Originally Posted By DlandDug For what it's worth, I would vote for a candidate on the basis of their politics, not their religion. But that's just my opinion.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>I'd vote for a Mormon, but not for anybody named Mit.<< Does it help if I tell you that his full name is Willard Mitt Romney?
Originally Posted By jonvn The Quakers, by the way, disavow Richard Nixon. Just because you were raised a Quaker does not mean you are one. You have to live the proper life in order to be considered a Quaker, and he did not.
Originally Posted By fkurucz <<Weren't the last two Democrats to win the Presidency members of Evangelical churches?>> Some might question Clinton's credentials. But the point is not whether or not the candidate was Evangelical or even Fundamental. It is whether or not Evangelical and Fundamentalist Protestants will vote for an LDS candidate. To get a feel for this just tune into a evangelical radio station or walk into one of their book stores. They regard LDS as a most serious threat, much more so than they ever regarded Rome as the "enemy". Evangeicals today will collaborate with Catholics on many issues and tasks. This is NOT the case with the LDS. They will have nothing to do with them
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<Does it help if I tell you that his full name is Willard Mitt Romney?>> No... sounds too German and too gay. Translates pretty much as Willard with Romney. Who needs that?? ;-)
Originally Posted By fkurucz Perhaps an interesting exercise would be to wander into an Evangelical newsgroup on the Usenet, and ask them if they would vote for Romney.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>...too gay.<< Careful there. I may have to sic Rosie O'Donnell on you.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<Careful there. I may have to sic Rosie O'Donnell on you.>> I'd certainly be willing to give it a go, but I really doubt I'd be good enough to convert her. ;-)
Originally Posted By jonvn Seriously, want to make a lesbian madder than you could possibly believe? Tell her that she's never found the right man. That's why she's gay. Don't even jokingly say it. Don't even think about jokingly say it. Take my word for it.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<Don't even jokingly say it. Don't even think about jokingly say it. Take my word for it.>> Nope... I'd never do that. I do believe many men and women acknowledge they are gay or lesbian after unsuccessful heterosexual relationships. But that is because it confirms what they really knew all along and didn't want to admit. Not because the person of the opposite sex that they chose wasn’t the “right oneâ€.
Originally Posted By jonvn Well, if you say it to a guy, the reaction seems to be one of sadness and resignation more than anything.
Originally Posted By Elderp “Are they the only members of the Godhead, or are there more?†Not that I know of, but then again except for the pre-existance I never met any of them so I can’t say for sure. “You're only saying that because you're mormon and a heretic.†Well, there is that too, but then again ever since I have joined this religion I have been hearing a lot of people telling me this. “No need, as I have readily available copies of The Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price, Doctrines and Covenants, Gospel Principles, and A Marvelous Work and a Wonder, along with any number of other standard Mormon texts. (Assuming that real Mormons actually believe any of these anymore.)†Yep, good ol’ personal interpretation of the scriptures… and people wonder why there are so many religions out there. “I'd vote for a Mormon, but not for anybody named Mit.†I have to agree with you there. To me Mitt sounds much too like Nit, which we all know is a literal pain in the head.
Originally Posted By jonvn I thought that the President of the LDS ruled by divine inspiration. So, if he rules in that manner, and one thing contradicts another, does that mean that God has changed his mind?
Originally Posted By Elderp There is only one ruler that is God the Father. The way divine inspiration works is that the lord communicates with his servants here on earth. Divine inspiration is something everyone can recieve. As far as contradictory statements goes, this is a public forum. I could get into the nuiances of what divine inspirations means and how it works within the church but that conversation is going to deteriorate into nothing but Bible bashing and theoretical jargon. The only way to know if anything is true or not is to get to the source and in this case the source is God himself. Ask him, he can tell you a lot better than I can.
Originally Posted By tiggertoo <<If falsehoods are being spewed, they should be denied with truth.>> First of all, the “truth†in religion is generally regarded as relative. Second, LDS scholars have been again and again presented answers to the most popular questions asked with regard to Mormon theology. For example, the “contradiction†you posed regarding polygamy in the D&C and Book of Mormon is confronted here: <a href="http://www.fairlds.org/Misc/Contradiction_between_Jacob_and_DC_132.html" target="_blank">http://www.fairlds.org/Misc/Co ntradiction_between_Jacob_and_DC_132.html</a> So the answers are available. But it’s funny to me that so many people who claim interest in Mormon theology choose to ignore the answers Mormon scholars present. This makes absolutely no sense to me. Perhaps Mormons should call Pat Robertson as their next prophet as Mormons apparently need someone non-Mormon telling them what they actually believe. <<In politics this isn't always effective, which may, indeed, make Romney's religion a liablity.>> I agree it will be a liability, but as I stated before, only because of bigotry. <<As I stated, faith is not a matter of believing that which cannot be true.>> Faith is a matter of believing regardless of evidence i.e., God, Heaven, Hell, Book of Mormon, Bible, etc… <<Religion, alas, is too often wrapped up in just that. It is not awe inspiring; it is depressing.>> Jesus Christ’s miracle could not be viewed by Christians as anything less than “awe inspiringâ€. <<No need, as I have readily available copies of The Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price, Doctrines and Covenants, Gospel Principles, and A Marvelous Work and a Wonder, along with any number of other standard Mormon texts. (Assuming that real Mormons actually believe any of these anymore.)>> Great, then you should know a great deal about LDS doctrine, and thereby know that many of contentions brought about by anti-Mormonism are generally without merit and simple attempts at undermining the faith. For example, you should know that the Brigham Young comment you mentioned when viewed in context is very different from a perceived attempt by the LDS church to form the US Government into a theocracy. In fact, Brigham Young and several other church leaders have a great many times praised the Constitution and the US Government, even when that government virtually stood by and watched the Mormon people be attacked, murdered, robbed, sacked, and driven from state to state for many years. So, how then can they support the Constitution, yet wish to turn this nation into a theocracy? The two are in fact mutually exclusive as the Constitution specifically wards against the intermingling of religion and politics. Don’t get me wrong. I’m not a defender of Mormonism in every aspect. There are several doctrinal issues that I have with the church as well (hence why I don’t practice). I’m not even all that religious anymore. <<I thought that the President of the LDS ruled by divine inspiration. So, if he rules in that manner, and one thing contradicts another, does that mean that God has changed his mind?>> Lol… ruled is probably not the best term to describe it. But to answer your question, I see no contradiction in God changing. For example, in the Old Testament, the Israelites were ordered to live under a rigid set of Levitical laws. However, by the New Testament and the coming of Jesus Christ those law were done away with. Something obviously changed.
Originally Posted By jonvn "The only way to know if anything is true or not is to get to the source and in this case the source is God himself." It was my impression that the President rules via divine inspiration or revelation. That is how it is supposed to come down. Are you saying that is not correct?
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>But it’s funny to me that so many people who claim interest in Mormon theology choose to ignore the answers Mormon scholars present.<< I spent many years trying to find answers to some (what I thought) rather basic Mormon theological questions. Bear in mind, this was before the internet. In some cases, I was told that I was wrong to seek these answers; that merely asking questions was somehow rude and provocative. I am familiar with the Mormon position on the contradictions in Plural Marriage. I disagree. >>Faith is a matter of believing regardless of evidence...<< Disregarding evidence is not faith. >>Jesus Christ’s miracle could not be viewed by Christians as anything less than “awe inspiringâ€.<< And yet, most of Christ's miracles were accomplished with little fanfare. Anyway, the point I was making was about "religion," not miracles. >>...you should know that the Brigham Young comment you mentioned when viewed in context is very different from a perceived attempt by the LDS church to form the US Government into a theocracy.<< The statement I cited did not say that the LDS would attempt to form the US into a theocracy. Go back and read what I said in post 20 again, then explain where I got it wrong. >>However, by the New Testament and the coming of Jesus Christ those law were done away with.<< Not at all. How can you say that in light of Christ's own words, "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets; I am come not to destroy, but to fulfil." (Matthew 5:17) According to Christian belief, the Law was not abolished, it was fulfilled in Christ.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<When do you start shooting at each other?>> The minute they start massing on the Nevada border... ;-)
Originally Posted By ecdc I spent many years trying to find answers to some (what I thought) rather basic Mormon theological questions. Bear in mind, this was before the internet. In some cases, I was told that I was wrong to seek these answers; that merely asking questions was somehow rude and provocative. I am familiar with the Mormon position on the contradictions in Plural Marriage. I disagree." Wow! Something we agree on. Mormonism is pretty lousy at allowing for questions of its theology and difficult historical questions. Hence a big reason I don't go anymore. Unlike, say, Catholicism, one can't really practice Mormonism out of a love of family tradition and culture. It's tough to sit in a Mormon chapel and Sunday School and not believe in the historicity of the Book of Mormon, as I don't. "Disregarding evidence is not faith." But again, every faith (and I mean EVERY faith) does it. They disregard evidence in favor of what makes their religious beliefs look best. They claim they don't do it but accuse everyone else of doing it. Evangelicals seem to want other faiths to withstand the most rigorous of tests, yet want the most leeway for their own. Their interpretation of the Bible is correct. Period. Others are simply...wrong. As for plural marriage, of course there are inconsistencies and today, complete rewriting of the meaning of Mormon scripture. Doctrine and Covenants Section 132 went from all about plural marriage to suddenly being about eternal marriage. A great majority of Mormon theology was reconstructed during the Reed Smoot hearings at the turn of the 20th century as the LDS Church reinvented itself into much of what it is today. My larger point, germaine to any criticism of Mormonism that somehow suggests that Mormon faith is illogical due to inconsistencies, is that *all* faiths have inconsistencies in their history and beliefs. If you're going to fault Mormonism for it, then fault all Christianity, Islam, etc.
