Posted on 12/16/2011 7:29:46 AM PST by Belteshazzar
I have no clear idea whether Pastor Robert Jeffress is correct in referring to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, more colloquially known as the Mormons, as “a cult.” There do seem to be one or two points of similarity. The Mormons have a supreme leader, known as the prophet or the president, whose word is allegedly supreme. They can be ordered to turn upon and shun any members who show any signs of backsliding. They have distinctive little practices, such as the famous underwear, to mark them off from other mortals, and they are said to be highly disciplined and continent when it comes to sex, booze, nicotine, and coffee. Word is that the church can be harder to leave than it was to join. Hefty donations and tithes are apparently appreciated from the membership.
Whether this makes it a cult, or just another of the born-in-America Christian sects, I am not sure. In any case what interests me more is the weird and sinister belief system of the LDS, discussion of which it is currently hoping to inhibit by crying that criticism of Mormonism amounts to bigotry.
(Excerpt) Read more at slate.com ...
I’m afraid his pro abortion/baby killer stance pretty much
puts him at arms length from the Mormon Church. He is a politician plain and simple. Did you ever think that these bigoted anti-mormon posts might be coming from the democratic machine?
...chuckle ;)
Monsona nd Oaks allowed Reid to tell the entire BYU faculty and Student body in 2007 that Ezra Taft Benson "lead the church down the wrong path." The above picture was taken after that speech....this speaks VOLUMES.
Monson is turning on Benson the same way Brigham Young turned on the deceased Smith when he declared the JST bible to be a fraud.
——Did you ever think that these bigoted anti-mormon posts might be coming from the democratic machine?——
No, I thought they were coming from insecure Christians that are terminally intolerant
Actually Romney’s stance on abortion doesn’t put him at arms length with SLC lds rules and regulations about the subject.
I have not seen any bigoted anti-mormon posts on FR. I have seen articles from lds sources about mormonISM however.
Romney is a temple mormon which means he is the highest of the high, he must be in alignment with all that mormonISM is to receive that temple recommendation.
As a side note so is Harry Reid who also won an award from BYU a couple of years ago for being a fine example of a mormon.
Thanks for popping up...
Doesn't say much about the LDS when you try and make that as a point...
And I'll ignore your stupid "demcratic machine" tripe...
“...like Ted Kennedy was a Catholic and like you are not a Bigot”
and like you are not an a$$.
Questioning Mormon theology and practices doesn’t make one a bigot. The theology really isn’t a huge factor in the election - but that race issue will be. Any Mormon seeking national office needs to have a better answer than “you’re a bigot.”
Most decent folks will not care whether Mitt is a Mormon.
This is a uniquely heretical form of Christianity, bordering on a bit of New Ageism. But the Mormons that I know are all very good citizens, follow the Ten Commandments with great respect, and promote family, faith and freedom/country above all else. Mormons do not constitute a threat to anyone in America.
Romney as President would certainly be an improvement over the pseudo Christian not in the White House.
As for myself I am still trying to decide between Mitt, Newt, or Rick Perry. The others are off my radar at the present time.
My biggest problem is that I do not believe Newt can possibly win in the general election, even though he continually makes me cheer when he debates and comes up with gems like last night - about the idiocy of the current resident of Pennsylvania Ave.’s attitude toward the pipeline. Newtr does like to tell it like it really is - no beating around the bush for him.
I liked last night’s debate - it was more tilted toward the need to replace Obama in the next election - music to my ears.
For the most part I agree with what you are saying. However, in the article Christopher Hitchens, who is by his own admission, non-Christian, and thus very secular in outlook, and additionally not an American by birth but a keen and long-time observer of the American scene is putting his finger on a problem that will surface and be used against Romney, if he is the nominee, in a way that, for example, Newt’s Catholicism or Perry’s Baptist affiliation cannot and will not be used against them. Thus with Romney you have his generally moderate, policy-triangulating stance (a nice way of saying flip-flopping) together with his connection to a religion that most Americans either do not take seriously or find alternately “zany” and troubling. That and the fact that his electability is open to question. He is, for goodness sake, a one-term governor, who did not then even get elected with a majority vote.
It is difficult to see in Romney any improvement over McCain. I would take either Perry or Gingrich in a heartbeat over Romney. Both are more electable, no matter what the illuminati of the GOP establishment are saying. The people will vote for them for one simple reason, either represents a clear turn away from Obamaism and business as usual, something Romney does not.
Obama wants to face Romney. That you can take to the bank.
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.