Skip to comments.Pastor Lists 'Mormon Cult Errors,' Says Those Who Love Jesus Won't Vote Mormon
Posted on 02/19/2012 9:57:32 PM PST by Colofornian
click here to read article
This Christian would sooner vote for the Mormon than the current pResident.
Short-term thinking GOP-wise.
As of 2010, Gallup polling found that 31% of Americans identified as Democrats, 29% as Republicans, and 38% as independents Political party strength in U.S. states
It wasn't that long ago previously that Democrats had almost 40% & Republicans 35%.
Now, less than 3 of every 10 registered voters are GOP.
Evangelical Christians constituted over 1/3rd of the entire electorate (those who voted) in the 2010 election. That was over 1 out of every 3 voters lumped together for ALL parties (GOP/Dem/Independent/other)!
What happens if 1 out of every 6 -- or 1 out of every 5 (5-6% of the electorate and a solid chunk of the GOP) elects to "walk away" permanently from being GOP registered voters due to the potential force-feeding of a pro-abortion RINO "god?"
The GOP then becomes another extinct Whig party...
The GOP then becomes the "DL" party (Democrats Lite)
Who wants to be a part of that?
You're looking then @ Christians & conservatives voting for liberals who would deliberately contribute to the potential permanent demise of the GOP!
You see, infidelity does constitute a ground for divorce!
Sorry...you can't just "sleep" with any candidate with no consequences!
The linked article seems to indicate it's another pastor who made the comments about Franklin Graham and Osteen.
The founders didn't have to contend with Muslims, Mormons or Atheist like we do today. And if they did have a test, do you think Mormonism would pass if this was being preached? Brigham Young is considered a prophet and if you believe in Mormonism, you must obey your prophet.
Brigham Young - If you find your brother in bed with your wife, and you put a javelin through them both, you would be justified and they would atoned for their sins and be received into the kingdom of God. ... "There is not a man or woman, who violates the covenants made with their God, that will not be required to pay the debt. The blood of Christ will never wipe that out, your own blood must atone for it;" Journal of Discourses, vol. 3, p. 247 (1856)
Brigham Young - "If you want to know what to do with a thief that you may find stealing, I say kill him on the spot, and never suffer him to commit another iniquity." Journal of Discourses, vol. 1, p. 108 (1853)
Brigham Young - After recounting a dream where he slits the throats of two apostates, Brigham Young states, "I say, rather than that apostates should flourish here, I will unsheath my bowie knife and conquer or die." Journal of Discourses, vol. 1, p. 83 (1853)
He's very careful with those words and sentence structure, isn't he? Careful to not say, that Jesus atoned for the sins of mankind on the cross.Do you not believe that Jesus atoned for our sins in the garden of Gethsemane? And more accurately than, Jesus Christ is the Son of God, don't you believe Mr. Nielson that Jesus is A son of God? Instead of THE Son of God?
He and others of his religion (and their non mormon defenders) love to tip toe around the unvarnished truth about mormonism, even to the point of "lying for the lord" when necessary.
This gentile, isn't taken in.
Fundamental differences, any similarities are surface deep. I must admit however that the part that J.Smith copied directly from the Bible, King James era language and all, is similar to Christianity.
the differences between the Mormon church and other Christian denominations does not mean Latter-day Saints are not Christians.
They are allowed to call themselves any thing that pleases them. Fred Phelps calls his church Baptist, Nancy Pelosi says she's Catholic. Guess what though? Fred Phelps is not Baptist, Nancy Pelosi is not Catholic and Mormons worship a completely different Jesus and are not Christian.
Well, Gee Whiz! I've never seen that little gem before.
I guess I'll just have to reconsider all the candidates, leaving their religious beliefs out of my considerations. I wouldn't want to do any thing that's unconstitutional.
There is no religious test for the government to apply to candidates, but voters are allowed to use whatever crieria they want to decide for whom they will vote. Many on this forum, even on this thread, use Obama’s religion as a factor in determining their vote against him.
Fine but going by what some internet preacher with no physical address says who just happened to become active during the presidential campaign has a stench to it.
This is simply part of today's THREE MINUTES HATE !.
Don't you know Jesus hates those dastardly Mormons ! And so does the pastor and all the good brethren and sisteryn !
Yup, yup, they're real Christians alright !
They're pre-canned so as to lose no time keeping the THREE MINUTES HATE ! going.
In modern Amerika pointing out error=hate.
And so you would allow O to be reelected which GUARANTEES your demise?
Your short sightless is not an asset
did you read my entire post??? Then you know what I think of Mormonism
None of that applies when in 2012 the presidential election is about whether our republic survives r goes completely down the rat hole.
For the record, I am no Mitt fan but the truth is I will do everything legally possible to get rid of O
Of course, you're assuming -- at least in the context of our discussion re: Romney -- that there's a solid mass of GOP & Independent voters who would...
...both forever say bye-bye to a TRUE conservative GOP & would personally as voters sear their conscience...
...by voting for someone who's...
...pushed his own mini-socialism (RomneyCare)...
...been in favor about all their life (with just a few statements stating otherwise -- and ZERO actions) of dismembering the pre-born...
...developed a track record tantamount to that of a serial liar...
...racist-by-association background is quite obvious...
...gullibility to deception is so extreme that he thinks he's a literal "god-in-embryo" on his way to governing his own world as a rival to other gods...
...liberal track record on a whole host of other issues is problematic to the core--to the degree that he has no core!!!
Hey, if we wanted to vote for such a limb-tearing, skin-discriminating liberal divinity, we'd join the Democrats! Why wear the camouflage costume and let them proselytize us all into RINO Dem-lite voters?
Bottom-line: No matter how much you may pretend otherwise, your "dead dog" and Romney both are NOT viable candidates!
Either one would get slaughtered in November.
So what if Romney garnered say -- 29% of the vote? (vs. say a third-party candidate who'd get less). Either way, they both lose! Romney's a loser...He's 1-17 in non-caucus races outside of his home turf! For every caucus he's won, he's lost more than three!
Romney has no viability! He has no traction. He's DOA.
All the possible 29% who might vote for him will get in exchange for that vote is...
...the knowledge they wasted their vote on a known loser...
...thereby forever sending a message to the RINO GOP establishment that they'll forever cave & compromise because they've been told, "they have no place to go"...
...they seared their conscience by voting for a liberal RINO pro-abortionist racist "god" -- a vote they'll need to answer to God for...
...and most directly contributed to the potential permanent unhinging and extinction of the GOP!
Nice going, RINOs, RINO voters & potential RINO voters!
See my tagline. (Under my tagline's scenario, I could see some FREEPERs becoming justifiers and apologists for Hitler if they thought it'd stave off THE anti-Christ from becoming leader of the Free World! Sorry, I don't need to add to the political corruption by converting soul as part & parcel of that corruption!)
Ya know, fso...I once read an Lds news release that said: The framers of our constitution included a provision that no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States (Article VI). That constitutional principle forbids a religious test as a legal requirement...
This release was part of a discussion by Lds "apostle" Dallin Oaks.
I'm afraid you -- FSO -- like Mr. Oaks...misconstrues candidacy eligibility issues.
All the constitution says is that an eligible candidate cannot be kept from running on religious test grounds.
Ya know, even Mr. Oaks recognized how ludicrous some of his rhetoric was sounding and needed to offset it a bit with a qualifier: "...but it of course leaves citizens free to cast their votes on the basis of any preference they choose."
So...here's a Constitutional "primer" for you so that you don't keep exporting confusion to others:
Point 1- RELIGION: 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. Article VI, section 3 of the Constitution is aimed at the candidate (must be of a certain age and must have resided in our country for a certain number of years) and the government so that religion does not become a disqualification to keep somebody otherwise eligible for running for public office. Article VI, section 3, is not aimed at the voter. Otherwise, voters would have to 100% disregard character, beliefs, other-dimensionly commitments, and spiritual discernment in weighing candidates.
POINT 2 - ELIGIBILITY: Newsflash!! Every person on the ballot, & even most write-in candidates, have proper "qualifications" to not be excluded from office consideration (based upon religious grounds). Of course, millions of us have the "qualifications" to be considered a potential POTUS & shouldn't be excluded outright from a ballot because of the religion we hold! Nobody has a "Religious Ineligibility" tattoo on their forehead!
POINT 3- BOTTOM LINE: You don't, FSO, really want to join Lds "apostles" in their confusion by emphasizing words similar to "qualifications" (language within the Constitution) with words like "qualities." (language thats NOT in the Constitution)...do you?
I focus on what voters base their votes on in the "real world": Qualities
Otherwise, Article VI says absolutely...
...about how voters must weigh--or not weigh--the "qualities" of a candidate...
Nowhere does Article VI say that voters MUST 100% disregard character, beliefs, other-dimensionly commitments, and spiritual discernment in weighing candidates!
"Qualifications" have to do with what gets a man on a ballot. "Qualities" has to do with who gets elected.
(Even 94-95% of Mormons -- most voting upon the fellow personal "qualities" of a candidate like Romney -- can tell you that!)
Btw, fso, why aren't you lecturing Lds voters if anywhere from 88% to 95% of Mormons will only vote for a Mormon?
(For some reason, the "Article 6 Religious Test" lecture tour never seems to hit Utah, Southwest Wyoming or Southern Idaho)
And honor, high regard, & much appreciation is in order for this...but you know, we can't keep living in the previously established "order" of opposition.
For one thing, let's be up front about this & acknowledge that some (who knows what %) of our culture's opposers of socialism & communism were themselves racists -- and many more didn't necessarily practice open racism but left its practice "status quo" ... often turning their heads to look the other way as if it wasn't there.
Beyond that, the cults proliferated and/or greatly expanded in the 1960s. Abortion became legalized in '73...
IOW, simply put: Many opposers of socialism & communism haven't always learned how to multi-task & fight many different battles on multiple turfs.
What that means for our culture is that we haven't had much time -- or built-up enough of a generational family legacy like what you're describing in your family -- to expand our multi-front opposition. (For example, the pro-life movement is really less than 40 years old in this country!)
What I've noticed about those who tend to cite socialism/communism is they're even more "single-issue" than what others accuse pro-lifers of being!
Many of them (not all) are either culturally ADD (ADHD) or seem to have trouble grasping...
...there are no basic rights to protect if the pre-born can't even emerge from the womb...
...if we can't stop the overwhelming wholesale mass slaughter, what makes you think the rest of the culture is going to remain untouched? The prophet Hosea said that violence begets violence.
Also, this battle in the womb is simply an exploitation extension of what we've done in our nation's past to blacks & Native Americans...
...and...the negative consequences from the cults can be just as bad eternally (hell is forever) as our socio-political environment's potential overall impact.
We're dealing with multiple wars, fronts, trenches. May I suggest the single-issue anti-socialists learn the basic lesson provided by our exemplar Silent Generation...thereby learning how to multi-task in taking on multiple wars, fronts & trenches?
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.