Zakuska Posted October 10, 2011 Posted October 10, 2011 So here is our Good Reverend Jeffress of Mormons are Cultists fame in a sermon given just 5 days ago:http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=lf5hE_e6iiMHis creative interpretation of the constitution and the first amendment is just.... Amazing...! He inerprets them as favoring various Christian denominations and not applying at all to Hindus, Muslims, Mormons, non-Christians etc. etc. etc.All I can say is...
thesometimesaint Posted October 10, 2011 Posted October 10, 2011 If THAT is what what it takes to be a good Christian. God help us all.
altersteve Posted October 10, 2011 Posted October 10, 2011 (edited) I can't see the video because the laptop I'm using hates YouTube with a passion, but I read an article on Deseret News where a member of the American Family Assocation (I think that's what it's called) said that the First Amendment protections don't apply to Mitt Romney because he's "not a Christian." Absolutely unbelievable. Edited October 10, 2011 by altersteve
Calm Posted October 10, 2011 Posted October 10, 2011 (edited) Yes, there are Evangelicals and Atheists and others who want to limit others who believe differently access to the political and legal arena in the US.Not surprising as this has been going on since the beginning of time (some people placing the value of power for their 'tribe' over freedom).This does not remove the reality of the many EVs and Atheists and others who not only don't believe in this, but have fought and died so that all can have access to democratic freedoms in this country.Do we really need another thread about this? Why not post this in one of the others? Edited October 10, 2011 by calmoriah
Zakuska Posted October 10, 2011 Author Posted October 10, 2011 (edited) Well cal. We could ask the mods to merge this, however, I hesitate. Id like this thread to be more about what makes this man tick. Study his doctrines and stances rather than focusing on him calling us a cult.I know there are many God Evangelicals/Christians out there. I would name most of those who post on this board, Mudcat, 3DOP, to name a few and I appreciate them.But what this man is advocating needs to be discussed. He's causing the constituion to hang by a thread, and his doctrines of Faith Superiority, which when you boil it down is just another disguise for the curse of cain doctrine, and segregation and race superiority, need to be exposed and put down. Edited October 10, 2011 by Zakuska
Zakuska Posted October 10, 2011 Author Posted October 10, 2011 (edited) I can't see the video because the laptop I'm using hates YouTube with a passion, but I read an article on Deseret News where a member of the American Family Assocation (I think that's what it's called) said that the First Amendment protections don't apply to Mitt Romney because he's "not a Christian." Absolutely unbelievable.Yes... now the Christian far right mob are trying to deny Mormons and others who arn't under the "Christian umbrela" their first amendments rights.Fischer: First amendment does not apply to Mormons My argument all along has been that the purpose of the First Amendment is to protect the free exercise of the Christian religion.One evidence that [the Founding Fathers] were not dealing ... they weren't even intending to deal with non-Christian religions is what they did with Mormonism in the latter part of the nineteenth century. Mormonism - they call themselves by the name of Christ, but it is not an orthodox Christian network of churches, it just is not. Mormonism is not an orthodox Christian faith. It just is not. They have a different Gospel, they have a completely different definition of who Christ is and so forth, I mean, the list could be multiplied endlessly.And it was very clear that the Founding Fathers did not intend to preserve automatically religious liberty for non-Christian faiths, so when Mormonism came along, they practiced polygamy, they believed in polygamy, just like Muslims do today. It was a part of their revealed religion. God had commanded Joseph Smith to have multiple wives and commanded Joseph Smith to go tell your wife Emma, look you gotta room, I want my son Joseph to be able to have as many wives as he wants so you're just going to have to accept it. So God is telling Emma through Joseph Smith, look you're just going to have to live with this deal. So multiple wives in the Mormon Church until 1890 when the Mormon Church told their folks to obey the law.The Mormon Church, by the way, has never denounced the practice of polygamy. It has not. What it did in 1890, if you go back to the Doctrines and Covenants, what the Mormon Church did is they advised - it wasn't even an order - they advised the members of the LDS Church to obey the law which said one man, one woman, period. So my guess is that if those that are trying to legalize polygamy, and they are working on it right now ... [Fischer cites court case pushing for recognition of polygamy and says it the same as using courts to push for gay marriage] ... If there is some activist court that says you have to recognize polygamous marriages in your state, you're going to start seeing the LDS church, I believe go back to the exercise of polygamy. If it's legal, because all they told their folks is obey the law, if the law says you can have multiple wives, I believe the LDS Church will be out in the front of the pack.I mean, not everybody in the LDS Church is going to do it any more than all the members of the LDS Church ever did it. It was a minority even in Joseph Smith's day - I mean, Brigham Young set some kind of world record for number of wives, I mean he was up there in Muhammad territory frankly. But most Mormons didn't do it, it was just a small percentage that had the resources to be able to do it. But I think it will come back, it will come back pretty vigorously in the Mormon Church, again, because all the church fathers said in 1890, just obey the law. Well, if the law says you can have multiple wives, they'll be back.http://www.rightwing...t-apply-mormons Edited October 10, 2011 by Zakuska
thesometimesaint Posted October 10, 2011 Posted October 10, 2011 (edited) I think we already know what makes him "Tick". The mask of respectibility has been removed and hateful bigotry shows its ugly face. Edited October 10, 2011 by thesometimesaint
Nemesis Posted October 10, 2011 Posted October 10, 2011 We are not a anti-(insert religion) board. Thread closed and any subsequent threads such as this will be closed.Nemesis
Recommended Posts