Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Election 2008: 43% Would Never Vote for Mormon Candidate (Rasmussen Poll)
Yahoooo via Rasmussen ^ | 11/20/06

Posted on 11/20/2006 8:24:45 AM PST by areafiftyone

click here to read article

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 501-520521-540541-560561-574 last
To: AppyPappy

"The Jewish explanation was that he sinned in a previous life."

Well, that would be limited to Kabbalistic Jews. Doing a little cut-and-paste:

Belief in the eventual resurrection of the dead is a fundamental belief of traditional Judaism. It was a belief that distinguished the Pharisees (intellectual ancestors of Rabbinical Judaism) from the Sadducees. The Sadducees rejected the concept, because it is not explicitly mentioned in the Torah. The Pharisees found the concept implied in certain verses.

Belief in resurrection of the dead is one of Rambam's 13 Principles of Faith. The second blessing of the Shemoneh Esrei prayer, which is recited three times daily, contains several references to resurrection. (Note: the Reform movement, which apparently rejects this belief, has rewritten the second blessing accordingly).

The resurrection of the dead will occur in the messianic age, a time referred to in Hebrew as the Olam Ha-Ba, the World to Come, but that term is also used to refer to the spiritual afterlife. When the messiah comes to initiate the perfect world of peace and prosperity, the righteous dead will be brought back to life and given the opportunity to experience the perfected world that their righteousness helped to create. The wicked dead will not be resurrected.

There are some mystical schools of thought that believe resurrection is not a one-time event, but is an ongoing process. The souls of the righteous are reborn in to continue the ongoing process of tikkun olam, mending of the world. Some sources indicate that reincarnation is a routine process, while others indicate that it only occurs in unusual circumstances, where the soul left unfinished business behind. Belief in reincarnation is also one way to explain the traditional Jewish belief that every Jewish soul in history was present at Sinai and agreed to the covenant with G-d. (Another explanation: that the soul exists before the body, and these unborn souls were present in some form at Sinai). Belief in reincarnation is commonly held by many Chasidic sects, as well as some other mystically-inclined Jews. (See, for example Reincarnation Stories from Chasidic Tradition.)

561 posted on 11/21/2006 4:21:50 PM PST by MeanWestTexan (Kol Hakavod Lezahal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 559 | View Replies]

To: DelphiUser
A while back you said, "We just think that you have a partial fully comprehend the Gospel as taught by Jesus. Do not be offended by this, don't you offer the same." And then you added on post #479, So you don’t offer to teach me what you know of Christ? That’s what I was talking about.

Well, I've waited to answer that one, but here is the gospel of Christ that I would say is distinct to the LDS "gospel":

#1, Repentance: Spencer Kimball in his book, THE MIRACLE OF FORGIVENESS, says that if you recommit a sin you repented of, you never really repented to begin with. The Utah suicide rate I mentioned in an earlier post is linked with this...every time an LDS teen or young person recommits a sin, an LDS general authority teaching is there to accuse them of being a liar: "No, you never repented. You just think you did. Go back to ground zero and start over."

#2, Works: God rejects our works which are done trying to procure salvation/exaltation. He accepts our works which are done as a by-product of our salvation--as a by-product of Him equipping us first (Heb. 13:20-21). Works do not save--even 2 Nephi 2:4: 26:25, 27 & Ether 12:8,33 teaches this (In the Bible, see especially John 6:28-29; Rom. 3:28).

Are we justified in God's eyes via works of the law? Paul says "no" (Gal. 5:4; Rom. 3:20; 1 Cor. 6:11). Works justify our faith just as intercourse consummates our marriage. In other words, our faith gives us the RIGHT to accomplish godly works in His strength. Works no more procure faith or salvific faith anymore than intercourse procures marriage. In fact, the act without a proper relationship is rejected by God! Yet, historically, LDS advocate salvation by works (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, vol. I, p. 134).

#3, Grace & Forgiveness "For you are saved by grace AFTER ALL YOU CAN DO." 2 Nephi 25:23. Forgiveness in Mormonism is predicated upon obeying commandments: D&C 1:31-32: "...he that repents and does the commandments of the Lord shall be forgiven."

I have possession of a 1982 Family Home Evening publication published by the SLC Church & distributed by the California Arcadia Mission. Note this quote: "But Heavenly Father does not encircle us with his guidance and protection automatically. There is a condition. What is it? (That we try with all our might to obey his laws)." (p.7) In Mormonism, grace is conditional: Only offered "after all you can do" 2 Nephi 25:23. Forgiveness only comes post-commandment-doing (D&C 1:31-32). Guidance & protection is also conditional--we first have to try "with all our might to obey his laws."

This goes against the grain of the Bible, which emphasizes God as the spiritual initiator, not man. Re: "doing all you can do"--when do you know you have done all you can do to get into heaven? Isn't there ALWAYS a little MORE you could do (cf. Rom. 3:20-21, 28; 4:2-5; 9:32; Acts 13:39; 2 Tim. 1:9; Titus 3:5). Have any of us followed even one specific commandment perfectly? (see John 13:34-35.

The LDS thrust runs counter to Scripture: Do all you can, obey commandments all you can, and THEN God kicks in...Nope...that's like saying, "I'm going to get well first and then go see the Doc." (See Mark 2:17)

We are saved by grace (Eph. 2:8-9)...grace is a gift. Gifts cannot be earned. (Rom. 6:23). If we go by what our works wages show, we've warranted death--not heaven, not exaltation, not godhood

#4, Worthiness: "Worthiness" as applied to Eph. 4:1, 2 Thess. 1:11, 1 Thess. 2:12 deals with vocation (calling), not Salvation. (Calling is the same as vocation in 2 Thess. 1:11; 1 Thess. 12:12). "To call" comes from the same word as "vocal"--hence, "vocation."

"Worthiness" as revealed in Col. 1:10 is in the context that in v. 12 that it is the Father "who has qualified you to share in the inheritance of the saints in the kingdom of the light." (NIV) The KJV reads similarly, "Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in the light."

Bottom line: It's the Father who "qualifies" the inheritance of the saints as worthy to enter the brightest kingdom.

#5, Who gets the ultimate credit and glory for what we do? Do we claim spiritual merit badges? Or does He get the glory? John 6:28-29 claims that it's the "work of God" to do the work "God requires." Paul adds that even our profession of Jesus as Lord is dependent 100% upon the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 12:3). If that is true with a mere confession, how much more true with everything else.

No wonder Galatians talks about "the fruit of the Spirit"--not the "fruit of man." If He's doing the work through us; If He is qualifying us for the Kingdom; if He is making us worthy; If He is supplying grace-gifts; If He is forgiving us; If He is constantly haunting us to turn around toward Him in a vital, prayerful, intimate relationship like a Bride and Bridegroom (vs. a lawkeeper and Law/Ordinance-giver), then it levels the playing field.

I'm no higher of a servant than any other in His Kingdom. My heavenly white robe is no more brighter than any other "bride" for I did not purchase it; His bloodprice did. I have no degree of "glory one-upsmanship" over any other. He gets all the glory, which He told Isaiah He shares with no one (that's no one). "I will not give my glory to another" (Isaiah 42:8); "I will not yield my glory to another" (Isaiah 48:11)...verses that further prove that when Jesus talks about sharing the glory of the Father (John 17:1,5), He speaks directly against those Isaiah passages and has to be perfectly One with the Father in essence.

562 posted on 11/21/2006 4:24:05 PM PST by Colofornian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 449 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

I think you read too much into these, he is not saying God had sex with Mary.

Since you insist on this unsavory topic, can I not with the help of a turkey baster and a little science make a “Virgin” birth? Surely if I can do it, so can God or the Holy Ghost. The child is the literal offspring of whoever the sperm donor was, the birth would be a natural one, no laws of nature were broken, and nothing “Naughty” happened. The Child would be begotten by his father, and nothing “UN-natural would happen.

The only reason for this “Delving” as you put it is people asking “well did God break laws of nature to do this?” The answer is no. He used the laws of nature to bring about his purposes in a natural way. There was no flash, no practiced Jedi hand movements, no supernatural, science breaking events, the earth and all matter obeyed his will and supernatural means was needed because this had been planned before the world was, and it was designed to work.

>>>> and I think Mary would be very embarrassed to have
>>>>you thinking about her like that. Her son might just be
>>>>put out too.

>>You know what, I agree with you 100%!!!

So, why are you asking me these questions again? Oh yea, you want to show me how perverted I am, and my church is, by dragging me kicking and screaming into a discussion of Sex with the Holy mother, Got it.

>> I'll betcha one other thing: This is not "Missionary Lesson Plan #1" for LDS
>> missionaries visiting heavy Roman Catholic countries like Latin America.
>> (As a matter of act, it's probably not even in the LDS member lesson plans in those
>>countries, either!!!).

You got that right, why would we talk about that if we weren’t dragged there by the questions of someone like your self?

The Catholics I have talked to also do not start of talking about Perpetual viginity, Transubstantiation, the infallibility of the pope, the Unchanging nature of the church, etc.

They are just not appropriate topics to start a discussion about your religion. You try to make is something sinister, but it’s not, it’s just logic. The more you complain about that, which is obviously logical to an impartial observer, the more you appear to be a fanatic with an ax to grind.

>>There ya have it. More "tucked away" doctrines of the church.

Only tucked away in the folds of your imagination. If it were tucked away, how would you even know about it?

You have taken the outside edge of talks and responses to questions and try to make a case for Mormonism being a trap (your word), and a secret organization (tucked away being hidden from view). If this is the best you can do, well I’m unimpressed.

Now can we get of the subject you seem to relish “Mary’s sexuality” and on to something substantive like the council at Nicea?

563 posted on 11/21/2006 6:22:32 PM PST by DelphiUser ("You can lead a man to knowledge, but you can't make him think")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 557 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

>>Well, at least we're getting progress here.

Then you have not been reading my posts, for this is what I have been saying.

Please explain why we need to know exactly the birth order of Lucifer?

Nobody called Lucifer my elder brother that I am aware of.

Jesus is my elder brother.

564 posted on 11/21/2006 6:25:51 PM PST by DelphiUser ("You can lead a man to knowledge, but you can't make him think")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 558 | View Replies]

To: areafiftyone

Why should it matter if a politician is Mormon? You don't have to agree with his religious beliefs for him to be a good leader.

565 posted on 11/21/2006 6:30:53 PM PST by Mumtri
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mumtri

I totally agree. Religion is not a criteria for president. I go by the issues and what they have done while in office.

566 posted on 11/21/2006 6:47:05 PM PST by areafiftyone (Politicians Are Like Diapers - Both Need To Be Changed Often And For The Same Reason)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 565 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

#1, Repentance:

Take Spencer W Kimball out of context all you want that does not change the original meaning. SWK was talking about those who say I’ll sin, and then repent, and I’m as good as new when you plan to repent before you commit the sin you cheapen the atonement of Christ.

#2, Works & #3, Grace & Forgiveness

Try reading James 2 sometime, he lays it out, and you don’t have to jump around the Bible putting verses in a specific order to make your point (you can make just about any point with the Bible if you just line the scriptures up right, but reading them through, in context that’s where you gain understanding.

James 2: 14 – 26 ( )

This chapter pretty well states the Mormon position.

#3, Grace & Forgiveness

>>I have possession of a 1982 Family Home Evening publication published by the SLC Church & distributed by the California Arcadia Mission.

You have an impressive collection for a non member with a passing interest, were you ever a member?

Forgiveness is granted on condition of repentance, what you thought it was free? We are commanded to do our best. Do your best and leave Christ the rest.

>>The LDS thrust runs counter to Scripture

Only if you misinterpret scripture, show me the scripture where it says forgiveness comes with out price, faith works or even righteous desire.

#4, Worthiness

There is a saying in the LDS church, whom the lord calls he also Qualifies. (so what’s the point of 4?)

#5, Who gets the ultimate credit and glory for what we do?

Is this a trick question? God Does.

567 posted on 11/21/2006 6:54:32 PM PST by DelphiUser ("You can lead a man to knowledge, but you can't make him think")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 562 | View Replies]

To: areafiftyone

Please correct me if I am wrong but after reading the Rasmussen poll some numbers seemed to pop out. It said that 44% of white Democrats said religion would affect how they voted. Considering most minorities’ vote Democrat no matter who the candidate is in my opinion they should be considered irrelevant towards this discussion.

Now assuming and equal amount of Democrats and Republicans in the country and 20% of the democrats are minorities that leaves you with a remaining 30% white vote of which 44% stated religion would matter, which translates into 13% would not and 17% of Democrats would consider voting for Romney. The balance in questions seems to be the evangelicals.

If the vote was between Hillary and Romney the question is what would evangelicals do? Would they stay home or vote for Romney. And from what I understand evangelicals have remained a faithful Republican voter.

568 posted on 11/21/2006 7:14:17 PM PST by Magilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AppyPappy
Actually, the Jews believed the sins of the father would be visited on his children.

It's actually the basis of Christianity as well, hence the need for a messiah. The curse of Adam (original sin) that required sacrifice to God was to be expiated by the messiah (who would be the final sacrifice). Without the sin of Adam being passed down to his offspring (much like the sin of Cain passed down to make his offspring monstrous, a common belief in both Jewish and early Christian traditions), man would have the potential to be sinless. Early Christian doctrine (as it was based on the Jewish messianic tradition) was clear on the sinful nature of man from birth (enshrined in early Catholicism as the doctrine of original sin). It wasn't until the Protestant Reformation that some Christian denominations began to "reinterpret" the idea of the sins of the fathers being visited on the sons. Medieval literature (my particular specialty) was almost universally in agreement as to this transference, and you see it alluded to in many secular contexts as well (even to the point that Malory's Arthur must suffer for the sins of Uther... through Morgana and Mordred).

Many early Christians (and, ironically Jews as well) would have argued that without Adam's sin (for which we still suffer), Christ is not needed...

569 posted on 11/21/2006 7:43:59 PM PST by Charles H. (The_r0nin) (Hwt! Lr bi mst hord, solce!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 518 | View Replies]

To: areafiftyone

rasmussen is not considered a liberal. I would hazard to guess most don't even even know who is he, or that he is a Morman. Most Americans don't even know who's on the Supreme Court, and there's only 9. I would take this poll with a truckload of salt.

570 posted on 11/22/2006 4:57:41 AM PST by PghBaldy (Reporter: Are you surprised? Nancy Pelosi: No. My eyes always look like this.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Charles H. (The_r0nin)

Calvinists still believe in the total depravity of man from birth. He is so depraved, he cannot come to God by himself. God must come to him (Election)

571 posted on 11/22/2006 5:11:10 AM PST by AppyPappy (If you aren't part of the solution, there is good money to be made prolonging the problem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 569 | View Replies]

To: Mumtri

"You don't have to agree with his religious beliefs for him to be a good leader."

So a Satanist would be OK with you?

Or perhaps a Shiite Muslim who believed that Jews were monkeys and stole his birthright?

Obviously, these are extreme examples, and Mormonism does not compare to either, but "relgious beliefs" are a spectrum and EVERYONE rational has a point where he or she says "Nope, not going to vote for that leader because his religious beliefs are too extreme."

Again, my point is not to compare Mormonism with either two extreme examples above, but to reject the fallacy that the religion of a leader is never relevant.

Of course religion is relevant.

The question here for many is: Does Mormonism fall within the "safe middle" of belief systems.

Certain Christian groups say "no."

That's a hard fact to deal with when trying to get someone elected from the Republican side of the isle.

572 posted on 11/22/2006 7:46:34 AM PST by MeanWestTexan (Kol Hakavod Lezahal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 565 | View Replies]

To: areafiftyone
JFK was feared because he was to become the 1st Catholic President. The religion of the President is irrelevant. It's where he stands on the issues, his character, and his record, that matter.
573 posted on 11/23/2006 4:27:25 AM PST by veronica (
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PghBaldy
OK, here is something my mom asked how tall is Romney? She is terrified Hillary will become President, and hopes he is tall (it has shown to be correlated to winning).
574 posted on 11/23/2006 3:29:34 PM PST by PghBaldy (Reporter: Are you surprised? Nancy Pelosi: No. My eyes always look like this.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 570 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 501-520521-540541-560561-574 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson