When the Constitution “Hangs by a Thread” – The White Horse Prophecy in Modern Mormonism

And just think, we Christians are helping to vote in Romney as President of the United States.

Why are alarm bells not ringing off the hook???

Is voting for Obama the way to go then? Personally, I don't like either of them. I may be voting 3rd party this year.

As much as I abhor Mormonism, this particular "White Horse Prophecy" has been rejected by the very cult that is accused of espousing it.

And, Miccah, there are many sincere believers here who love the Lord and speak to Him constantly through prayer and the study of His Word. Many might feel inclined that Mitt Romney would be a better choice over the next four years than Barack Obama. No one should be so audacious as to assert that such an opinion or vote is an endorsement of Mormonism or a mythical "White Horse Prophecy" that the Mormon leadership says that they don't believe.

chris wrote,

No one should be so audacious as to assert that such an opinion or vote is an endorsement of Mormonism...

Brother, I love you, truly. But this is exactly what it is.

Christians are endorsing a cult memeber that holds to nothing that Christ died for, and then go on to say that the ends justify the means. They don't.

No one should be so audacious as to assert that such an opinion or vote is an endorsement of Mormonism or a mythical "White Horse Prophecy" that the Mormon leadership says that they don't believe
-----
Chris can i ask you in all sincerity do you think anything the Mormon leadership says about this or anything is true? do you trust them to be honest?

i am not challenging your right to vote, for Romany or Obama just wondering?

rdg

Miccah,

Brother, I love you, truly. But this is exactly what it is.

Christians are endorsing a cult memeber that holds to nothing that Christ died for, and then go on to say that the ends justify the means. They don't.

I love you too, Miccah. However, you are making a very wrong assumption here, brother.

When I choose to shop at Safeway, I am not endorsing the CEO or religion for which the CEO belongs.

When I choose to buy a Ford, I am not endorsing the denomination of the Ford family.

When I buy a Macintosh/iPhone/iPod or load iTunes/Quicktime on to my computer, I am not endorsing the new age religious views of Steve Jobs.

Do you see how "guilt by association" can be a flawed assertion?

A person who might think that Mitt Romney is a better choice than Barack Obama or over the prospect of NOT voting (and, thus, allowing Barack Obama to have another four years in the office) cannot be accused of endorsing the religion of the man.

My parents purchased corn from the Amish the other day in Central Tennessee. My parents are not Amish and have no plans on joining an Amish sect. My parents simply like their corn. It would be incorrect and dishonest to assert that my parents are somehow endorsing the Amish any more than those who bought tents from Paul or fish from Peter were endorsing the Christian faith.

The truth isn't quite so convoluted. Some believers simply think that Mitt Romney would be better for that secular office (President of the US) than the current person in that office (Barack Obama). Many believers are aware that NOT voting can easily result in the current person being gifted with another term.

Hi rainydaygirl,

The burden of proof is not for that cult to "prove" that they don't believe the assertion. The burden of proof is with the person who made the assertion in the first place.

I have researched this and can find no evidence that it is true. Thus, to claim that it is true might result in a believer unwittingly spreading a lie. It doesn't matter that the lie was motivated by a disgust for the lies of the Mormon cult. Lying about an unbeliever or cult member is still a lie. We should be of pure speech and not given to rumor. There are enough problems with the Mormon religion than to be forced to give ourselves over to myths about it.

As for guessing whether there is motivation for Mormon officials to lie about such a thing: The Mormon cult has historically believed much crazier and unbiblical things. So, I can't understand why they would choose to have denied such a claim many years before any Mormon ever ran for President.

Now, I can't make a determination about whether the Mormons are honest in their denial of this thing. Personally, I don't even care. However, I do think that believers owe it to God to be completely pure in our speech. We should never repeat a rumor and declare it as a "fact" or as anything more than just a rumor.

Chris,

Thank you for the love brother :)

We keep making these rounds. Maybe you can understand that I am not talking about purchasing a form of goods where you have NO idea where and by whom it comes from. I am talking about a Christian knowingly voting for a cult member who stands against Christ, to lead our nation.

I promise you Chris, if Mitt Romney trys to sell me an apple, I will not buy it, knowing that he is involved in satanic worship.

If Mitt Romney tries to get me to vote for him, I will not vote for him, knowing that he is involved in satanic worship.

Apples and Oranges Chris.

Hi Miccah,

I don't believe that it is "apples and oranges." If you know anything about Steve Jobs, it is that he turned to pretty much every religion other than Christianity during his lifetime. If you use or purchase any of his products, would that cause you to share in his eternal condition?

Now, you mention that you have "no idea" where most products come from. While that is a fine thing to say, the truth of the matter is that this world is mostly filled with unbelievers. In other words, nearly EVERY association in your life comes by way of unbelievers. Some of them are atheists, some are Mormons, some are Catholics, some are Liberation Theology adherents, some belong to other religions, cults or levels of spiritual indifference. However, the basis and end of all such things is the same.

It is impossible to escape such interaction in this world. No matter where you go, you will find an unbeliever. If you work on a committee that is looking for a manager, there is a good chance that his religious faith (unless you belong to a religious non-profit or a church) will not be a basis for the decision made by the committee. If you are self-employed, I seriously doubt that your business will do well if you only sell goods and services to those that you are "sure" are believers.

When I go to a Greyhound Bus Station and have to decide which bus to ride, the faith of that bus driver might not be the ultimate deciding factor. If none of the buses are driven by believers, we are left to consider them by other factors. If only two buses are available and one is driven by a reckless driver who is prone to driving the bus over a cliff (or has a record of harming either the bus or passengers), then you can rest assured that I will not choose that particular bus driver. It will not matter to me if the only other choice is a Southern Baptist, Mormon, Catholic, Pentecostal or none-of-the-above.

In this sense, I hope that you understand that there are good believers who are seriously praying about this issue. They love their neighbors in this temporary country quite a bit...but no where near as much as they love God. Many will be praying constantly about what to do in November. After much prayer and study, many will still choose Mitt Romney as a better alternative than Barack Obama. If that happens, we shouldn't ostracize or criticize those who voted with a clear conscience.

We should never accuse such believers of endorsing the Mormon cult...because that would be simply untrue. This is true even if you think that individuals "unwittingly" endorse Mormonism because they think that Mitt Romney (the man) is a better choice DESPITE his religious background.

To be clear: I currently think that Mitt Romney is a better choice as President in this government of consent than Barack Obama. This has nothing to do with his Mormonism. Does this mean that I will vote for him? Not so fast. I will continue to pray until Election Day and only act if I feel the liberty -- after prayer, fasting and study -- to do so.

Brother,

I understand what you are saying, I just disagree is all.

If you think that my views need to change, please pray about it. I know that I have, and what I have been given by the Lord, is what I am sharing with everyone.

Be blessed brother. :)

Hi bearmaster,

Our destiny is a heavenly kingdom. Not an earthly one. Our allegiance is to Jesus. Not a presidential candidate.
....
They saw their destiny to be the new Jerusalem. The heavenly city. This is our destiny.
....
We are ambassadors of King Jesus.
....
We serve the interest of King Jesus. By virtue of our faith in the King. We are citizens of his kingdom. His kingdom is not of this world.

All believers that I know -- including those here who vote -- understand this. Despite what some might assume or suggest, I just don't know any believers who think that America can or will be spiritually saved by any presidential candidate. However, that doesn't mean that believers have no voice or opinion about what is best in a government of consent (or any other things "of the world" for that matter - I Corinthians 7:29-35).

The early Anabaptist had it right when they refused to br part of the state.

Interesting. Upon what evidence or historical writings are you basing the assumption that ALL believers who were "anabaptist" (re-baptized") were also completely and utterly opposed to being "a part of the state" or sharing their voice to the state? After all, Paul the Apostle stated emphatically that he was a Roman citizen (Acts 21:31 and Acts 22:22-29) and used his legal "rights" as a Roman citizen to "appeal unto Caesar." The persistent widow approached her "unjust judge" (a ruler) with her requests (Luke 18:1-8). John the Baptist was arrested because of a discussion with King Herod about what was "lawful" in regard to marriage (Mark 6:17-18).

Our focus needs to be on reaching the lost. Not on electing a political candidate. The mandate of the King. The command of the King is preach the gospel. The command of the King is to disciple the nations.

If we would focus on his business. Just maybe the church in America would not be the laughing stock of hell.

First of all, the TRUE church in America is not the "laughingstock of hell." Satan fears and hates the true Church...no matter where we physically live.

And, in touching with what I said earlier, I believe that there is a misunderstanding when we assume that believers who vote cannot ALSO focus on reaching the lost or other spiritual things.

I can trust and rely upon God to meet the needs for my family...but I must also get a job and work. I can care for the people in this land and see them as lost "sheep having no shepherd" while also sharing an opinion about many things -- including spiritual things -- through a vote. In fact, many believers do this.

The notion that believers who feel the liberty to share a vote cannot also care about and reach the lost is simply incorrect. I know many evangelists, pastors and teachers who vote and are in the byways and highways sharing the Gospel with those who are lost.

We are ambassadors of King Jesus. An ambassador stationed in a foreign country does not engage.in the affairs of that country. The ambassador only represents the interests of the country he serves.

Yes, we are ambassadors of King Jesus (including those of us who prayerfully feel the liberty to vote). Yet, an ambassador stationed in a foreign country DOES engage in contact and interact with the people, leaders and laws of that country. While that ambassador certainly represents the interests of the country that he serves, he also must live according to those interests in the country that he lives and interact with them.

I certainly understand the views of those who are strongly opinionated about this issue. However, in this case, I think that we must be careful about "pushing" a view upon those who are prayerfully seeking the Lord about this matter.

In the context of this thread, a rumor was presented as if it were true. Why? Mitt Romney, a member of a cult of Mormonism is running against Barack Obama, a member of the cult of Liberation Theology for the secular office of President of the United States. Individuals who are citizens of the U.S. are allowed to choose their leaders. Many believers feel the liberty to do share their opinion about which of those individuals that they think will be the better choice. Like I said, many might think that Mitt Romney is the better choice DESPITE his religious beliefs.

As a believer, I have voted for candidates that I thought were better than the alternative (or the consequences of abstaining from voting). Yet I have maintained my faith in Christ Jesus. It is simply incorrect to suggest that those of us who have done so are somehow less concerned about the lost, incapable of hearing the Lord on all such matters or unwittingly "at ease in Zion."

Still, this thread is about an article in which a person presented a myth that has been refuted many times by the very cult that is supposed to embrace it as if it were substantiated as a fact. As believers longing to be pure in our speech, we must be careful about being given over to myths, rumors or hearsay -- or, at least, identifying those things as such.

I hope that this makes a little more sense in what I am trying to say. I am not trying to disrespect anyone's deeply held opinion. And, of course, I abhor the teachings of the Mormon cult as much as I abhor Liberation Theology and any other religion that doesn't teach the truth. However, if we are going to discuss such matters, we must do so without meandering into spiritual gossip or rumor-spreading and without assuming that those with whom we disagree must somehow be incapable of hearing the Lord on this matter.

Frank (appoulus):

Amen brother, but one would have to have ears to hear that of course and eyes to see. Yet so many people are blinded by this world and the things of this world and this world's systems. Yet really, has this blindness not always exsisted?

Are you speculating that I -- and any other believer who might not agree with such strongly-worded opinions -- don't have "ears to hear" or "eyes to see?"

I hope not. I hope that no believer here would meander into such an insolent assumption.

I also hope that sincere believers will understand that many other sincere believers who frequent SermonIndex (and those who don't) will continue to pray about this matter. Despite loud urging to refrain, many believers may still feel a need to vote in November. Some may even vote for Mitt Romney (despite his religious views).

The election will come and go. God will continue to be our focus following the election as He is right now. I pray that no one will see those believers who might have felt led to vote as having been "less spiritual" or "less attuned" to the leading of the Lord or that they do not love God, care for the lost and long for the coming of the Lord. As members of the Body of Christ, we shouldn't assume the worst in other members of the Body of Christ.

thank you chris for answering my post.i understand what your saying about the whole prophecy. your right the Mormons do believe some pretty whacked out stuff.

if you don't mind i have one other question, you mentioned that you were praying about voting for Romney, i wonder are you praying about voting for Obama as well or just Romney? i just wonder because i know there are those who feel the exact same way you do but they are voting for Obama.

just so you know i am not voting, i am not saying its a sin to vote or anything i just don't believe that God wants me to vote so i don't.

thanks again for the response
rdg

Hi rainydaygirl,

Thank you for the response. Yes, the Mormons do have some very crazy views and teachings that are in opposition to the truth of the Word of God. The caution that I am urging in this particular case is in regard to the rumor of the "White Horse Prophecy" and presenting it as if it were anything but an unsubstantiated rumor. We must be careful about lying about that cult...even if we think that we are spreading it for God.

As for my prayers in regard to the election: I should make it clear that I am not simply praying about whether or not to vote for Romney. I am praying for the Lord's leading. I hope that makes a little more sense. I am not going to try and influence the Lord's leading in any way. I am prepared to abstain from voting in the Lord leads me in that direction. I desire to be pliable in the Lord's hands...like clay in the hands of a potter. I am not my own: I belong to Him. I wish to act according to the Lord's leading and not of myself or any opinion of man.

I will say this: I have wholeheartedly prayed about voting in the past and I still have not felt the Lord leading me to abstain from sharing my opinion (or vote) in this government of consent. If the Lord does lead me to such an opinion, I will wholeheartedly comply. Yet, even if I was led in that direction, I would not make assumptions about those who do not feel that same inclination that I may have felt.

I hope that makes a little more sense. I apologize that my posts are sometimes long and I have sometimes been criticized for it. I simply wish to be clear and I sometimes fall short of that goal.

The Lord bless you!

Brother Frank,

Hi Chris,

If the shoe fits, you must wear it brother, if not, then you have a clear concience............bro Frank

I expected this sort of response again. However, I will suggest that you have no spiritual right, knowledge or authority to make any such bold assumption about me or any believer with whom you disagree in regard to this matter.

I believe that such rhetoric sets a poor example on how to deal with those with whom we disagree. Even if we strongly disagree, we should make an effort to avoid presenting our views with any semblance of pride or condescension.

As someone else pointed out, there are much more pressing issues in this world. This world is lost and unbelievers are all around us. Many people die without Jesus every minute. I fear that we allow our opinions to distract us from those things or allow them to divide the Body of Christ based upon nothing more than differences of opinion or mere assumptions.

There are much more pressing matters at hand. Regardless of whether or not a believer prayerfully decides to vote or abstain from voting, I pray that we can be spiritual enough to look past such a difference of opinion and see those believers as children of God who love the Lord and seek His face with singlehearted longing to know Him.

Hi bearmaster,

Chris you do not understand that the church.of the New Testament is a spiritual reality whose Kingdom is not if this world.

Paul expounds this very thouroughly in Ephesians. The New Testament reflects a reality for believers that transcends this temporal realm. Believers are citizens of a another kingdom. The one Jesus said that is not if this world.

You are making a declaration about what you think that I do or do not understand. As a believer, I understand that the Church belongs to a Kingdom that is not of this world. However, I also know that Jesus did not take us out of this world. Paul obviously belonged to the Kingdom of Heaven but this didn't stop him from invoking his earthly citizenship...at least twice.

You fail to realize that believers are strangers and aliens in this world. We are bound for the heavenly city. The new Jerusalem that is above. The city if God. Our mandate is to reach the list and disciple hose who come to faith in Jesus Christ. Not vote in political elections.

Again, you are making a declaration about me that is in error. In other words, it is untrue. As a believer, I certainly realize that believers are strangers and aliens in this world. I also understand where I came from, where I am going and that I have a mandate to reach the lost and disciple others in Christ. However, you are assuming that I forfeit those things if I feel led to share a vote in the government of consent where God placed me. This is an incorrect assumption.

Chris do you know who the Anabaptist were? Do you know who Pilgrim Marpek, Conrad Grebel, Michael Sattler, Memos Simon were? Have you heard of Martyrs Mirror? Do the research yourself and you will see that the Anabaptist considered themselves citizens of a heavenly Kingdom
The Anabaptist Story by William Estepp, The Reformers and theiir Stepchildren and Anatomy of a Hybrid hy Leonatd Vetduin reflect the history and theology of the Anabaptist. Also a set of messages by Denny Kenniston on a history of the early Anabaptist reflect thr mindset of another kingdom. Not a political utopias on earth.

Yes, I do know who the Anabaptists were. I also understand who they were not. They were not a denomination with a man-made hierarchy. Furthermore, I understand how the opinions of men splintered the Anabaptists over time into various sects. There are quite a few groups that trace their "ancestry" back to the group.

I cannot do that. Why? I wasn't led to the Lord by an Anabaptist, Amish, Baptist, Pentecostal or any other man. I came to Christ because I desperately hungered to know Him. I had been turned off to Christ by so many piously religious men who thought so highly of their power of deduction that they could pronounce their views as God's own thoughts on many, many matters. When I came to Christ, I stood all alone in a field with no one there except the Lord and me. The Lord didn't ask me my opinions on voting, Anabaptist theology or teaching, or any other form of documented, sectarian propriety. I simply poured out my life to the Lord as water...telling Him that I would trade all that I was and everything that I would ever be if I could just know Him and be His friend.

In terms of Anabaptists: I didn't ask about the men that you mentioned. Those were just a few men. I was asking about the statement that you made that "early" Anabaptists "had it right when they refused to be a part of the state." You can read stories, biographies and biographical sketches of each one of those men. However, it does not mean that ALL of the Anabaptists believed as such.

Remember: The "Anabaptist" term was an informal term that the world applied to individuals who did not submit to the major denominations in this world. The Catholic-inspired religions believed in sprinkling and other doctrines that were in opposition to the Word of God. So, those who felt the need to be "re-baptized" were considered "ana-baptist" ("re-baptized"). Since early "anabaptists" were loosely affiliated in terms of specific doctrines, it would be incorrect to assume that they all believed the same things on every last issue.

And, of course, I know people who claim to be modern Anabaptists who embrace the "old Anabaptist ways." One of them refuses to be involved in any legal or court issue...which wouldn't quite have fit the example used by Paul or the persistent widow. Still, I asked because you were mentioning the beliefs of the Anabaptist as if they were universally agreed upon. And, of course, a "government of consent" did not exist in the time of the Anabaptist, so a comparison or contrast is a difficult one to make anyway.

Chris as I recall the Jews of Jesus day were looking for a temporal kingdom. They failed to see the spiritual nature of his kingdom that is not of this world. I am afraid that you and many American evangelicals are looking for a temporal millenium ruled by the the Republicans or the Tea Party.

Well, let me relieve you from your fears. I do not believe in any sort of "millenium ruled by the Republicans or the Tea Party." I do not believe that we can legislate Christ. As a believer, I spend my life seeking the face of the Lord. The same can be said of many, many believers who feel the liberty to vote in America. I don't know anyone who think that Republicans, Conservatives or Tea Party ideals can bring the salvation of America or resolve spiritual issues. Like all believers, we know that Jesus is the only answer to the question that so few are willing to ask.

So, I hope that this answers or refutes any inclination about what I or many other believers who vote actually feel on the matter. I also hope that this clarity will prevent any future assumptions to be publicly made about us.

Bro you need to focus on the kingdom of Jesus that is not of this world.

I do hope that this isn't another assumption. Brother, I do focus -- all of my time -- upon the kingdom of Jesus Christ. I know many believers, including those who vote, who feel the same way. Our eyes are upon Jesus and our ears are attuned to His Word. We aren't the "worldly" people that some have suggested. Brother, I eat, drink and sleep with the Lord on my mind. I speak to the Lord constantly and my mind is "stayed" upon Him! I am strongly aware that I do not belong in this world...and that I am just passing through. At the same time, I work in this world.

I pay my taxes. I provide for my wife. I mow the lawn. I get the oil changed in my car (even though I pray that it is always oiled). I go grocery shopping. I pay my bills. Yet, these things do not make me "unspiritual." When I pay my bills, or change my truck's oil, or mow the lawn, or work, or eat, or pay my taxes, or vote -- I do so in a constant prayerful way. Like the old Keith Green song ("Song for Josiah"), "the Lord I am always remembering."

Like I said, I will be praying about all of these things...just like I do every election. I pray that my heart is pure before the Lord in such matters too. I only desire to be pleasing in His sight and to never act in contrary to His will. I pray constantly that my steps are ordered of God and my path is made straight. I even appreciate honest suggestions about all such matters. Yet, I will follow the Lord in this. I hope that you can understand it. I am not an unbeliever or an "anything goes" Christian. I am a sincere child of God who desperately longs for Him and who finds that the greatest moments of my life are spent alone with Him in my prayer closet.

I do hope that this makes some sense and gives you an idea of who I am, brother.

Just wondering if the ones who have replied to this thread about not voting for Romney or not voting at all this year have ever voted in the past for a presidential candidate or other office? And if you have voted did you vote for the truly born again, God fearing, spirit filled, repentant candidate?

Hi Brother Frank,

I will re-iterate brother, if the shoe fits then you must wear it, therefore judge yourself brother. Wisdom is justifed by all her children..........bro Frank

Just to relieve your concerns: The shoes that you suggest are not found in my closet. If you don't believe me, I will gladly let you walk a mile or two in them.

Also, I would like to make the public suggestion that we, as fellow believers, aren't given the authority to make far-reaching, public assumptions about the spiritual "eyes/ears" of others or public assumptions of the "children" of the wisdom that we seek from God.

In this case, we must simply trust God first...and trust that those who love Him will seek the Lord on such matters. If we don't agree, we shouldn't assume the worst or make a public indictment about those who arrived to a different opinion.

May the Lord guide us in all of His ways.

Hi Frank,

Yes, you asked me to judge myself...but only after you made an assumption about "eyes to see" and "ears to hear" what you think is correct in this matter.

But, again, let me assure you: I do judge myself. As a believer, I am constantly searching and judging myself (and only after asking the Lord to do this) in my attempt to be more like Him and pleasing in His sight.

I do think that it is a shame when you jump into a discussion, declare your opinion (but not as an opinion) and then subtly suggest that those who disagree lack "eyes to see" and "ears to hear." This is on top of other comments in these sort of discussions in which the faith of those who disagree with a particular perspective if scrutinized. Then, you wonder why someone -- whether myself or others -- would feel "personally slighted" by it. I do find it somewhat insulting...even if I am not personally offended by it.

I understand how many of the brethren here -- from many different backgrounds -- think and present their "sides" of a discussion. I do attempt avoid saying things that would in any way infer that I have "arrived" (or attribute an opinion to having been given by God) to a stronger sense of correct Biblical or spiritual views on this or other similar matters.

I apologize if this isn't more apparent. Like many, I often slip into conflict in some of these discussions, but I think that it is typically when I see public declarations that aren't exactly agreed upon by all believers or when something is declared that might not be the wisest choices of words.

In this case, some brethren have repeated something that they read/heard about a "white horse prophecy." Without citing any source upon which they base their claim, they have declared that this is more than just a myth, a motivation of Mormons and, perhaps, somehow a motivation of one of the presidential candidates.

In the context of this discussion (which has been discussed previously here at SermonIndex): I have never defended the Mormon cult. I believe that Mormonism is NOT part of the true Christian faith with doctrines that were either conjured in the minds of men or from the evil one. The Mormon religion is just as poisonous as the Catholic, Liberation Theology, Jehovah's Witness and other religions that add or take away from the essential Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Yet, the fallacy of the Mormon religion is not the issue in this particular discussion. It is whether or not the "white horse prophecy" is an actual thing that Mormons believe. If it is, then it is something that believers should consider in terms of apologetic evaluation and discernment. However, if it is NOT true (or true in the way that it is presented), than those who declare it as such are guilty of lying about a cult.

Now, you can claim that I am "defending a cult against false charges." That is quite a bold claim...but I suspect that reasonable individuals would understand that my motivation is purity of speech. Since I didn't bring it up or declare this thing in the first place, my "gripe" (so to speak) is with the spreading of a rumor. Yes, even the lost and dying in this world can be lied about.

I am simply trying to caution individuals -- sincere believers -- from lying or spreading a rumor as if it were true. That is all.

As I said, I abhor the Mormon religion. I believe that it is a deceptive cult (like many other deceptive cults). Despite the suggestion, I wouldn't vote for Mitt Romney based upon his Mormon religious views -- although I might vote for him despite it.

However, this is about the need to avoid lying or spreading what could be a rumor based upon a lie (even about a non-Christian cult) in an effort to prove a point. It is important in the context of this discussion because that rumor is what the initial article is about. Those who spread it cannot seem to validate it...and don't seem concerned to do so. It has been publicly rejected by the very people who the rumor says believe it. Instead of acknowledging that, the rumor spreaders or those who embrace it now suggest that those individuals are lying (still, without any proof).

As believers, we should make every attempt to be pure in our speech -- even with our claims, arguments or efforts to share an opinion. We don't have to spread, repeat or rely upon unsubstantiated myths...and we should never declare them as true less we find ourselves guilty of lying.

AS for your suggestion: I think that the caution that I urged "fit" in the context of this thread. However, I have thought about creating a thread about the danger of lying...even if we do it for Jesus. There have been many discussions here on SermonIndex where rumor and myth is presented as truth. Often, it is not identified as merely a myth or rumor. As believers seeking to "judge ourselves," we desperately need to avoid profane and unholy speech. Lying or spreading unsubstantiated rumors as if they were true -- even about a non-Christian cult -- is still a sin.

I think that the words of James chapter 3 are fitting here:

JAMES 3:1-18

1 My brethren, be not many masters, knowing that we shall receive the greater condemnation.

2 For in many things we offend all. If any man offend not in word, the same is a perfect man, and able also to bridle the whole body.

3 Behold, we put bits in the horses' mouths, that they may obey us; and we turn about their whole body.

4 Behold also the ships, which though they be so great, and are driven of fierce winds, yet are they turned about with a very small helm, whithersoever the governor listeth.

5 Even so the tongue is a little member, and boasteth great things. Behold, how great a matter a little fire kindleth!

6 And the tongue is a fire, a world of iniquity: so is the tongue among our members, that it defileth the whole body, and setteth on fire the course of nature; and it is set on fire of hell.

7 For every kind of beasts, and of birds, and of serpents, and of things in the sea, is tamed, and hath been tamed of mankind:

8 But the tongue can no man tame; it is an unruly evil, full of deadly poison.

9 Therewith bless we God, even the Father; and therewith curse we men, which are made after the similitude of God.

10 Out of the same mouth proceedeth blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things ought not so to be.

11 Doth a fountain send forth at the same place sweet water and bitter?

12 Can the fig tree, my brethren, bear olive berries? either a vine, figs? so can no fountain both yield salt water and fresh.

13 Who is a wise man and endued with knowledge among you? let him shew out of a good conversation his works with meekness of wisdom.

14 But if ye have bitter envying and strife in your hearts, glory not, and lie not against the truth.

15 This wisdom descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish.

16 For where envying and strife is, there is confusion and every evil work.

17 But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy.

18 And the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace of them that make peace.

May God help us all as we attempt to be pure of speech. Since that speech is a reflection of our hearts, may the Lord purify our hearts and refine our thoughts and motives according to His Word.

Hi Frank,

It is strange to me that at the possibility that you were slighted, you go to great lengths to defend yourself and about the importance of truth and then you say that the original poster is lying and spreading rumor.

Easy there, Frank. Please don't put words in my mouth. I didn't say that the original poster was lying. That is untrue. I simply urged caution in spreading a rumor about a "white horse prophecy" that is, in fact, an unsubstantiated rumor/myth that has been denied by the very people who are supposed to believe it.

Secondly, I hope that you understand the difference between "defending" one's self and simply setting the record straight when someone (subtly) makes an allegation.

In this thread, you mentioned how it takes "eyes to see" and "ears to hear" in order to arrive to the opinion -- which wasn't presented as an opinion -- that you shared with another brother. The subtle accusation was that those of us who do not share that opinion lack properly discerning spiritual eyes and ears. When I mentioned it to you, you mentioned something about how if a shoe fits that I should wear it and then told me to judge myself.

I learned a long time ago that individuals wouldn't be accused of "defending" themselves if they weren't also "attacked" for either personal reasons or for the caution that they urge.

It seems that you have made a judgement call that someone is lying brother, you need to re-read the original post and point out who is lying. The context of this thread is the laying out of evidences of what the Mormons believe and the OP made an excellent case. Your sole refutation of the OP is that five years after announcing this prophecy publicly, the head of the Mormons then renounced it. That is your sole evidence to refute the OP, the words of the leader of a Satanic cult?

Frank, this is simply untrue. I cannot understand how you could even come to such a fallacious conclusion.

Again, I did NOT say that the original poster was lying. I simply pointed out that the "white horse prophecy" is nothing more than a myth and rumor. Christians are NOT supposed to be given to such things. We are not supposed to spread myths, old wives tales and the like (I Timothy 4:7). This is true regardless if the subject of those rumors are true believers, unbelievers or members of a cult.

As for the rumor/myth itself: There has been no citation...no evidence...no proof presented to substantiate it. You just claimed that the prophecy was presented and then renounced five years later. So, where is your credible sources for this proclamation? The very cult in question denies this (which is odd given that they don't deny so many other crazy things that they renounced).

Now, to be very clear: This prophecy could be based upon something real. However, YOU do not know it. I don't know it. I have looked into this intently with more than just a few internet searches or books about the Mormon cult. All that I can find is the supposed "prophecy" that is alleged and the fact that I have never seen any evidence that the Mormon cult ever embraced it.

So, an honest presentation of this would be to clearly introduce it as a rumor/myth. Yet, that isn't what happened here. A few individuals repeated this rumor/myth as a means to substantiate why it would be wrong to vote for Mitt Romney. The rumor wasn't presented as a rumor. It wasn't stated that the Mormons claim that this isn't even true. It was presented as either a fact or something important to consider when thinking about whether or not to vote for Governor Romney.

Wow. As I said Chris, if you have any credible evidence to suggest that the OP is merely lies and rumors, you should present that rather than the ususal " I dont know anyone who believes that," that is not evidence.

Again, brother, this is not true. I didn't say that the original poster was lying. Brother Greg simply posted a article that was copied from a website that he cited. I obviously oppose the teachings and doctrines of Mormonism (that was never in doubt). I am simply calling into question the presentation of this rumor/myth as a fact.

And, I didn't say that "I don't know anyone who believes that" in the context of this rumored and mythical "prophecy." And, brother, you need to constrain yourself from further attacks when I truthfully say that I don't know anyone who believes a stereotype that you or others espouse about entire groups. It is WRONG to stereotype or label a group based upon what you or others may deduce about them.

Could you imagine how SermonIndex would be perceived if we judged it upon what others might say about this community? If worldly men deduce that SermonIndex is "a Calvinist community" because a few loud individuals share their views about the matter, it would be wrong for them to proclaim a public judgment about the website based upon a portion of the individuals involved here.

We shouldn't be so easily given to stereotypes, assumptions, myths and rumors. We shouldn't be given to repeating them too. Our lips should be cleaner than that.

Earlier Miccah suggested that he merely was disagreeing with you and presenting what the Lord had laid on his heart. Are you saying the Lord has told you something different? Are you saying that the Lord did not lay this on the brothers heart. You seem to have a very big problem anytime someone says " The Lord spoke to me." God does speak to His people, and He leads them and He guides them and He is very clearly laying it on the hearts of many saints about the dangers of having a Satanic cult leader as their leader. Now you would think that this would be obvious, but as I said before, we live in days of blindness and a sleeping church..............bro Frank

Maybe this is the root of the problem, Frank. You are again making an assumption about me that is simply untrue.

I do believe that God speaks to men in this day. I could tell you stories that would give goosebumps about how the Lord has spoken to me or led me in supernatural ways.

I could express how God even told me the names of individuals that I did not know while I was out sharing the Lord in malls and streets. I could express how the Lord told me specific "secrets of the heart" of certain individuals and how I shared those things while sharing the Gospel with them...and how the Lord used those things to draw them to Christ. I could tell you of visions, dreams and words that the Lord has shared with me. I could tell you about how a house that I lived in was hit by a tornado, but I was rescued because someone had knocked on my door (and I went to answer it just as the tornado hit and tore of the roof and other things everywhere except the door where I stood answering the knock). There are many, many things that the Lord has done in my life for which I do not share here.

At the same time, I believe that there is a difference between claiming that the "Lord led me" to a particular truth that is anything but universal for the Body of Christ. I have strong opinions about many things. At times, I have been ostracized by many people in the churches that I attended because they knew my opinions on certain subjects.

When I was young in Christ, I sometimes had a difficult time knowing the difference between what was from the Lord and what was an opinion or conclusion that I had reached. As a young believer, I sometimes shared those things with the ol' "God told me" or "the Lord showed me" or "the Lord led me to this" rhetoric. I have since learned to distinguish between what is undoubtedly the Lord's words and what are merely conclusions that I reached on matters.

In this case, there are many believers who have a different conclusion -- after prayer, fasting and study -- than the one that you, Miccah or some others may have arrived to. It would be prideful and arrogant of us to share those things as if "God told me" and then publicly dismiss those of you who disagree as not having "eyes to see" or "ears to hear" what God is saying on the matter.

Of course, in this case, I haven't even received any indication from the Lord about my vote. I currently feel inclined to vote for Mitt Romney -- but as I said DESPITE his religious views. However, I will remain in constant prayer about this matter through election day.

At the same time, I am not to be moved by the whims or claims of other brethren who have arrived to their own conclusion on the matter. I certainly wouldn't guess (or second-guess) their relationship with Christ simply because they have a difference of opinion on the matter that they arrived to after as much prayer direction as I have sought.

So, yes, we are living in the "days of blindness." And, yes, the Church in America (and elsewhere) is largely asleep in the Light. Yet, we are not the Lord's eye doctor. We are not the sleep specialist. We are not the Lord's shoe-inspector (even if we suggest that the "shoe fits"). We are not the authority by which we can present "white horse prophecy" as if it were anything other than a myth or rumor knowing that others might also repeat it as such. We are not even the authority by which others should base each and every doctrinal conclusion on non-essential matters.

So, our lips should be pure enough to only present the truth. If something doesn't pass the muster of undeniable truth, then we should disclaim it as much. There is nothing wrong with saying that something is a myth or rumor if we aren't -- or shouldn't be -- entirely certain that it is true. There is nothing wrong with saying "I don't know" if it is said in honesty. This doesn't make us less spiritual. However, there is a danger in the opposite attitude.

Brother, I hope that you understand that this is not personal. I am not endeavoring to "defend" myself from your suggestions. I am simply trying to clarify something that you said that wasn't accurate in a description of me or what I believe. And, of course, I certainly believe that the Lord speaks to us and guides His people in this day. However, I also know that many cults arose from what "God said" to certain individuals. We must rightly divide the Word of Truth...and we must be careful when we present something as being from the Lord or being from ourselves. And, of course, we must avoid gossip, myths and rumors. I believe that God is pleased with such honesty and purity of speech.

But refuse profane and old wives' fables, and exercise thyself rather unto godliness. - I Timothy 4:7

Hi Frank,

I agree that we probably will not reach a consensus on the specific issue of voting or whether a believer can believe that Mitt Romney is a better choice for a presidential term in comparison with Barack Obama despite their religious views. And, yes, I would be delighted if we would refrain from guessing or attempting to judge the spiritual "eyes" and "ears" of those with whom we disagree.

As for asking me to present evidence: That is an issue. Why? Because I am not the one repeating the rumor/myth. You see, in previous discussions on SermonIndex, individuals have introduced accusations and then asked others to "prove" them wrong. That is not the proper way to discuss an issue. This is what evolutionists and global warming activists do to try and substantiate their positions in some classrooms. The burden of proof is with the person making the claim. If there is no evidence, then there is no real rationale in trying to "disprove" something that was never fully proven in the first place.

However, I have cited (in a couple of these discussions, complete with links) where the leaders of the Mormon cult have refuted this rumor/myth that is often repeated (mostly by non-Mormons). There are many, many things wrong with the Mormon cult, but we can't conclude that the "white horse prophecy" is undoubtedly one of them since we cannot prove its validity in the first place. It is, after all, just a rumor and myth. I am simply urging caution before we spread that rumor or find ourselves given to it.

Seems like threads get hijacked by people who are slighted and it all becomes about the person who believes he is slighted and then the thread is shut down.

Oddly enough, I find that those individuals who feel that the thread gets hijacked by people who they assume feel "slighted" are often the ones who are actually doing the "slighting" in question. Now, I have no desire to shut down this discussion. Nor do I feel that I am getting my eyes off "the ball." The original article that was pasted in the original post was about a "white horse prophecy." Since there has never been any proof presented here or elsewhere that it is authentic, then I simply urge caution in regard to spreading it (or, at least, spreading it as a fact).

In regard to Governor Mitt Romney: He is certainly a member of the Mormon cult. However, I have seen no evidence that he is a "leader" of the cult any more than we could conclude that a "deacon" or Sunday School teacher at the First Baptist Church of Albuquerque, NM (if there is such a congregation) can be called "a leader" of the Southern Baptist Convention.

And, more important, I do disagree with the premise for which you are trying to arrive. I do not vote for a president on the basis of his religious views. I simply think that it is possible to conclude that one man might be a better choice over the other despite their religious views or affiliations.

I have known believers in churches for which, if I had to choose between that person or an unbeliever, I might prefer the unbeliever in a position of employment. That is not saying that I would disagree with their faith. It is just that some believers are (sadly) bad or unskilled workers. I have been asked to be a "reference" for some believers for which I could never give them a ringing endorsement in matters of work ethic or skill...even if I appreciate that brother in terms of his faith.

In this case, the choice for Americans is between two individuals who belong to cult religious groups. The third choice (outside of minor candidates who have no chance of winning in a two-party system) is to simply abstain from voting. However, this too has consequences.

Previously, I explained how a former member of the Clinton campaign team (during one of my university classes ) admitted to spreading "misinformation" and "rumors" about Bob Dole and George H. W. Bush. They didn't do this with the expectation of earning the votes of Christians -- but in the hope that the Christians would embrace it, spread it and that other Christians would simply stay away from the voting booths on election day or vote for the more conservative candidates. They presented statistical evidence in which those extremely close elections (separated by a few percentage points) were "decided" by the individuals who simply stayed away from the polls or voted for a third party candidate.

I also used an analogy about a bus driver. In a practical sense, if I needed a ride to work, I would prefer to ride the bus driven by the more experienced driver (with a better driving record) than the one with the bad record. The religious views of the drivers aren't quite so consequential when I am concerned with arriving to work safely and on time. Of course, I also pray for the salvation of the drivers too. :-)

So, your "yes" or "no" answer is not quite so "cut-and-dry" when it might be a bit loaded and is meant to reinforce a position for which I disagree. Yes, Mitt Romney is a Mormon. Yes, Barack Obama is a Liberation Theology cult member. However, no, I have not seen anything that would make me think that Mitt Romney is a "leader" of the Mormon cult. And, in the broader picture, yes, I still might think that Mitt Romney might be a better choice than the alternative of having Barack Obama in that position for another four years...and this is despite any religious affiliation or views that he might hold.

So, I hope that this series of "yes" and "no" answers in regard to specific parts of your question and conclusion might provide the clarity that you asked for.

by ccchhhrrriiisss on 2012/7/21 12:33:26
=========================================

Hi! 'Ccchhhrrriiisss'

I'm jus' droppin' in to say that, while I don't know much about this subject matter (Mormons an' whatever), I did very much enjoy reading the bits and pieces referencing your personal experience and testimony.
Thanks for sharing it.

Frank,

One really has to question why this kind of statement is made when it it public knowledge that Romney was a Bishop in the Mormon cult, now what is a Bishop in Momonism........

First of all, I applaud anyone who feels the need to "really has to question this kind of statement." I don't expect anyone to take my word, opinion or view on this matter at anything more than the words of a man. We should do this with all men.

This afternoon, I was reminded of something that Brother Paul Washer said at one of the conferences. He was making a statement about "trust" in regard to a young man with his daughter (or, perhaps, his son with a young lady). He was asked whether he "trusted" that they would be fine and he said something to the effect that he doesn't trust them because he doesn't trust himself. I suspect that he meant that -- even with a heart that longs for God -- Brother Paul Washer is fully aware of his own flawed humanity and nature enough to be so trusting of anyone with his child.

In this context, I was thinking of the propensity of believers (myself included) to assert something that we feel "sure" of and present it as a fact. We can blame it on God ("God told me," "God showed me," "the Lord led me to this," etc...), but it doesn't necessarily mean that it is true, that we should share it as such or that we should accept it as such. We should welcome it when individuals test everything that we have to say. It shouldn't be offensive when we all are seeking truth.

As for the "bishop" position:

Bishop is the highest priesthood office of the Aaronic priesthood in the Latter Day Saint movement, and is leader of the Aaronic priesthood in a given ward or congregation. It is almost always held by one who already holds the Melchizedek Priesthood office of high priest and who serves as the leader of a local congregation of church members. The Latter Day Saint concept of the office differs significantly from the role of bishops in other Christian denominations, being in some respects more analogous to a pastor or parish priest. Each bishop serves with two counselors, which together form a bishopric.

Romney was also " Stake President," and he held these offices for ten years. Now what is a stake? A stake is an administrative unit composed of multiple congregations in denominations of the Latter Day Saint movement. These mutilple congregations are comparable of a diocese in the Cathlolic church.Now this is public knowledge, the positions of Mitt Romney. Anyone who is involved in any kind of debate about Mitt Romney knows this or should know this. To say that he held a position that was the same as a Sunday school teacher or perhaps a deacon of a single church, well, in truth, I truly do not know where that is coming from.

In the statement that I was responding to, you mentioned that Governor Romney was "a leader of a Satanic cult" (Mormonism). The word "leader" can mean many different things. He was NOT a head of the Mormon church or in a position of institutional authority. He was merely a lay leader of his local congregation and area. Their cult is not run like traditional Christian churches. Their "titles" can be just as frivolous as those in "high church" traditions of "Christianity."

In the sense of "cult leadership," Romney wasn't appointed to a role in national leadership of the Mormon cult as a whole, nor was he directing the views or philosophies of that cult. He was just an unpaid lay worker in that cult. To suggest that he was a "cult leader" is like suggesting that an unpaid volunteer who oversees the distribution of clothing for Salvation Army centers here in the Bay Area is a "leader" of the Salvation Army. So, this is what I meant when I responded to the term "leader" in your statement.

Yet, even your statement/question about leadership is somewhat beside-the-point. Like I said, Romney is undoubtedly a member of the cult. He was a faithful adherent to that cult. However, Americans (including Christians) are not voting for that cult. The election is about which man would be the better choice for the next term as president. And, like I also said, many people -- including believers -- may prayerfully decide to vote for Mitt Romney despite his religious views.

In regard to this topic, we are discussing the rumor that has been repeated about the "white horse prophecy." Since there just isn't any evidence to validate the claim, we must be careful about repeating it. If we feel a need to repeat it, we should be clear that it is nothing more than an unsubstantiated rumor/myth that the Mormons themselves deny.

I hope that clarifies my response to you.

Thank you, brother Blayne.