Mitt Romney and the Platform his Presidential Nomination Gives Mormonism to Expand

I hope you won't see my response as confrontational but here is how I would respond and why I am struggling with this decision.

Your analogy falls short for me and here is why. My chief concern with a practicing Mormon in the White House and the subsequent increase in legitimacy and prestige of Mormonism is because Mormonism is a wolf in sheep's clothing more than any other religion this side of JW. Every Mormon I have every known describes themselves and their religion as “Christian too”. When you consider the shallowness of religious acumen among the unchurched and even many of the laity in our churches, they are ripe for this deception should Romney win. No, there won’t be mass conversions among Baptists who post on this message board but there will be an increase in conversions among confused or weak people with a Evangelical heritage (grandmother was a Baptist?). Trying to draw a parallel with Islam, Hindus or atheists doesn’t hold up for me because they don’t claim to be Christian. Even drawing a parallel with Catholicism isn’t even close to this in my view.

I have to lean heavily on my Calvinistic inclinations toward God’s sovereignty in calling the elect and in placing leaders in government to help me justify a vote for this kind of deception. If I were truly arminian I couldn’t do it. I would write in Mike Huckabee. I may anyway because I am responsible for my actions.

Having said all that there are three reasons why I am flirting with voting for Romney.

1. I lean toward a Calvinistic view of Soteriology
2. I do not think how he will govern will be significantly different than how an Evangelical would govern with the same basic political/economic philosophy as a baseline
3. I think the damage has already been done with his party nomination and the strong Evangelical support he is getting


We better start teaching our church members, our kids and our friends about the differences between Christianity and Mormonism and we better make sure they understand why it matters.

 

I think there is no denying this, however, the question then becomes: How much more of a platform is being gained? I say, not very much.

Incorrect. People are going to Hell because they are sinners and haven't been born again. An unregenerate person on their way to Hell that becomes a Mormon is still an unregenerate person on their way to Hell.

They're already going to Hell. The problem, as I see it, is that by giving Mormonism a wider stage you open up the possibility that more people will become Mormons, really indoctrinated, and really brainwashed Mormons. Zealous Mormons.


because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools,

In other words, unreachable Mormons.

 

*sigh*

I opened a new thread in the politics section so that you could answer my question why you have offered no names as write-in alternatives.

 

I think if you bother to ask people around here who have been members much longer than you have, you will see that I try to be even-handed in deleting personal attacks, even with those whose politics I agree with.

And calling people "liars" is clearly against the posting rules that YOU signed and agreed to when you joined the BB.

Your personal opinion of me or others of like mind matters to me not one bit. Your opinions are yours and you are entitled to them, but not at the expense of making personal attacks against other members. Note: Infractions and discipline will take place if the personal attacks continue. Others have been banned for the same.

Now that the thread has been moved by another moderator or administrator back to the Politics forum, I will be monitoring it closely.

PS: I don't believe you are in the tank for obama, you are not a lib. And I don't believe you are a troll. Just tone it down, okay? :flower:

 

Ed B, (and all others, but maybe especially Zaac)
Did JFK being a catholic cause anyone else to become catholic?
Did Jimmy Carter being southern baptist cause anyone to become southern baptist?
Did Reagen being a presbyterian cause anyone to become a presbyterian?
Has Obama being a former member of Wright's church caused anyone to join that church? Or has his alleged profession of Christianity caused any of his liberal friends or followers to become Christians?

If you can't look at the historical office of the president and definitively say that attaining that office increased the numbers of their particular religious beliefs, then the prediction for a future president doing so is hyperbole. Unless that religion is islam.

 

It is likely that with JFK and Jimmy Carter there was an uptick in acceptance and the prestige of their denominations and I believe JFK certainly helped break down a barrier between Catholics and Evangelicals. It didn't happen in a day but it certainly happened over time. Neither you nor I have stats to prove our position but I believe that JFK becoming president helped smooth out Catholic / Evangelical relations and may very well have caused some to consider Catholicism where they would not have otherwise. In the case of Catholicism I am not sure that is altogether bad.

Let us hope and pray that Romney becoming POTUS does not smooth out relations between Mormons and Evangelicals. Meanwhile some kids, especially outside the Bible Belt, who are in middle school and high school today will be more likely to grow up thinking that President Romney's church is just another of many acceptable choices from among the many Christian denominations. Many already do because Mormons tell them something along those lines....after all it is just another testament of Jesus Christ right?

 

Zaac,
My proof, my friend, is the fact of how many times you just answered "possibly." If anyone was swayed into visiting, considering, and/or even joining the aforementioned denominations, then the number has been so small as to automatically prove the hyperbole of your position.

 

Ed,
As you said in a previous message, and reiterated in your last, yes, it is necessary for us to ensure we're teaching our children--and anyone else who will listen--the truth about Mormonism.

 

Romney's beliefs are clearly different to you and me but not to millions in the mission field waiting to be harvested. Thus, Romney is guilty of the exact same thing as Obama but from a different angle. If Romney and his church made no claims of being Christian then I would be much less concerned. Obama's brand of watered-down liberal Christianity is very old and very well entrenched in the upper Midwest and northeast. And as bad as I may think it is, it is possible if difficult for people to be saved in those liberal Christian Churches even if it is in spite of their bad ministers. I assume at the very least the Word of God is read once in a while.

The point here is both candidates pose real spiritual risks; not to strong Christians, but certainly to those who have not been well trained in Biblical and doctrinal fundamentals, so they understand why they believe what their mother/preacher/parent told them to believe. If I cared nothing for spiritual consequences I could very easily support Romney as he lines up with me pretty well on economic issues.

 

Please provide proof of this statement. Or at the very least a definition of the term "against God".

Thanks.

 

Then that means you must believe that the person who becomes President has more power to influence the lives of people than the Almighty.

Your God is much smaller than mine.