ANSWERS TO 50 ANTI-MORMON QUESTIONS (LDS SITE FAIR)

FAIR (Foundation for Apologetics Information & Research) ^ | modified December 22, 2007 | FAIR Staff

[big'ol_freeper]

I have noting for awhile that there appears to be a organized effort to convince Freepers that Romney is a conservative. I say this because too many posts use the same verbage. Whether is an attack on Fred (too old, lacks energy etc.) or other candidates or support for Mitt they parrot each other and they absolutely lie about Romney’s very well documented record. It follows the same pattern that you see in the MSM when an organized attack on the President occurs...they all say the same thing at the very same time. Just my two cents for what its worth.

[greyfoxx39]

Well and good. But how effective is that advocacy if you don’t win?

To hell with principle, winning is everything, eh, Tant? Winning with Mitt is losing for the country.

[Jim Robinson]

Uh, this is Free Republic. We advocate for conservatives/conservatism not RINOS/liberalism. We will continue to advocate for life, family, liberty, national security, individual freedom, limited government, low taxes, originalist judges and the constitution, etc, regardless of who wins the current election. You can shove your dose of RINO reality where the sun don’t shine. I’m sure it’ll do wonders for you.

[Eva]

With enough gullibility, anything can be explained. That explains why some think that Romney is a conservative.

That also explains why anyone would consider Huckabee a conservative. Huckabee is a one issue candidate, abortion, everything else is far left. His fair tax scheme would be a train wreck for the economy, not to mention unenforceable. It would take twice as many IRS agenst to collect the sales tax. But Huckabee know that, and he knows that it would never pass. He is just playing the religious conservatives for fools, like Elmer Gantry.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

Let’s see how Mitt fares...

life - who knows what he really is committed to??

family - seems to be pro-family, if we judge by pictures (he did name his son “Tagg” - What’s that about??

liberty - forcing people to buy insurance or face penalties isn’t freedom. It is totalitarianism.

national security - no experience, who knows??

individual freedom - at least he if for free markets

limited government - maybe

low taxes - no. He is for high fees, judging by his budgets

originalist judges - no. he is for “diverse judges”, based on his own policy as demonstrated in MA

constitution - I’d give him a low grade here, based on his view of the Second Amendment and his abortion history.

I don’t think Willard Mitt Romney passes the smell test here.

[tantiboh]

~”To hell with principle, winning is everything, eh, Tant?”~

I’ll take it over losing, thanks.

~”Winning with Mitt is losing for the country.”~

Our opinions differ.

So, in your world, there is no winning? Since no “real conservative” has a shot at this stage, the country will lose no matter what? Or are Huckabee, Giuliani, or McCain more palatable to you?

It’s a sad place, your world. You should plant flowers.

[tantiboh]

~”We will continue to advocate for life, family, liberty, national security, individual freedom, limited government, low taxes, originalist judges and the constitution, etc, regardless of who wins the current election.”~

Couldn’t agree more. I do believe this is a disagreement of methodology, not ideology. It’s tougher to implement what you advocate when you’re out of power.

~”You can shove your dose of RINO reality where the sun don’t shine.”~

Fair enough. I’ll keep you posted how it goes in the real world!

Thanks for the discussion.

[Colofornian]

It is American that we have the freedom to question a candidate based on his religion, and I wouldn’t have it any other way. If the religion is a force for good, however, it is entirely un-American to exercise that right.

You beg the question by jumping to the assumption that the religion you cite is indeed "a force for good."

If you go to this ex-Mormon's snapshot of the fruits of Mormonism in Utah, http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1940378/posts (post #165), you'll see it's not the "force for good" you make it out to be -- even on a social level...(an eternal spiritual level is another discussion).

I've also made the argument on several threads that a political leader who has seen his respected religious leaders shift gears on key theological tenets (polygamy; blacks as priests; Adam as God; blood atonement; exceptions granted for abortions; etc.) is more likely to feel free to swing free & loose with his own positions--especially on social positions. I mean, hey, if I think my God is at times free & loose on the number of partners, they what's the difference if I embrace gay civil unions (as Romney does) or tax-funded domestic partnership benefits (as Romney does)?

[greyfoxx39]

It’s a sad place, your world. You should plant flowers.

Matt. 16:26 For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?

MY world is not that sad. And save the flowers for Mitt's political grave. If he buys the nomination, Hillary will bury him.

[greyfoxx39]

Colo, your link is no good.

[rightazrain]

Signey Rigdon was from the “Cambellite” movement. What’s interesting is that he influenced Smith to introduce weekly communion services.

What’s weird is that in the Mormon church, instead of bread and wine (or grape juice) on a weekly basis, they instituted bread and water.

My conclusion: they didn’t want to talk about the blood of Christ. They wanted to talk about water, which is only symbolic of a one-time baptism. The blood of Christ is not in their repertoire. Why not, they are gods-becoming, and teach that they will be on a level with Jesus (the spirit brother of saton).

Hey! If they talk about the blood of Christ, and the sacrifice He had to make, all those Gods-becoming might have to consider that in some future planet, if they indeed will be gods on a parity with Jesus, they might have to hang on a cross and shed their blood to have parity with Jesus Christ.

Not an appealing thought when talking about conversion to the LDS, eh?

Nevermind, we’ll just have water and drop this blood thing. That could get these gods-becoming a little nervous.

[ejonesie22]

You MittChicks kill me.

Though I will concur with one thing, he has great hair. Its the only Reaganesque thing about of course...

[Tennessee Nana]

“In any case, Brigham made it clear that he was expressing his opinion: “Do you think it is inhabited? I rather think it is.” Prophets are entitled to their opinions; in fact, the point of Brigham’s discourse is that the only fanatic is one who insists upon clinging to a false idea.”

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

The REAL prophets of God were NOT “entitled to their opinions” God commanded that His prophets only say and do what He told them to...

The prophets were extremely carefully to only speak the oracles of god and not uttert careless stupid “oppinions”...They got into trouble with god when they did their own thing or spouted off their own “opinions” or disobeyed God...

Because mormons say that Joe Smith and Bing young were prophets like Moses, we’ll begin with him...

Because of disobedience, God allowed Moses to see the Promised Land but he was never allowed to enter it...

Because of Uriah and bathsheba etc, the son of David died and he had trouble in his family and kingdom all his life ...

Samson had his eyes plucked out, and was treated like a beast of burden...

Jonah disobeyed God and refused to go and prophesy to Nineveh...He travelled in the opposite direction and was swallowed by the whale...

[ejonesie22]

Mittchicks...

[muawiyah]

Given the popularity of "Church of the First Born" in so much early Mormon literature, and given that it is known that this group was already quite old when Smith came along, I suspect they play a greater part than you can imagine. (One group was founded in/near what is now called Brownsville TX circa 1703. Odds are good this church popped up wherever there were permanent or semi-permanent sites developed for Scandinavian whaling fleets.)

Rigdon came with his congregation(s) ~ I think in the end he was determined to be a bit nuts though. It's a mixed bag regarding the degree of early Christian Church movement and LDS entanglements ~ but they have been acknowledged by many researchers to have been numerous. Probably worth a doctorate or two for some candidate for a Ph.D in history. I do know Mormons are more open about it than DofC folks, and you can send them screaming from the church on Wednesday night you bring this up with the Church of Christ.

[greyfoxx39]

My conclusion: they didn’t want to talk about the blood of Christ. They wanted to talk about water, which is only symbolic of a one-time baptism. The blood of Christ is not in their repertoire. Why not, they are gods-becoming, and teach that they will be on a level with Jesus (the spirit brother of saton).

That's an interesting take, considering their disdain for the cross, about the Blood of Christ.

In my years as a mormon, I never really heard the reason for the day-old bread and water...I just figured it was thriftiness. I did wonder at times if the servers who tore the bread into little bitsy pieces washed their hands before doing it, though.

[tantiboh]

There you go again, mixing politics and religion. Your point would be valid if -I- were taking over the world and selling my soul to do it.

I’m not, yet. The plans are being laid, however.

Choosing the candidate I see as most able to advance my conservative values, however, is not selling my soul. It’s pragmatism in the pursuit of conservatism - an art at which we are woefully inept, as a movement.

[ejonesie22]

Quick dose of reality from the real world there T

Mitt will not be the nominee.

His run is been built up on too large an investment mostly of his own money. If not for that, given his negatives he would poll less than 5 percent.

The RNC knows this.

The RNC is dumb but not stupid. His record is not popular with the fiscal and security minded conservatives and his relgion is an issue in the large southern base. Sorry its politics.

Look for a brokered convention unless Thompson clearly breaks loose super Tuesday. If it is a brokered convention it will be Thompson by a deal or another unknown at this point.

[tantiboh]

~”In my years as a mormon, I never really heard the reason for the day-old bread and water...”~

That sort of lack of knowledge about your former faith explains a lot about why you left. The question you ask is common knowledge, right there in the D&C.

~”I did wonder at times if the servers who tore the bread into little bitsy pieces washed their hands before doing it, though.”~

We’re instructed to. Usually, we do.

[tantiboh]