Posted on 11/20/2006 8:24:45 AM PST by areafiftyone
Mitt Romney (R) begins the 2008 campaign season in fourth place among those seeking the GOP Presidential nomination, trailing Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, and Condoleezza Rice. While many Republican insiders believe the Massachusetts Governor could become an attractive candidate to the party's social conservatives, a Rasmussen Reports survey finds that Romney's faith may initially be more of a hindrance than a help.
Forty-three percent (43%) of American voters say they would never even consider voting for a Mormon Presidential candidate. Only 38% say they would consider casting such a vote while 19% are not sure. Half (53%) of all Evangelical Christians say that they would not consider voting for a Mormon candidate.
Overall, 29% of Likely Voters have a favorable opinion of Romney while 30% hold an unfavorable view. Most of those opinions are less than firmly held. Ten percent (10%) hold a very favorable opinion while 11% have a very unfavorable assessment. Among the 41% with no opinion of Romney, just 27% say they would consider voting for a Mormon.
It is possible, of course, that these perceptions might change as Romney becomes better known and his faith is considered in the context of his campaign. Currently, just 19% of Likely Voters are able to identify Romney as the Mormon candidate from a list of six potential Presidential candidates.
The response to a theoretical Mormon candidate is far less negative than the response to a Muslim candidate or an atheist. Sixty-one percent (61%) of Likely Voters say they would never consider voting for a Muslim Presidential candidate. Sixty percent (60%) say the same about an atheist.
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.
The national telephone survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted by Rasmussen Reports November 16-17, 2006. The margin of sampling error for the survey is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence.
You're right.
1 Cor. 15:29
Key point: Who are "they"?
I think Joseph Smith must be the Holy Spirit...
I would have to know Rasmussen's description of "evangelical Christians." If he lumped in PCA, the United Methodists, and the United Church of Christ, he no doubt picked up a lot of liberals.
Sorry about that. But, I have heard that a lot here, but no evidence has been presented that you consider the rest of Christianity true Christians.
Hunh! I have seen nothing like that here. But perhaps the Seattle area is different in that regard.
Sure, what sort of "proof" do you require? How many talks from the leading mormon authorities would you like to read on the subject? Will a statement from a practicing mormon suffice?
First, mormonism teaches a different view of the trinity from main stream christian churchs- which get their view from the 3rd century nicean creed. On that basis alone, mormons are considered non-christian; dispite that fact that they view the only road to salvation is through Jesus Christ, the Son of God. They don't judge other views of the trinity as defining a person as christian or non-christian.
A more pragmatic appoarch, judgement by ones behavior. "By thier fruits ye shall know them".
And Second, you obvious lack understanding of mormonism's doctrine of the afterlife, which doesn't include a "hell" except for the select few who out-rightly betray the Savior after recieving a witness of him.
So on that- no, mormons do not think that the rest of christianity is going to burn.
And try to be more polite when posting - it makes you come across better
got any quotes from Young or Smith saying other Christians were true believers?
I know. It surprised me, too.
Romney has already beeing wooing the '700 Club set'...
http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2006/06/romneys_visit_t.html
but yours' is, right?
I feel Mormons in general are clannish and secretive and protective to a fault of all things Mormon, so it would be hard to vote for one for Prez, however, I would if I had too....just hope it doesn't come down to that.....
This whole thread saddens me. I've seen people in this thread equate Mormonism to radical Islam. I hear comparisions to cults and scientology. Patently wrong, false and stated for the simple act of religion bashing at the expense of Mormons.
Mormons are among the MOST patriotic groups of people. Their hymnals include all our national songs INCLUDING the Battle Hymn of the Republic. The United States really has a great internal friend in the LDS Church.
Mormons typically vote conservative values. Pro-life, lower taxes, smaller government, self sufficiency, and so on.
Mormons are the single largest supporting group of the Boy Scouts of America. Last I heard their support for the BSA was greater then all other groups...combined.
Mormon contribution to charity comes over and above any tithes that they contribute to the church. The Mormon church has entire farms and canneries devoted and dedicated to only supplying food and supplies to those in need, mormon and non-mormon. In cases of disaster they are among the first to arrive, along with the US Military and the Red Cross. Mormons never ask or take credit.
The LDS church is one of the great supporters of the nation of Israel and the Jewish people even though the Jewish people have not asked and oft times cast stones back at the Mormons. Mormons still stand and will continue to stand with the Jewish nation.
The preferred recruit for the FBI, CIA, NSA, and Secret Service is a return Mormon missionary. By preferred I mean if you have two candidates with the same qualifications the Mormon missionary will be chosen over the other. Not because of religious preference, but because of past experiences in character proven time and again.
Not one single church position is a paid position. Deacon, Priest, Bishop, President, heck even the Janitor working at a particular building is unpaid. They donate their time to the church, on top of any tithing or offerings they have already given.
There is no real reason for it yet there are those of other religions bash and persecute (yes it is persecution) the Mormons at every opportunity they get. Most of the time there is no reference to this, just things heard on the street. When there is reference it comes from already established anti-mormon literature and not from stated Mormon doctorine. In other words the persecuters know not of which they speak.
Of course I know that the anti-mormons will again raise their head and flame for the sake of flaming. Remember though I am not talking about church doctorine. I am just stating what I have found about Mormons in general removing all the Christian - non-Christian nonsence.
That was a very interesting post, I'm starting to look at who Romney is, and that information is very useful.
I notice no one has challenged it.
Exactly. If the early church was baptizing the dead, why didn't Paul, a recognized leader in the church, use the term we? Biblical scholars don't know who was performing this practice other than it was a group of which Paul was not a part.
But as you know, most politicians are whores. The issue is whether or not they are dangerous or incompetent whores.
Personally for me religion does not mean a thing. I go for the way a candidate stands on the issues that are important to me and also what he has done in office.
Personally I could not vote for a Muslim because as a general rule they want to kill us.
I could not vote for an Athieist because thy are usually Communists also.
So there is my steriotyping right out on my sleeve.
"Their dedication is to the church. You leave the church and see what happens. A true Christian is simply a Christian. His denomination is irrelevant. A Baptist can worship in a Presbyterian church and a Presbyterian can worship in a Baptist church. I can go to a Catholic church and worship there even though I am Protestant."
You cannot take Catholic communion unless you are baptized in the church. You cannot participate in all sacraments if you are a protestant. There are theological differences that in the past were viewed as important, but in our secularized world seem quaint and obscure.
Highlighting the differences with Mormonism is a theological matter, but I dont see it as a politically viable one.
The question a Christian voter needs to ask is:
Is the values he espouses and lives by my values?
For Romney, he can make the case that his faith, his belief in family, etc. are aligned with Christian voters.
In 2000, almost half of America voted for a Jewish Vice President. It wasn't an issue. I don't see how this will be an issue either.
What is Baptism for the Dead
Mentioned in 1 Cor. 15:29?
http://www.carm.org/questions/baptismfordead.htm
"Otherwise, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why then are they baptized for them?" (1 Cor. 15:29, NASB).
Numerous explanations have been offered for this verse ranging from the inane to the sophisticated. Mormonism, in particular, has claimed that this verse supports their view of baptism for the dead. In their practice, individuals go to their local Mormon temple, dress appropriately for a baptism, representatively adopt the name of a person who has died, and then the Mormon is baptized in water for that deceased person. This way, the dead person has fulfilled the requirements of salvation in the afterworld and can enjoy further spiritual benefits in the spiritual realm.
But, the Mormons are incorrect. They have usurped this verse and taken it out of context. So, let's examine 1 Cor. 15 briefly so we can see what Paul is talking about when he mentions baptism for the dead.
In Verses 1-19, the fact of Christ's resurrection is detailed by Paul. Beginning in verse 20 and going through verse 23, Paul speaks about the order of the resurrection. Christ is the first one raised -- in a glorified body -- and then who are His at His return. Next, verses 24 - 29 mention Christ's reign and the abolition of death. This is when this controversial verse occurs: "Otherwise, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why then are they baptized for them?"
Just north of Corinth was a city named Eleusis. This was the location of a pagan religion where baptism in the sea was practiced to guarantee a good afterlife. This religion was mention by Homer in Hymn to Demeter 478-79.2 The Corinthians were known to be heavily influenced by other customs. After all, they were in a large economic area where a great many different people frequented. It is probable that the Corinthians were being influenced by the religious practices found at Eleusis where baptism for the dead was practiced.
Paul used this example from the pagans in 1 Cor. 15:29, when he said, "...if the dead are not raised, then why are they baptized for the dead?" Paul did not say we.1 This is significant because the Christian church was not practicing baptism for the dead, but the pagans were.
Paul's point was simple. The resurrection is a reality. It is going to happen when Jesus returns. Even the pagans believe in the resurrection, otherwise, why would they baptize for the dead?
However, some are not convinced by this argument and state that the word "they" is not in the Greek and, therefore, Paul is not speaking about the pagans.. Let's take a look.
Literally, the verse is translated as "Since what will do the being immersed on behalf of the dead if wholly dead not are raised why also are they immersed on behalf of them."
The issue here is the word, "baptizontai" -- "they are baptized." It is the present, passive, indicative, 3rd person, plural. In other words, it is THEY ARE BEING BAPTIZED or, THEY ARE BAPTIZED.
I -- first person singular
you (singular) -- second person singular
he/she/it -- third person singular
we -- first person plural
you (plural) -- second person plural
they -- third person plural
It is the latter form, the third person plural (they) which the verb "baptizo" is in. Therefore, the best translation is "THEY are baptized."
____________
1. The KJV renders it as, "Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?"
The NKJV, "Otherwise, what will they do who are baptized for the dead, if the dead do not rise at all? Why then are they baptized for the dead?"
The NASB, "Otherwise, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why then are they baptized for them?"
2. Bible Knowledge Commentary on 1 Cor. 15:29. Dallas Seminary Faculty.
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.