Jesus is not related to Satan by celestial family-hood. God does not live on a planet near a star called Kolob. The Church did not fail and die out as as J. Smith declared "as a Prophet."Here though a different perspective:
The founder of Mormon theology, Joseph Smith, declared a different gospel and a different Jesus. And it gets worse once you read the LDS Doctrine and Covenants and Peral of great price.
...Now, should all that it bother a Christian voting for Romney as president?
Yes.
Romney must take a page out of the Kennedy playbook and ease 2007 fears about being a mormon the way JFK eased fears about his allegiance to the pope in 1960...if he can do that, he's got a chance.
Bottom line is, that while the details of being a mormon are a bit sketch, the bottom line principles - family values, pro life and anti gay marriage are very close to traditionally Christian principles.
And so the challenge for the Christian conservative voter...
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
All that I wrote David, is what Mormonism actually teaches when the smiles and white shirts fade away. Nice people also existed in the Roman empire. Heretics are not always grumpy and mean. Just compare the Jesus of the Gospel and the Jesus of Mormonism and you see that never the twain shall meet. And keep your children safely away when learning about "how" Mary got pregnant with the Mormon Jesus. There is nothing traditionally similar in Mormonism, to the faith delivered only once to the saints. If Mormons are Christians, so are Buddhists and Hindus and Voodoo practioners. Mormons are closer kin to Muslims than Christians. Eerily so. Look at what awaits them in Mormon heaven. Women to serve them eternally.
What did the real Jesus offer to all in heaven?
Complete eternal equality. We'll be like angels, not Smith or Mohammad. I would vote for a Buddhist before voting for a Mormon. Because, I am a Christian. In fact a Chinese (Buddhist) American would make a great President. The Chinese just accomplish.
At least Buddhists believe in no god at all. Not some freakisn idea of a god to promote the licentious views of Joseph Smith and his Mormon male followers.
Besides Romney has already shown the world of conservatives what he does morally with leadership. Now the gay agenda is in control of children's minds in the state Romney once led. Note that Billy Graham praised the Clinton's when he was in New York during an evangelistic trip.
Interesting, albeit scattered post Donny.
First, the very concept of a "representative government" begs for at least a bit of opportunism in light of taking care of your constituency over someone elses. If you were to disqualify a politicians moral fiber due to being "coldly opportunistic" you'd probably wipe out 99% of elected officials. Second, lets separate a couple things. First, Mitt is a politician looking to acquire another political office, not a Mormon evangelist looking to wipe out Christianity.
While I'm sure his faith guides some of his decisions, it's important to note that his public positions on traditionally moral issues closely mirror those of Conservative Christians. I think there's a fine line we're walking very close to between determining how a man's faith affects his decisions and choosing to belittle him because of his faith. While the first is a very necessary question, saying things like Mormonism is "a freaskisn idea" exposes an ugliness that I'm fairly certain isn't Christlike. Judge Mitt on his ability to govern and if opposed, make it because AS A LEADER AND POLITICIAN he won't perform at the level you want in the next President - not because of a faith he and millions others hold sacred.
Mitt will not perform on the level I require of a President. Massachusetts proves that. And the founder of Mormonism certainly meant it for the wiping away of Christianity.
He wrote that down in the Book of Mormon and pursued it his entire life. He went out guns blazing by the way. Certainly not like a Christian martyr.
My really worry is that many people will vote against Mitt because he's Mormon and not for the much better reason that he might not be terribly trustworthy and bit difficult to pin down. On the plus side, his flexibility suggests a willingness to compromise rather than adhere dogmatically and stupidly to a course destined for disaster. That would be a welcome change.
Do we really want someone who hid behind his missionary stint to avoid military service (and never again found time to serve) and who advises his family not enlist to be Commander in Chief? The problem is not that he is a Mormon, its that he is not Mormon enough.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.