provided that you can persuade him to postpone any open acknowledgment of the fact, and this, with the aid of shame, pride, modesty and vanity, will be easy to do. As long as the postponement lasts he will be in a false position. He will be silent when he ought to speak and laugh when he ought to be silent. He will assume, at first only by his manner, but presently by his words, all sorts of cynical and skeptical attitudes which are not really his. But if you play him well, they may become his. All mortals tend to turn into the thing they are pretending to be. This is elementary. The real question is how to prepare for the Enemy's counter attack. The first thing is to delay as long as possible the moment at which he realizes this new pleasure as a temptation. Since the Enemy's servants have been preaching about "the World" as one of the great standard temptations for two thousand years, this might seem difficult to do. But fortunately they have said very little about it for the last few decades. In modern Christian writings, though I see much (indeed more than I like) about Mammon, I see few of the old warnings about Worldly Vanities, the Choice of Friends, and the Value of Time. All that, your patient would probably classify as "Puritanism"—and may I remark in passing that the value we have given to that word is one of the really solid triumphs of the last hundred years? By it we rescue annually thousands of humans from temperance, chastity, and sobriety of life. Sooner or later, however, the real nature of his new friends must become clear to him, and then your tactics must depend on the patient's intelligence. If he is a big enough fool you can get him to realize the character of the friends only while they are absent; their presence can be made to sweep away all criticism. If this succeeds, he can be induced to live, as I have known many humans live, for quite long periods, two parallel lives; he will not only appear to be, but actually be, a different man in each of the circles he frequents. Failing this, there is a subtler and more entertaining method. He can be made to take a positive pleasure in the perception that the two sides of his life are inconsistent. This is done by exploiting his vanity. He can be taught to enjoy kneeling beside the grocer on Sunday just because he remembers that the grocer could not possibly understand the urbane and mocking world which he inhabited on Saturday evening; and contrariwise, to enjoy the bawdy and blasphemy over the coffee with these admirable friends all the more because he is aware of a "deeper", "spiritual" world within him which they cannot understand. You see the idea—the worldly friends touch him on one side and the grocer on the other, and he is the complete, balanced, complex man who sees round them all. Thus, while being permanently treacherous to at least two sets of people, he will feel, instead of shame, a continual undercurrent of self-satisfaction. Finally, if all else fails, you can persuade him, in defiance of conscience, to continue the new acquaintance on the ground that he is, in some unspecified way, doing these people "good" by the mere fact of drinking their cocktails and laughing at their jokes, and that to cease to do so would be "priggish", "intolerant", and (of course) "Puritanical". Meanwhile you will of course take the obvious precaution of seeing that this new development induces him to spend more than he can afford and to neglect his work and his mother. Her jealousy, and alarm, and his increasing evasiveness or rudeness, will be invaluable for the aggravation of the domestic tension. Your affectionate uncle, SCREWTAPE
Before I delve further into specifics, I wanted to highlight three aspects I've commented on before:
#1: I've already been on record saying NUMEROUS times: Religion IS NOT a qualification or disqualification for public office; but it's certainly one quality of voter discernment among many others...namely, voting record, present position statements & rampant inconsistency of past position statements, social issues' stances, character, viability, scandal-free past, etc.
#2: Most Evangelicals DO consider a candidate's faith and religious beliefs as either "very important" or "somewhat important"...Per this 2006 Rasmussen poll: Election 2008: 43% Would Never Vote for Mormon Candidate (Rasmussen Poll)
Excerpt from that thread: The Rasmussen Reports survey found that 35% say that a candidate's faith and religious beliefs are very important in their voting decision. Another 27% say faith and religious beliefs are somewhat important. Ninety-two percent (92%) of Evangelical Christian voters consider a candidate's faith and beliefs important. On the partisan front, 78% of Republicans say that a candidate's faith is an important consideration, a view shared by 55% of Democrats. However, there is also a significant divide on this topic within the Democratic Party. Among minority Democrats, 71% consider faith and religious beliefs an important consideration for voting. Just 44% of white Democrats agree.
So, I would hope that...
(a) ...posters realize they need to be careful that they don't "blast away" at 62% (add the 35% and 27% figures mentioned above) of Americanswho say that a candidate’s faith is very or somewhat important as a consideration?
(b)…Or at a full 92% of Evangelical Christianswho say they consider a candidate’s faith and beliefs an important consideration
Time for two Q for you: Did you realize the % was this high six years ago [obviously, we could agree that perhaps some of this has "softened" since then]? Would you critique 92% of Evangelicals integrating their faith and politics?
#3 I've also said on a past thread -- that even among Mormon candidates -- all Mormons are not alike. I said then: Some are jack Mormons. Some are born-again Mormons. The “Church of Christ” RLDS folks—BoM believers-- have come a lot closer to orthodox Christianity thru the years. Mormons, like members of Christian churches, can be a pretty diverse lot. What you absolutely forget or neglect to realize is that my evaluation of a candidates’ other-worldly commitments isn’t limited to folks of other faiths. I make the same evals of “Christian” affiliated candidates as well. It’s not the only thing I look at…which the same is true for an LDS candidate. But I make spiritual evals across the board based on the fruits I can discern. To me, this is simply a matter of practicing discernment as to which leader is in touch with THE ONLY TRUE GOD—the ONE who will help our nation in a time of crisis or during a dirty bomb scenario like the one the character Jack Bauer & the POTUS of the series “24” went through.
Other-worldly commitments (faith) is a character issue! There's no way around this realization! To try to extract such other-worldly commitments from character is simply not possible. Time & time again folks try to hermetically seal "faith" & "religion" away from the public square as if folks checked their faith at the door or as if folks were neatly cut-up pie pieces. (Just try telling any voter that he should never weigh "character" into his/her voting-decision considerations).
As I said on my last post, the bare outward adherencies isn't the "heart" point of my eval of candidates...it is indeed their relationship with the Living God.
For example, do you not agree that there are non-Christians who acknowledge the Living God of the Bible -- and occasionally (or at times, more frequently), pray to Him?
You see, there's a HUGE difference 'tween a candidate who relates to a foreign God -- and a Jewish candidate who relates to THE TRUE Living God.
Why is this important for the person in the White House? As I said in my last post: ...a matter of practicing discernment as to which leader is in touch with THE ONLY TRUE GOD—the ONE who will help our nation in a time of crisis or during a dirty bomb scenario like the one the character Jack Bauer & the POTUS of the series “24” went through.
A Jewish POTUS knows who to "dial in to"...He knows which "batphone" connection to use to call during an emergency. A Mormon POTUS? (Not likely; but also keep in mind my last post where I said Mormon candidates could be diverse)
While a "saving-faith" relationship with the True God with be my "druthers" for a POTUS, and would "bump higher" in my estimate of POTUS candidates, it's not the "only thing" I eval in a candidate (see last post).
Let's cover Unitarians...and just broaden this also to include the historical track record of both Unitarians-as-Presidents as well the usual seven past Presidents identified as "other than what we would recognize today as technically Christian":
George Washington
Thomas Jefferson
James Madison
John Adams
John Quincy Adams
Millard Fillmore
William Howard Taft
(Note: Some also include Abraham Lincoln and Andrew Johnson)
With George Washington and James Madison, I've seen comments from both sides. And many Madison quotes cited by "the other side" are from later in Madison's life. The last four in the list above had unitarian memberships...though John Adams was a Congregationalist growing up and was associated with that church by anybody who may have cared in looking that aspect re: voting for him.
Re John Quincy Adams, he constantly referenced himself as a "Christian" and his diary is filled with critiques vs. liberal Unitarians.
Re: Madison:
Madison's religious views and activities are numerous, as are his writings on religion. They are at times self-contradictory, and his statements about religion are such that opposing positions can each invoke Madison as its authority. An understanding of Madison's religious views is complicated by the fact that his early actions were at direct variance with his later opinions. Consider six examples of his early actions. First, Madison was publicly outspoken about his personal Christian beliefs and convictions. For example, he encouraged his friend, William Bradford (who served as Attorney General under President Washington), to make sure of his own spiritual salvation: [A] watchful eye must be kept on ourselves lest, while we are building ideal monuments of renown and bliss here, we neglect to have our names enrolled in the Annals of Heaven.[1] Madison even desired that all public officials - including Bradford - would declare openly and publicly their Christian beliefs and testimony: "I have sometimes thought there could not be a stronger testimony in favor of religion or against temporal enjoyments, even the most rational and manly, than for men who occupy the most honorable and gainful departments and [who] are rising in reputation and wealth, publicly to declare their unsatisfactoriness by becoming fervent advocates in the cause of Christ; and I wish you may give in your evidence in this way." Source: James Madison and Religion in Public
I've read also a piece entitle, "Was James Madison a Christian or Theist?" -- but the link appears to be dead now.
I think then that the three presidential candidates who were clearly "not" Christian to the voters of their times -- had they bothered to investigate that -- would have been...
...Jefferson
...Fillmore
...Taft
Jefferson: Jefferson was never a member of the Unitarian denomination nor was he ever active in a Unitarian congregation. However, he did once write that he would have liked to be a member of a Unitarian church, but he was not because there were no Unitarian churches in Virginia...[Jefferson] sometimes wrote that he thought the whole country would become Unitarian. He wrote that the teachings of Jesus contain the "outlines of a system of the most sublime morality which has ever fallen from the lips of man." Wrote: "I am of a sect by myself, as far as I know." Source: "Jefferson's Religious Beliefs", by Rebecca Bowman, Monticello Research Department, August 1997 [URL: http://www.monticello.org/resources/interests/religion.html].
Source: The Religious Affiliation of Third U.S. President Thomas Jefferson
Millard Fillmore: For those tempted to say, "Well, Millard Fillmore served as President, and if you aren't willing to vote for a Unitarian, you would have shut out Millard Fillmore."
Well, after his presidency, Fillmore ran for president again in 1856: "He ran for the presidency in 1856 for the Know-Nothing Party, an anti-Catholic, anti-immigrant party."
Source: Millard Fillmore - Thirteenth President of the United States ... If his very party ran on an "anti-Catholic" stance, then who would anybody be to try to use Fillmore as some "anti-religious bigotry" poster boy???
I would say that a solid reason to oppose Unitarians as POTUS candidates would have been (and is still operative, IMO):
... (a) the Christian social ethics of righteousness and justice just didn't carry far into their soul. With Fillmore, his "support of the Fugitive Slave Act caused the Whig Party to split in two and caused the downfall of his national political career." (same source as above) Keep in mind that compromiser British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain was also raised Unitarian.
...(b) Not only did Fillmore head the "Know-Nothing Party," but Taft as President made the (R) party temporarily into a "Do Nothing Party"...lacking moral force or suasion:
Note this critique even from a Unitarian Universalist source: "The Christian Register, a publication that held Taft in high regard, later commented on his presidency: 'Mr. Taft is not referred to as one of the great Presidents. Two reasons may be assigned: his election depended too much on the will of his predecessor, President Roosevelt; he was temperamentally and mentally unfitted to fulfill the functions of Chief Executive of the nation. He did not enjoy the office, and could not summon the tremendous energy necessary to push through legislation in the face of powerful opposition. He made himself beloved by the people on account of his readiness to smile through difficulties; but that method did not work with Congress, and things simply did not get done." The election of 1912 was a political disaster for the Republicans. Woodrow Wilson easily defeated both Taft and his former supporter Roosevelt (now running for the Bull Moose Party). (So even Roosevelt, who had "anointed" Taft earlier -- had turned against him in 1912).
Source of above quote: William Howard Taft
Oh...and one more thing re: Jefferson: Note that Jefferson is hardly the "poster boy" for "religious tolerance" when Jefferson himself "intensely opposed Calvinism. He never ceased to denounce the 'blasphemous absurdity of the five points of Calvin.' Three years before his death, he wrote to John Adams: 'His [Calvin's] religion was demonism. If ever man worshiped a false God, he did. The being described in his five points is ... a demon of malignant spirit. It would be more pardonable to believe in no God at all, than to blaspheme him by the atrocious attributes of Calvin'" (Works, Vol. iv., p. 363). Source: Thomas Jefferson and religion
BTW, have you been consistent & critiqued Mormon voters for making "religion" a key sticking point on who they vote for? (Or do you only "rain" upon Evangelicals, etc.?) The Salt Lake Trib said in Feb 08 that the #1 issue among Utah voters was “personal qualities” (We all know what "personal qualities," eh, 7, wink-wink, nudge-nudge). Actually, I'm glad Utah LDS voters voted their conscience & convictions & that they took the other-worldly commitments of a candidate into consideration. It not only shows they are exercising liberty in a Free Republic, but it shows they are just like the Evangelicals above – of whom 92% said they likewise take faith & beliefs into action!
I find myself in agreement with you on most all of this post. So, I think, if we are still disagreeing, we must have wandered off on our point of disagreement. If there still is one.
I believe the point, or question, is: Would you disqualify - rule out voting for - a member of the Church of LDS for political office based on this membership alone?
Not whether religion and religious values are important or are a valid consideration, etc.
Thanks for your courteous discussion.
Anyway..
While a "saving-faith" relationship with the True God with be my "druthers" for a POTUS, and would "bump higher" in my estimate of POTUS candidates, it's not the "only thing" I eval in a candidate (see last post).
I think we are in agreement here and my question of whether membership in LDS alone would disqualify a candidate for you is answered in the negative. Please let me know if my conclusion is in error.
thanks again...
Very informative post, thank you.
And you gave me a reason to admire Jefferson on his religious views. :)
I believe many of the founders were products of their age which was full flush with humanism, individualism, rationalism. The tendency toward deism is part of this, IMHO.
My thinking is two-part. One part is that religion informs character and actions (or is revealed in them.) And, therefore, is a valid consideration in judging political candidates. I think we agree on this.
The second part is that somewhere there is a distinction between theological beliefs (as opposed to pure ethics) and political suitability.
We may agree here as well in general, but not in specifics.
thanks again.
"I guess we're going to have to disagree on whether the 'True Living God' in Jewish theology is the same as in Christian theology. "
First of all...in some of the principles I have highlighted on FR over the past five years, I have distinguished between generic political office and POTUS -- THE leader of the free world.
Beyond that, let's focus on that word "disqualify" -- 'cause I've already addressed this question: I already said: Religion IS NOT a qualification or disqualification for public office; but it's certainly one quality of voter discernment among many others...namely, voting record, present position statements & rampant inconsistency of past position statements, social issues' stances, character, viability, scandal-free past, etc.
I've also said numerous times: "Qualifications" have to do with what gets a man on a ballot. "Qualities" has to do with who gets elected.
Therefore, the focus needs to be kept on candidate qualities -- and qualities include...character, beliefs, other-dimensionly commitments, and spiritual discernment.
Now, if you asked me: Do you think most Mormon political leaders have the qualities, the character, the beliefs, the other-dimensionly commitments, and the spiritual discernment to be THE leader of the Free world...my answer is, "I don't think so. I could be proven wrong re: a very specific individual, but somebody who perhaps can't even discern the difference between 'Christian' and an 'apostate' hasn't 'inspired' me that he can handle foreign policy decisions that occasionally involve Christians around the world."
Another key issue is that a temple Mormon (15-20% of all Mormons) -- vs. a less "institutional" Mormon -- is more likely to be beholden as a "puppet" to the "prophet" in Salt Lake City. So some Mormon candidates have a greater potential for puppet fodder than other Mormon candidates. (And it's not enough to merely say that Mormons have refrained from allowing SLC to overly influence them at the guv or Congressional level...there simply is NO comparison to those levels vs. what can be done from the White House)
You see, the issue here then isn't even primarily the Mormon candidate; it's the potential Mormon "prophet" who can overreach...And I've already included many quotes on other threads -- and a link on a post earlier on this thread -- showing the Mormon leader capacity for political overreach.
Does that disqualify the Mormon? (No) Is that a "quality" -- Mormon puppetry -- I want embraced within the White House? (No)
You and each of you covenant and promise before God, angels, and these witnesses at this altar, that you do accept the Law of Consecration as contained in the Doctrine and Covenants, in that you do consecrate yourselves, your time, talents, and everything with which the Lord has blessed you, or with which he may bless you, to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, for the building up of the Kingdom of God on the earth and for the establishment of Zion.
http://www.ldsendowment.org/terrestrial.html
Mormon’s covenant to put the church before ALL things
>>Beyond that, let’s focus on that word “disqualify” ..”
I purposely defined the meaning I was using in this context as “rule out voting for”. This was the focus, not whether someone qualified for the ballot.
In hindsight, I should have just written “rule out voting for” without “disqualify” for clarity sake. My apologies.
This confusion aside, it seems that your post is affirming that you would rule out voting for a member of the LDS on this basis alone (with some rare exceptions.) This is different than what I concluded in previous posts.
>>You see, the issue here then isn’t even primarily the Mormon candidate; it’s the potential Mormon “prophet” who can overreach..
“Potentially” pretty much any candidate can overreach in this regard and use whatever historical or scriptural justification they require. . E.g., Calvin’s Geneva, Christendom in the middle ages.
In my view, I’m looking for your objective criteria that fits LDS, and, in my view again, the criteria is subjective.
That’s, of course, your and everyone (including myself) else’s prerogative. But a position based on subjective truth cannot be used validly in an objective debate looking toward the truth above the individual level.
thanks for your courteous discussion.
Would you never vote for a Freemason on a similar basis?
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.