Posted on 04/05/2007 5:42:47 PM PDT by Utah Girl
Mitt Romney is riding high this week after his victory in "the first primary," which consists of raising cold, hard cash to compete: more than $20 million in the first quarter, $5 million more than his closest contender, Rudy "Lay off my wife!" Giuliani. John McCain came in a lackluster third with $12.5 million.
Romney's campaign benefited from two distinct donor networks, according to media accounts: Wall Street and Mormons. GOP front-runner Rudy, struggling with one of those weird media freak shows erupting around his wife, Judith (her alleged participation in future Cabinet meetings and former puppy killings), must be a little envious on both counts.
Why is it that all the Dem candidates are still married to their first spouse, while among the current crop of leading GOP contenders, the only guy with just one wife is the Mormon?
Truth is, I don't think this is just an accident. There's something about Mormons the rest of us ought to pay attention to: Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints do much better than almost any other faith group at sustaining a marriage culture -- and they do this while participating fully and successfully in modern life. Utah is above the national average in both household income and the proportion of adults who are college graduates.
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
Thanks Saundra! That’s the heart of the matter isn’t it!
It’s doesn’t get much more evangelical than South Calorlina.
This just in... take a look, Mitt is wining straw poll after straw poll.
Love it!”)
Greenville County
Mitt Romney - 132 (31%)
Mike Huckabee - 111 (26%)
Duncan Hunter - 87 (21%)
Rudy Giuliani - 35 (8%)
Sam Brownback - 19 (4.5%)
John McCain - 17 (4%)
John Cox - 10 (2%)
Tom Tancredo - 5 (1%)
Tommy Thompson - 3 (<1%)
Ron Paul - 1 (<1%)
Jim Gilmore - 1 (<1%)
Richland County Results
Romney - 50 (41%)
Brownback - 17 (14%)
Giuliani - 15 (12%)
McCain - 13 (11%)
Huckabee - 13 (11%)
Hunter - 10 (8%)
Cox - 2 (2%)
Go, Mitt!!!!!!!!!!
Placemarker, just in case the thread ever gets wholly back to why UtahGirl posted it ...
Who are you kidding:) you pop in because it like an on going soap opera!
LOL
“Nope, I’m not buying that statement. And, again, with the ad hominem attack....”intellectually dishonest” is a nice little metaphor for “you are a liar”.
I’m glad you picked up on that. Of course, it only applies if you actually lie. I didn’t lump you in with that group; you’ve done it yourself, quite neatly, thank you.
Intellectual dishonesty is something a person can only engage in purposefully. If one doesn’t know one is doing it, then one is just wrong - and telling a person they’re wrong is not ad hominem. Therefore, you’ll have to judge yourself if I was accusing you of speciousness or intellectual dishonesty. If the latter, then, well, you know you were lying.
“That’s a very broad statement.”
It is a very broad statement, but it’s also a true one, as best as I can tell. To the best of my recollection, we haven’t gotten into a contentious argument with you yet, because you haven’t attacked us on the grounds that I mentioned before. And I do appreciate that you tend to keep the discussion above-board.
“EVEN for you mormons??? You have just reaffirmed my statement that mormons consider themselves the chosen, above and beyond other religions...thanks.”
Now THERE’s a good example of taking something out of context. Dare I call it intellectual dishonesty? Only if it was deliberate, and I can’t know that. I was alluding to my perception that others seem to hold us to a higher standard than everybody else. The technique is called “sarcasm.” /sarc Please see my post #781 for a more complete explanation along these lines.
This does lead me to an interesting train of thought... How many anti-Mormons are merely suffering from an inferiority complex? I really don’t know.
“My posts have had to to with present and past practices of the mormon church that apologists don’t like seeing the light of day...”
There is nothing about the LDS Church that we have to hide. Where these whole brouhaha has come about is when people say things about us that simply aren’t true - and then refuse to believe us when we say so.
It’s like somebody is executing a search warrant on our house, finds no evidence, corroborates our alibi, then proceeds to charge us with the crime anyway. After all, we let them into our house, so we must be hiding something; we were out of the state at the time of the crime, so we must have been doing something wrong.
From our perspective, that’s the kind of logic where facing here. So you’ll understand when we start to get frustrated. /rant
You’re right about Romney, though; the media will look to dredge up all sorts of falsehood about him, particularly about his religion. It would be nice, though, if when the time came, we weren’t stabbed in the back by our own political allies while we work to defend him.
That’s a very commanding lead, particularly when you factor in the lack of resources that Huckabee and Hunter have.
Another bit of evidence that the bigotry we’ve seen in the thread is, thankfully, pretty isolated amongst the conservative base.
I’ll try to respond to both of you together on the subject of the “Arian Controversy”.
BTW I’m glad we have managed to return to a semblance of civilized discourse, myself included.
Delphi asked for links. I posted some back on #1535 but I’ll put them up again since I can’t blame anyone for missing them amid all these threads:
http://www.exchangedlife.com/Sermons/topical/trinity/heresies1.shtml/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianism
On the top page the section on Arianism is near the bottom.
The subject of Arianism and how it relates to Mormonism and relative to the orthodox Christian religions is very interesting. I can’t claim to have any expertise on the subject but I’ve had a sort of interest in how certain Christian beliefs have been decided orthodox, and others have not, for a long time.
Seven, I haven’t read a whole book on the subject, but it was in reading on general history that I encountered the “Arian Controversy”, several months ago. I was reading in “A History of Civilization” by C. Harold King 1956, a book that just happened to come to me in a huge pile of books I’d been given.
In that book there are about three pages devoted to the early codification of what would become orthodox Christianity. In that section it, briefly, describes the origin of the dispute and how Constantine called the first Council of Nicaea to settle that dispute which was becoming a bitter and divisive in the Church at that time.
In that section of the book, the author portrays Constantine as not taking a side in the dispute, personally. He merely wanted it settled, since, because Christianity had become the state religion, bitter and divisive disputes had political consequences.
Now, if what C.H. King wrote in that book is true, it would seem strange that Constantine would be assassinating or executing bishops at that time. Also in my reading on the links provided, there is no mention of the killing of bishops. It appears that Arianism was simply the minority view. Oh, and there are conflicting accounts for how many bishops attended the conference, so when I mention 300, I do so only because it gives a general idea of the numbers in attendance.
After the Conference had made it’s decision, though, the few bishops who continued to dissent were sent into exile, but not killed.
What is really strange though is that after the Nicean Creed had been decided upon, Constantine was baptized as an Arian! What irony. After Constantine’s death several of his successors continued in the Arian belief and persecuted many of those who had opposed Arias at the Council, most notably St. Athanasius who had been the primary champion of those who’s doctrine was decided upon as orthodox at that Conference.
Perhaps, Delphi, it was Athanasius’s bishops that you read about being killed. If you go to this page, you will find a reference to those killings, down near the bottom of the page:
http://www.stathanasius.miss.on.coptorthodox.ca/Saints_Stories%5CSt_Athanasius.htm
I find several parallels between Mormonism and Arianism. Besides just the view as to the specific relationship between God and Christ, there is concept of a “pre-incarnate” Jesus, possibly “created” by God. This is mentioned near the top on the Wiki-article.
The concept of pre-incarnation reminds me of the Mormon idea of preexistence. Perhaps preincarnate existence is even a better term than preexistence, since, after all how could anything exist before it existed?
Of course that leads to the next concept, that of reincarnation. If Mormons believe in a physical body after death in this world, then wouldn’t that be the definition of reincarnation?
There’s also the issue of whether the bishops of the Church in Constantine's time had the authority from God to make the decisions they did. Naturally the Mormons say they did not, whereas the orthodox say they did. I’ll have to leave that to those who have more knowledge on the subject than I, but I’d be interested to hear from the orthodox point of view if they know how the string of authority was passed down and if that was recorded and if the record has survived down the ages?
I hope folks find this subject as interesting as I do. I thank those of you who posted links on the early Christian writers, I’ve book-marked that and It’ll give me much to read on in the days and evenings to come.
Peace and love be with us all, even with the heretics.
The concept of pre-incarnation reminds me of the Mormon idea of preexistence. Perhaps preincarnate existence is even a better term than preexistence, since, after all how could anything exist before it existed?
Of course that leads to the next concept, that of reincarnation. If Mormons believe in a physical body after death in this world, then wouldn’t that be the definition of reincarnation?
1- The concept of pre-incarnation reminds me of the Mormon idea of preexistence.
Pre pre-existence/mortal mean before physical body, we had a spiritual body.
2- If Mormons believe in a physical body after death in this world, then wouldn’t that be the definition of reincarnation?
The bodies we have now are temporal it like a dress rehearsal for the eternal body!
The resurrected body will be of Flesh and Bone, there is no blood which is a requrment for the temproal body.
We read in the scriptures where the mortal being unless elevated by the Power of the Holy Ghost can not endure the presents of the Celestial body such as the Father and the Son.
Our body will not be reincarnation first of all their is no need too reincarnate, Jesus our Savior and the only begotten Son of Heavenly Father, paid the ransum for all our sins..
Re incarnation is a belief or philosophy of man.
Adam & Eve our first parents was not begotten, but did live in the garden of Eden in an innocent state, and fell that man might be.
I am thankful for pervading mood:)
Thank you LR, for your links they are very interesting knowledge like this was not availible on the net a few years ago!
You are very welcome.
See, I prayed that we may find common ground, and we have.
Praise the Lord!
Does this mean the thread is about to die?
Perish the thought!
Yes praise the Lord and I thank you LR!:)
If this thread dies, it should certainly get a Christian burial, wouldn’t you think.
It’s never over, though, ‘till the “Fat Lady” sings, or so ‘tis said.
We’ll have to wait and see.
Of course if you wish the contention to live on, I’m sure I could stir it up for you.
Peace and love!
tant,
Mormonism teaches that there is more than one god.
That is polytheism.
Christianity, based on the Bible, teaches there
is ONE God.
ampu
MHG,
I long ago accomplished what I set out to do -
keep innocent lurkers from ever assuming
the teaching of mormonism is Christian. As you
know, polytheism is not Christian.
My email reflects I accomplished this. I am
glad.
best,
ampu
Delphi,
simply add them up. How many individual Gods
do you have in mormonism? Please give us a
number of each “personage” (as you like to
express it) who is considered by mormonism
to be a God. Please also count every mormon
who has been exalted to god status and now
rules over his own planet with his wife who
is a godess.
I think if you are forthright, you will come
up with a number greater than the Christian
number of 1.
What number do you come up with?
best,
ampu
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.