Sevenbak Posted October 9, 2011 Posted October 9, 2011 The Damage done to perry was done long before this article was written but that is beyond the point of this thread. What is the point the thread is how a Pastor is using inaccurate words about our religion to try and derail a politician's chances at a nomination.Agreed. It's not that he thinks we're a cult, others do too, that's fine by me, everyone has agency. It's that he playing politics with it."Evangelical Christians should not vote for Mitt Romney because he’s a Mormon, therefore not a real Christian," - Pastor Jeffress That's bad form at it's finest.
Calm Posted October 9, 2011 Posted October 9, 2011 Agreed. It's not that he thinks we're a cult, others do too, that's fine by me, everyone has agency. It's that he playing politics with it."Evangelical Christians should not vote for Mitt Romney because he’s a Mormon, therefore not a real Christian," - Pastor Jeffress That's bad form at it's finest.Agreed.
annewandering Posted October 9, 2011 Posted October 9, 2011 (edited) reposted this correctly. sorry. Edited October 9, 2011 by annewandering
annewandering Posted October 9, 2011 Posted October 9, 2011 As many of us have made clear in this forum, the candidate's positions on political issues are more critical (at least to us) than his religion, per se.If we take, say, Perry, ostensibly a "good EV candidate in the hole", why would an evangelical voter choose him over a Saint if the following were true about each candidate:Parental RightsSaint◄► Supports parents' right to raise their children with little or no governmental interference.Perry◄► Mandates little girls be vaccinated with the potentially dangerous Gardasil®EV Voter prefers parental rights be respected[*]Illegal immigrantsSaint ◄► Supports deportation and rejects "in-state" tuition for illegal immigrants to state collegesPerry◄► Pushes for in-state tuitionEV Voter rejects amnesty for illegal aliens[*]EconomicsSaint◄► Keynesian economics is a proven failure over nearly a century of trialsPerry◄► Government is a source of "job creation", and wants more government involvement in economicsEV Voter wants smaller, less intrusive governmentIn a reverse situation, a Saint would choose the candidate who better reflects his values and preferences. Why should an evangelical voter select the candidate who does not represent his values as well, but who shares his religious preference?Why, in this instance, would a pastor reject outright, based solely on his religion, a man who might be a better fit? (I'm not claiming Romney meets that criterion—I do not believe he does—but, based on the wording of the statement, we can conclude that a "perfect" candidate who is LDS would be condemned on the same grounds.)People can make any choice they desire. That's the nature of the secret ballot and republics. But it is completely unreasonable for one characteristic (his religion in this case, but his sex or his race might fill the same role) of a candidate to override the totality of the political positions any candidate must, of necessity espouse.LehiI find this to be very offensive. Please substitute your name for saint because those are YOUR political stances not the Church's or all LDS people for that matter. Even saying that all EV voters have those stands is not fair. Put a name to EV voter not a generic. No wonder the world thinks we all march lockstep when people like this poster do this so regularly. Its just not right or correct either. Arg messed up first post quote. sorry about that. 1
ldsfaqs Posted October 9, 2011 Posted October 9, 2011 (edited) Coming from a person who holds to a faith that would declare both Perry and Jeffress are apostates at best, I don't see much of a complaint to be lodged.Will you anti's stop throwing out that CANARD....??? Mormons don't go around calling people "Apostates", especially people that have never even been Mormon. IF we ever use the term, it's in reference to actual apostates, those who leave the Faith, not other Christians.We call other Christians "Christians"..... Get your facts strait!Not only that, you say "at best".... What a truly low and utterly bearing false witness comment! I don't understand why you feel an Evangelical Pastor would endorse a non-Evangelical candidate, if there was a good EV candidate in the hole.Oh, I don't know, this little thing called "values". I would endorse a non-mormon if I thought the mormon wasn't up to par.What do you think of Evangelicals for Mitt?Further, it's not about "endorsement", that should be obvious, it's about bigotry toward others. We don't give a rats behind if he endorses Perry, just don't be a bigot about it toward the other candidates that are SUPPOSED to be on your side, FOR YOU.You anti's really need to study your Bible.... Christ directly condemns such actions in Mark 9 & Luke 9, Matthew 14, etc.Ever seen Mitt or one of his supporters utter a negative word about someone else's religion??? No, that's because mormons aren't bigots like you anti's. Edited October 9, 2011 by ldsfaqs
ldsfaqs Posted October 9, 2011 Posted October 9, 2011 Lost in Ohio,Thanks for a well articulated answer. I do want to draw you back to this notion that leadership type folks from your particular faith group have declared that any Christian that isn't LDS, is an apostate. Not really a nice word if you are a non-LDS Christian.Please please..... Why don't you actually attend LDS services and prove to us ONE EXAMPLE of any LDS calling non-LDS "apostates".I've attended some 20 different wards in some 10 different cities, and NEVER heard it once.But, I see it constantly said on Anti-mormon websites and books.Stop reading anti-mormonism, and learn some actual truth for a change.Or go to FAIR and show just even ONE EXAMPLE of any LDS scholar calling non-LDS "apostates". You won't find it. Shame on you! I would ask if you would think it reasonable that a non-LDS Christian wouldn't view such statements is the same manner as you view things you see as pejorative to your own faith?Since we don't do it accept in the imaginings of the anti-mormon mind which they then right, just as you have, your question is a fallacy.Christ talked about folks wanting to help people with specks in their eye, when the people that wanted to help had planks in their own. No accusation here, just thought the analogy meaningful.Regards,MudcatYour point would be valid if it was actually true.... You clearly don't know LDS.
Garden Girl Posted October 9, 2011 Posted October 9, 2011 Absolute no politics. But Romney didn't get an endorsement cause he's "In a cult". Pastor who endorsed Perry on Friday says Romney is a cultistSuch stupidity in the 21st century, to me, is mind blowing. He is part of the SBC so I shouldn't expect anything less from a group of Forest Gumps.Hello MatthewG...I had a negative reaction to the Pastor's comments... it gets to be so wearisome. And for him to go on national TV telling his interviewer that it was better to vote for a strong Christian EV rather than a "good moral man" like Romney who isn't a Christian...I made the same mistake you have made in your Forrest Gump comment... I painted with a broad brush all EV's when there are those who are indeed fair when it comes to the Church and our being Christian, etc. In my post I got after Mudcat for his comment but let your generalization slide... we have to be more careful that WE don't become too general in our comments in regard to EVs. That said, the pastor really did go over the top with his comments and standing there saying that his whole group have labelled Mormonism a cult (as it that makes it all right or true). So while I'm tempted to strike back, I have to remember to be more careful in regard to my words. There are those EVs that are honest and fair.GG 1
Calm Posted October 9, 2011 Posted October 9, 2011 I read Lehi's comment not to mean that those were the commonly held Saints' position or the commonly held EV position, but rather each was an individual Saint or EV that held those positions, as in if there was a Saint who held these positions and the EV held similar positions, it would make more sense for that EV to vote for that Saint....though it seems strange that he would need to go into such detail. Perhaps he created a likely scenario and wasn't thinking in absolute terms....If I am wrong and it was meant to represent standard positions, I would agree with your criticism. Lehi can clarify what he meant.
ldsfaqs Posted October 9, 2011 Posted October 9, 2011 Here's the long version. It's actually really good! WOW.... That was powerful and inspired.... You can truly see who is following the One True God.Beliefs may differ, but the One True God flows from ALL of His Righteous, for all righteousness ONLY COMES FROM HIM.Jeffers follows a false God.
Calm Posted October 9, 2011 Posted October 9, 2011 Jeffers follows a false God.Oh please.Overreacting is not the answer.
ldsfaqs Posted October 9, 2011 Posted October 9, 2011 (edited) My opinion...Some of the things the SBC does/supports as an organization and among the leadership are unChristlike. Other actions are Christlike, see worldhungerfund.com for an example.Obviously.... We are talking about Mormonism "related" subjects here. You should know that.It's no different than our criticism of anti-mormons, anti-mormonism etc. In that act, they do evil.Obviously, in the rest of their lives, we know that many can be good. But, a righteous old man who turns out to be a child molester, doesn't change the fact that he's done a great evil.Thus, the SBC and other Christian anti-mormons, no matter how "good" they are, that doesn't change the great evil they do.In fact, Mark 9 & Luke 9 Christ himself makes clear that such persons, even though the smallest part of them which does evil, if they don't cut it off, their entire body will end up in hell. In other words, Christ himself said, that no matter how "good" anti-mormons are, they are going to hell for their offense of other believers be it mormon or otherwise. Edited October 9, 2011 by ldsfaqs
Mudcat Posted October 9, 2011 Posted October 9, 2011 (edited) Will you anti's stop throwing out that CANARD....??? Mormons don't go around calling people "Apostates", especially people that have never even been Mormon. IF we ever use the term, it's in reference to actual apostates, those who leave the Faith, not other Christians.We call other Christians "Christians"..... Get your facts strait!Not only that, you say "at best".... What a truly low and utterly bearing false witness comment! Oh, I don't know, this little thing called "values". I would endorse a non-mormon if I thought the mormon wasn't up to par.What do you think of Evangelicals for Mitt?Further, it's not about "endorsement", that should be obvious, it's about bigotry toward others. We don't give a rats behind if he endorses Perry, just don't be a bigot about it toward the other candidates that are SUPPOSED to be on your side, FOR YOU.You anti's really need to study your Bible.... Christ directly condemns such actions in Mark 9 & Luke 9, Matthew 14, etc.Ever seen Mitt or one of his supporters utter a negative word about someone else's religion??? No, that's because mormons aren't bigots like you anti's.Please please..... Why don't you actually attend LDS services and prove to us ONE EXAMPLE of any LDS calling non-LDS "apostates".I've attended some 20 different wards in some 10 different cities, and NEVER heard it once.But, I see it constantly said on Anti-mormon websites and books.Stop reading anti-mormonism, and learn some actual truth for a change.Or go to FAIR and show just even ONE EXAMPLE of any LDS scholar calling non-LDS "apostates". You won't find it. Shame on you! Since we don't do it accept in the imaginings of the anti-mormon mind which they then right, just as you have, your question is a fallacy.Your point would be valid if it was actually true.... You clearly don't know LDS.Hi ldsfaqs,I was trying to come up with something to say these two posts of yours....I am a bit at a loss.I do think the notion that LDS believe all other Christian faiths are apostate is an academic fact. I don't see what all the hubbub is about because I am not LDS and happen to bring it up.As to the part I bolded at the end of your second post. With the exclusion of my LDS wife, her LDS family, such relations as I have met through interaction with her church.. members, missionaries, stake meetings, those LDS who I have met on different forums over the last few years.. I believe you are quite right.Given a statement like yours, I can only surmise, that the more that I meet LDS, the less I know them. Sorry if what I said got you bent out of shape. I can see possibly why it might have. You have my apologies if you were offended.I was reacting in anger to the OP. I am a member of the SBC and the notion that I was a stupid Forrest Gump type, didn't set well with me.All due respects,Mudcat Edited October 9, 2011 by Mudcat
ldsfaqs Posted October 9, 2011 Posted October 9, 2011 Oh please.Overreacting is not the answer.In that "act" and ideology, it's simply the truth. It's not an "over-reaction". Anti-mormon bigotry which is equivalent to the KKK and Fanatical Islam just without the violence (today anyway) is not an "over-reaction".Like the above video states.... Bigotry has NO PLACE with a Christian or within Conservatism.
Zakuska Posted October 9, 2011 Posted October 9, 2011 (edited) From the horses mouth himself... And on CNN:http://cnn.com/video/?/video/bestoftv/2011/10/07/jk-jeffress-romney-mormon.cnn Edited October 9, 2011 by Zakuska
Calm Posted October 9, 2011 Posted October 9, 2011 Obviously.... We are talking about Mormonism "related" subjects here. You should know that.It's no different than our criticism of anti-mormons, anti-mormonism etc. In that act, they do evil.Obviously, in the rest of their lives, we know that many can be good. But, a righteous old man who turns out to be a child molester, doesn't change the fact that he's done a great evil.No, it is not obvious. Communication by Internet results in a majority of comments not being understood in the way the writer meant, can't remember the exact statistic but it was quite depressing. There are reasons for this level of misunderstanding and one of them is talking in generalizations inappropriately.And calling someone mentally retarded because they believe LDS belong to a cult is hardly an insightful comment.And if you are all that concerned about what antimormons are doing you shouldn't give them fuel for their fires by sloppy or abusive writing.
MatthewG Posted October 9, 2011 Author Posted October 9, 2011 And it continues:Romney was followed to the stage by Bryan Fischer, a director of the American Family Association, known for inflammatory remarks against homosexuality and "non-Christian religions," which he has said include Mormonism."The next president of the United States needs to be a man ... of sincere authentic genuine Christian faith," he said, in a jab at Romney.Full article hereOn a separate topic this is from the same article and hilarious:He called Islam the greatest long-term threat to U.S. liberty. "Every single mosque in America is a potential recruiting or training cell for Islamic terror," Fischer saidNot sure why people support such nonsense.
ldsfaqs Posted October 9, 2011 Posted October 9, 2011 Hi ldsfaqs,I was trying to come up with something to say these two posts of yours....I am a bit at a loss.You should be, you said something that was utterly false.I do think the notion that LDS believe all other Christian faiths are apostate is an academic fact. I don't see what all the hubbub is about because I am not LDS and happen to bring it up.That's the problem. It's not an "academic fact". It is a complete and utter anti-mormon lie. Only anti-mormons use that term.Not saying obviously it's never been said by a mormon, especially in history. But, it's so non-existent, that it's completely bearing false witness.It's no different than the accusation by leftists that conservatives are "racist". It's so non-existent within conservatism or the Tea Party, that it's a complete lie.As to the part I bolded at the end of your second post. With the exclusion of my LDS wife, her LDS family, such relations as I have met through interaction with her church.. members, missionaries, stake meetings, those LDS who I have met on different forums over the last few years.. I believe you are quite right.So you're actually going to sit there and tell us that all the mormons you know go around calling non-LDS "apostates"?Given a statement like yours, I can only surmise, that the more that I meet LDS, the less I know them. Well, all I know, is I'm a mormon every day, and have lived all over knowing 100,000's of mormons, and I've almost never heard the word used in that manner. And I certainly pay attention. If it is used, it's used completely differently. Not in the anti-mormon perverted way. But as I said, I've seen the word in that manner used by anti-mormons over and over again, in their misrepresenting portrayal of mormons.Sorry if what I said got you bent out of shape. I can see possibly why it might have. You have my apologies if you were offended.Very well.I was reacting in anger to the OP. I am a member of the SBC and the notion that I was a stupid Forrest Gump type, didn't set well with me.But what he said, while critical, and obviously not representative of "all" SBC's, it's certainly the truth about a great majority, and a SERIOUS problem with Evangelicals. The Bigoted ideology and insecurity complex with Evangelicals in their need to act the bully belittling those they view as inferior and weaker is serious problem. It's a remnant by the way of the same bigotry that has always existed against the Church. Personally, if I were you, I wouldn't be in the SBC for that fact alone. It is by the way one of many reasons why I'm not in any other religion, but especially Evangelical ones.There is no way you could have the actual "truths" from God.
Calm Posted October 9, 2011 Posted October 9, 2011 One hopes that we can follow Romney's advice about a civil and respectful debate.
Calm Posted October 9, 2011 Posted October 9, 2011 (edited) Forrest Gump would be one of the last guys I would call a bigot myself. Labeling someone a Forrest Gump is not calling them a bigot. Edited October 9, 2011 by calmoriah
Zakuska Posted October 9, 2011 Posted October 9, 2011 (edited) And another...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJttDKdzDQQ&feature=youtu.be Edited October 9, 2011 by Zakuska
Calm Posted October 9, 2011 Posted October 9, 2011 And it continues:.... I am trying to figure out why the President has to deny evolution.....
ldsfaqs Posted October 9, 2011 Posted October 9, 2011 Forrest Gump would be one of the last guys I would call a bigot myself. Labeling someone a Forrest Gump is not calling them a bigot.Again, don't know why I have to explain the obvious, but it's a slam at their "intellectual" skills (absolute nutballs), not the good Gump that we loved from the movie.
Calm Posted October 9, 2011 Posted October 9, 2011 (edited) Not saying obviously it's never been said by a mormon, especially in history. But, it's so non-existent.First you say it has occurred, then you say it's nonexistent.....LDS believe that the multitude of denominations are a result of the Great Apostasy. It is understandable, if wrong, that some interpret this to mean that not only are those churches apostate, but also the members are. Unfortunately we also have some early church leaders using the same type of logic, so again it is understandable when some assume that logic is still present in today's LDS Church when it's not as I've demonstrated by posting the official definition of apostate from LDS.org.It does not help to be overeager to label some as antimormons simply because they disagree with you, it takes little imagination to think someone so free with the antimormons label just might be as comfortable handing out the apostate label. Nothing positive is accomplished by such methods. You want to change Mudcat's mind so he will not only stop saying such things but also stop thinking them (just as important in my view) I'd suggest another way. Edited October 9, 2011 by calmoriah
Recommended Posts