Posted on 07/16/2011 7:24:33 AM PDT by greyfoxx39
In response to whether the public should vote for a Mormon for president, one should know what beliefs a candidate had.
Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman have Mormon roots and they have been vague about their beliefs and loyalty to the LDS church.
Mormon theology includes ideas like their priesthood brethren will become the government leaders, or future kings of the world, in a globalized theocracy, and that their male leaders will take over when a second coming of Christ occurs. They believe they are the pre-ordained leaders to rule over a coming theocratic kingdom.
Worthy Mormon males are temple attending, dressing in white with special learned handshakes, altar rituals, Masonic rites and gestures and do secretive activities different from normal society.
They believe they are the future gods of new worlds in a life after this one. They follow prophets with ever-changing doctrine and change their fictional "Book of Mormon" every time it is found to be un-politically correct.
Their women are taught they are good for breeding, to have large families.
A member of this cult is loyal to its church leaders and to whatever their modern prophets tell them is gospel, which changes at their will.
They claim to be Christian, but Mormon polytheism of many gods/goddesses in a hereafter, rituals that must be performed in their temples, garment wearing and works (not grace) that saves a person is different ideology.
It is debatable whether Mormons are Christians, and they have other scriptures special to Mormonism written by their leaders, not just the New Testament, like their Doctrine and Covenants and Book of Mormon.
To learn about them and their practices, beliefs and personal character will help us determine whether they are the future leaders of Americans. Or are they really stuck in their controversial past?
Excellent chart, Colofornian.
As I pointed out to him ansel - name calling is the last bastion of little boys when they cannot make a logical defense of the issue itself - so they try to make the poster the issue.
Now then...you wrote “Catholics and Christians” that's about a clear a distinction as is possible in the English language. I asked you why you made the distinction and you got your panties in a knot. I suppose I could have interpreted your meaning as “I'll have fries with that” but that would be extremely difficult given the words you used.
Let's look at the history of what was posted regarding skinheads: ““I'm going to let Jesus Christ make that decision. Not some loud and well organized cabal of religious bigots.
These bigots are the equivalent of skinheads”
While the original author did not list definitions, I interpreted the comment (and agree with it) thusly: groups of people who are so emotionally invested in being against something that they cannot see how any other point of view can be held. They are vitriolic, unremitting in their overly-emotional self-rightousness, condemnation of that which they decide they do not like, agree with or understand. That was how I interpreted the post and thus why I agree with it. I stand by that agreement.
Now, going further. I do not recall defending Mormonism so much as the right of people to be Mormon if they choose. Some call them a cult - that strikes me as more from fear than anything else. I think Mormonism is odd. But it's their belief and I assume they hold it with a clear conscience. Frankly I don't understand it nor am I especially interested in understanding it. I don't want their missionaries on my property, nor do I want the Christian preachers who drag their families door to door around Easter.
An attack (your word, not mine) on some who call themselves Christian is not an attack on all who call themselves Christian. Using skinhead as interpreted above to describe some self-proclaimed Christians in now way means all self-proclaimed Christians are skinheads. It goes back to basics: A=B does not mean B=A.
I'm not sure why you wrote, “you don’t seem to have much interest in Catholics except as another tool to use in defending Mormonism.” Perhaps you could point out, specifically, where that came from.
You despise Mormons and Mormonism - we all get that. You hate Romney - we all get that.
Well, Mormons and atheists do have the same “boss”, it’s just neither of them realize it.
(a) As if we know everything a POTUS does
(b) As if we know everything a POTUS does right away
(c) As if we want the White House sanctioning false 'prophet' edicts promoting its fave cult
Why "remedy" something after-the-fact when we can nip it in the bud @ the ballot box?...especially given all the liberal & waffling reasons Romney tempts the conservative voter with -- a temptation to vote for somebody else, that is
IF all you forward is true -
- - - - -
It IS true, and the comments can be sourced even further.
I have to assume that you are female judging from your language, describing underwear as panties and calling people “dear”.
Honesty escapes you, I don’t “despise” Mormons, or “hate” Romney, or anyone else.
You on the other hand think that Protestant and Catholic Christian conservative freepers that challenge Mormonism are “skinheads”.
You describe this
‘”Catholics and Christians do know what I mean, and that is not a distinction between the two other than to make sure that everyone knows that the Catholic church, the Greek Orthodox church, and the Protestant churches are all in agreement about Mormonism.
Any Catholic that is promoting and defending Mormonism is not in agreement with his church.”’
as someone getting their “panties in a knot” which is another example of ignorance, or twisting everything in a dishonest manner to attack conservative, christian freepers.
There does not seem to be any depth that you will not sink to in defending Mormonism against Christian exposure.
Your defense of Mormonism is falling flat, as you claim that Mormonism is defensible to Christians and that to challenge it is to make a Christian a “skinhead”.
Yeah...I can hardly wait...
...til a Mormon "prophet's" "political declarations collide" with a Mormon POTUS' "political life." [Quote from Marion G. Romney]
I can hardly wait...
...for a so-called "living prophet" to "speak on matters affecting" a Mormon POTUS and his "specialty directly" and "his words fall in" the "territory" of the ruler of the free world.
Here we'd vote in the ruler of the free world, only to find out he's ultimately subject not to voters but to one man on earth...and that man has the title 'living prophet' next to him...and that prophet's initials aren't "J.C." Might as well write the Lds "prophet's" name on the ballot as the POTUS candidate.
starlifter is a Catholic.
i’m not getting into that argument. My entire involvement in this thread was to question a specific assertion that Reid won a majority of the Mormon vote.
I can’t prove he didn’t, but there is no evidence he did either. all the articles I’ve cited indicate that voting conservative mormons were turning away from Reid; that changed someone when they launched the videos of Angle’s ex-Pastor.
I don’t doubt that some conservative mormons voted for Reid because he is a mormon. I know Catholics who vote for democrats because they are Catholic, who are otherwise good conservatives. I know some conservatives who are protestant who won’t vote for a Catholic who is conservative. There are people who vote their religion.
I simply wanted actual evidence to show that Reid won the Mormon vote in Nevada in the 2010 election.
Oh, a Catholic, you mean that group that mormonISM calls the “whores of Babylon”? Or that mormonISM teaches that Jesus was married to several woman and that Mary had intercourse with God to produce the child Jesus. Or that Jesus is the brother of satan,or that He was created and not eternal. Or that Jesus dis not pay the price on the Cross but in the Garden.........
That Catholic? (I have always wondered how any Catholic can defend mormonISM).
On the other hand, Mormons are primarily white, and whites voted for Angle 52-42%. Reid won because of large majorities of blacks, asians, and hispanics.
While Reid won 10% of the McCain vote, Angle won 11% of the Obama vote. And actually, that shows another key to the Reid victory — he crushed Angle with people who had not voted in 2008 (68-29).
And while Reid got 21% of the pro-Tea-Party vote, Angle got 22% of the anti-Tea-Party vote.
I find exit polls to be confused in that regard; There is always this 10-15% number that seem to vote against their own professed interests.
I know Mormons tend to vote socially conservative; I don’t know that they consider themselves tea party members. I do see your reasoning, and it has some merit. I would say it isn’t enough to support the argument that Reid got a majority of the Mormon vote; but it certainly would be consistant with that theory.
I appreciate you taking the time to do that analysis. I had looked more at the demographic data (college graduate, age, race, economic status), which were also weak data points. I do wish someone would have asked the religion question, because I think it would be fascinating.
Anyway, I don’t even think it would be impossible that Mormons would have voted in the majority for Reid over Angle; between him being a Mormon, and the effective assault on Angle being a bigot using quotes from her long-gone ex-pastor, there would be reason for it. I simply thought, after looking at the articles published before and after the race, that Reid was not getting the Mormon support you might expect.
BTW, I believe people lie sometimes about their religion, but I never really understood it. What’s the point of having a religion if you don’t believe in it enough to stand up for it?
On the other hand, Peter denied Jesus 3 times, so who am I to judge? :-)
In high school, long long ago, I ran for class president. I was the only candidate who actually had a campaign targeted against me, complete with posters.
The posters, plastered all over the school, said “A vote for Charles Reichley is like a vote for Hitler”
Of course, i was on record as opposing the decrliminalization of marijuana, so the pot-heads were upset with me. But I didn’t picture them as so strongly motivated, although they did throw rocks at me when I rode past them on my bike in the morning.
Well, Christians wouldn’t defend teachings that are contrary to the Bible (Mormonism). Or call other Christians ‘skinheads’ or ‘bigots’.
So we are back to why are you defending Mormons?
I’m in now way embarrassed by my posts, but amused by the irrational self-rightious vitriol they seem to inspire.
- - - - - —
LOL. I find it very amusing that you are accusing us of ‘irrational self-rightious vitriol’ when you are the one who has been attacking us.
My posts have been rational and well measured. Yours, OTOH...not so much.
I am Christian.
- - - - -
Your posting history would suggest otherwise.
But he wasn’t implying that Catholics were not Christians as you accused. Often on these threads Catholics, Orthodox are distinguished from Protestant or Evangelical Christians by truncating to Catholic, Orthodox and Christians.
You are fairly new to these threads, so don’t chime in on things you don’t know much about.
I’m glad you have maintained your sense of humor about it. And I can see the not shaving being a benefit. lol.
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.