Questions For Mitt Romney

"How many might be reading this thread? Ten?"

Last time I checked, about 10 minutes ago, total views were 560. That's an official Free Republic stat.

Upon what data do you base your suggestion that only 10 people have been reading the thread?

161 posted on 05/07/2007 12:27:53 AM PDT by Bonaparte

"And yes I will submit the abuse button because Slander is not legitimate either!"

Say, you didn't forget to hit that "abuse" button, did you?

I mean something as serious as "slander" shouldn't go unchecked, as you know.

Sorry, what am I saying? Of course you did your duty and reported abuse. And realizing the importance of curbing my unfortunate tendency to "slander," you did it over 2 hours ago.

Wonder why I'm still posting and none of my posts have been deleted?

You don't suppose the moderator is asleep at the switch, do you?

Could it be that the moderator has no intention of catering to cry-babies who can't engage in reasoned debate with the big boys?

162 posted on 05/07/2007 12:35:14 AM PDT by Bonaparte

To: Neu Pragmatist

"I know several , must be hard to believe, but I do."

Jeepers, NP, I believe you, ok? And I'll bet those several are just the ones you know you know. If you really give it some thought, I'll bet you could come up with a dozen.

Relax. I believe you.

163 posted on 05/07/2007 12:39:25 AM PDT by Bonaparte

To some degree, I think this is a question of legitimacy. Would anyone vote for a POTUS candidate who happened to be a member of the church of Scientology? Perhaps.

I would not, and I place the Mormon church on par with Scientology, both are nutty cults. I could not trust the judgment of such a member enough for the office of the presidency.

Like you, I would have no problem with voting for any stripe of Christian or even a Jew, provided they were conservative as well.

I would also happily consider a Hindu, Tauist or Buddhist. (That would be a hoot!)

An atheist candidate would give me a rash, but I could still cast the vote.

164 posted on 05/07/2007 4:41:51 AM PDT by Enosh (†)

I always like to respond to accusations about the BoM being racist this way.

“Well all the “Whities” died in the end so it must be reverse racist.”

165 posted on 05/07/2007 5:20:58 AM PDT by Rameumptom (Gen X= they killed 1 in 4 of us)

I just googled Richard Packman's name. He's an atheist and ex-mormon. He is also a flaming Lib. I find it interesting that you are promoting an atheist flaming lib on this site. Go back and read the purpose of this forum. I also find it interesting that you so readily believe this Liberal. Perhaps you also believe other Lib whoppers (Ted Kennedy tried to save the girl, 9/11 conspiracies, Bush lied.) This wuote from Ricahrd Packman about sums it up.

Richard Packman "The minister had written several books with titles like "Liberal Religion" and "Religion Without Revelation." I bought them, and read them. It was basically a humanistic, non-theological message, and it appealed to me because it made sense, especially compared to the nonsense I had rejected in Mormonism.

HOW I BECAME AN ATHEIST by RICHARD PACKHAM

Many of the questions are blatantly false about what I believe. For the others the thought came to mind. Wouldn't any real Christian want or believe this?

>>>Mormons believe that when Christ returns to earth, a millennium of peace will begin under Christ's rule

Most Christians I know believe Christ will return to rule and reign at the Second Coming. Why are you trying to turn that belief into a negative when it comes to Mormons? Do you belive Christ will return? Technically the Bible doesn't say theocracy but Kingdom. IOW, he will be a King and we his subjects. It's not exactly Democratic but we will be free.

>>>Or covenanting with God to follow him.

I always find it weird that people want to rant and rave about what goes on in the temple then hold up the example of "they make personal Covenants to follow God." Huh, don't most Christians covenant to follow Jesus. It is implied in taking on you his name "Christian" that you are his follower. Granted we aren't perfect about it. Are you equally worried when a Protestant feels they have had a personal relationship or committment to God?

I don't have the time right now to go into the rest of the accusations but will supply a link with answers for those who care.

lds.org is the Official Church site

mormon.org answers basic beliefs

LDSfair

LDSfair is an apologetics site. It tears apart many of the false assertions here such as "you have to practice polygamy to get into heaven." All you have to do is type in polygamy or any other topic in the search section and you will find articles that answer most anti-mormon claims.

166 posted on 05/07/2007 5:42:07 AM PDT by Rameumptom (Gen X= they killed 1 in 4 of us)

To: Vigilanteman

During her CPAC speech, Coulter apparently endorsed Romney, saying, "I think he's probably our best candidate":

COULTER: What do I think of Governor Romney's candidacy for presidency? I think he's probably our best candidate. I mean, I think it is fair to say -- and this is coming from someone who supported Pete DuPont, Alan Keyes, Pat Buchanan, SteveForbes. So, you know, it's not like I won't go for an underdog. But I think we have to be serious about this, and I think our choice is among Gingrich, Giuliani, McCain and Romney. And Giuliani is very, very liberal. When this country gets to the point -- I mean, I have a love letter to him in my current book, Godless. What he did for New York was magnificent. But when this country gets to the point where both presidential candidates support abortion, I think we can hang it up as a country.

And McCain, I think has some problems, because everyone who supports him would have to switch party registrations to vote for him. I love Gingrich. I think he's brilliant. He was crucial, the man for his time. We don't know if he's running for president, but assuming he is, I kind of think his time has passed, and I don't know, you know, it could come back again, like '80s music, but I think his time is over. And you have to say about Romney, he tricked liberals into voting for him. I like a guy -- I like a guy who hoodwinks liberals so easily. And also, the one thing that I have a very soft spot for is that I love Mormons. And the reason why I love Mormons, well, among other things, is -- you may have forgotten this -- Bill Clinton in Utah in 1992 came in third in Utah. Now, that's a fine state.

167 posted on 05/07/2007 5:52:31 AM PDT by Rameumptom (Gen X= they killed 1 in 4 of us)

To: Bonaparte; nowandlater

Most Christians I know (yes that even includes those of the "Mormon" variety) mix up the Curse of Ham and the Curse of Cain (and sometimes the curse of the Canaanites, to make it even more confusing.)

This link has the best explanation I have found in helping to differentiate the curses as it pertains to skin color or rather blood lineage.

The Mormon Faith & Black Folks

The Black Mormon Homepage

It has some notable black Mormons including Gladys Kinght and Thurel Bailey from the NBS. A former founder of Black Panthers, Eldridge Cleaver is now Mormon.

168 posted on 05/07/2007 6:03:04 AM PDT by Rameumptom (Gen X= they killed 1 in 4 of us)

Mitt would be my first choice if this were peacetime and the economy were the main focus.

Since this is war time, I prefer someone with military experience, lean mean Duncan Hunter over Stockholm-syndrome victim John McCain.

But the women in my household (who outnumber me 4-1) all prefer Mitt.

169 posted on 05/07/2007 6:38:44 AM PDT by Vigilanteman (Are there any men left in Washington? Or are there only cowards? Ahmad Shah Massoud)

I'm pretty sick and didn't sleep well last night. I won't be all that coherent, but I'll take a stab at some of your questions/comments.

Do you agree with God's view of other churches, as quoted by Joseph Smith?

Plenty of churches and their leaders say unkind things about other churches. At different times, the Roman Catholics have been willing to kill anyone who wasn't a Roman Catholic. In fact, one of those times was in the 30's and 40's when the Croatian Nazis captured Serbians and made them choose between accepting Roman Catholicism or being killed. Many were killed. That bit of ugly history doesn't disqualify Roman Catholics from the presidency. There are members and leaders of Protestant churches today who insist that all Roman Catholics will go to Hell. Their fringe beliefs don't mean that a Protestant politician is going to mistreat Roman Catholic citizens.

According to your church's Articles of Faith, number eight, the Book of Mormon is the "word of God." Do you believe that?

According to most church's teachings, their books are the "Word of God." Why are you asking this question? If a Roman Catholic politician said that the Roman Catholic Bible was the "Word of God" even though that Bible is different from the commonly used Protestant Bible, does that mean that a Roman Catholic politician would be a bad political leader for Protestants? If a Protestant believes that the Protestant Bible is the "Word of God," does his belief mean that he'll be a bad political leader for Jewish, agnostic, atheist, Roman Catholic, and Muslim Americans? This question seems more designed to split people on religious grounds than to understand what Mitt Romney would do in office.

According to the Book of Mormon there are only two churches: the "church of the Lamb of God [presumably the Mormon church]" and the "church of the devil," "the whore of all the earth." Do you agree with that Mormon scripture?

This question is no different than the previous question. The Bible says some hard things about the Jews. That doesn't mean that a fundamentalist Christian politician can't do what is right for all American citizens including those who are Jewish. The point of the First Amendment is that we should have a government that respects all citizens equally even if some citizens in high political office are members of churches that hold very negative views of other citizens' religions.

According to the Book of Mormon a dark skin is a curse imposed by God on the unrighteous and their descendants as a punishment for sin. Do you agree with that doctrine?

The LDS church changed this doctrine in the 70's or maybe the 80's. No Mormon who follows church doctrine still believes that dark skin is a curse. Do you have any evidence based on Mitt Romney's public life to suggest that he's ever been prejudiced against people of color?

According to Mormon doctrine, the president of the Mormon church is a prophet of God, receiving revelations and commandments (God's laws) directly from God. Do you believe that?

Again, would you ask a Roman Catholic politician if he believed that the Pope was infallible? Would his answer really matter in determining whether he'd do a good job in a political office?

One of the most sacred rituals for adult Mormons, performed only in a Mormon temple, is a ceremony called "the endowment." Have you undergone this ritual? If so, in what year?

Why should I as a voter care? Would you ask a Christian candidate whether he's been baptized or gone through some other confirmation ceremony?

Do you have such a temple recommend now, indicating that you are in good standing in your church?

I see no relevance to this one either.

In the secret Mormon temple ceremony Mormons take an oath of obedience to "the law of the Lord." Did you take that oath?

Is there something in this oath that should bother me as a non-Mormon? Plenty of churches as people to take some kind of oath, affirmation, or creed. Just because one has taken an oath saying that he will be compassionate to the poor doesn't mean that he's going to support all kinds of entitlement programs. Honorable people can disagree about what actions are truly compassionate, and most intelligent people understand that the effect of most entitlements has been anything but compassionate.

Before 1990, the endowment ceremony required members to take an oath of secrecy not to reveal anything that happened in the temple under penalty of death. Did you take that oath?

How many examples can you give of LDS people taking this penalty literally and killing fellow members who revealed these secrets? The "under penalty of death" wording may have been seen as symbolic. The whole "skull and bones" nonsense that President Bush did in college is not something that I think anyone should be proud of, but it doesn't mean that President Bush is a bad president. Furthermore, if the oath was changed in 1990, then people must have begun to see long before that it was silly. I'm not going to hold all of a church's previous mistakes against a member who is running for office.

In the temple ceremony Mormons also take a secret oath to "consecrate your time, talents and everything which the Lord has blessed you, or with which he may bless you, to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints..." Did you take that oath? Would you consider the office of the presidency of the U.S. to be a "blessing" with which the Lord had blessed you?

Again, all Christian faiths include the idea that everything a Christian does should be aimed at advancing Christianity. That idea doesn't mean that Christian politicians don't understand that the First Amendment gives people the right to be non-Christians and that a Christian politician's obligation to God is to do right in the office and not to advance the agenda of the church through the wrongful use of power.

Mormons teach that by obedience to all the commandments of Mormonism, a Mormon may attain the highest degree of heaven and ultimately become a god, creating and ruling over his own dominion. Do you believe that? Is this your ultimate personal goal?

The Bible teaches that by following Christ and doing His will, the Christian can have "crowns in heaven." If a Christian politician said that his ultimate personal goal was to have these crowns in heaven, would that mean that he is less likely to be a good president? Again, the question seems to be spinning Mr. Romney's religious beliefs to make him look bad as president. I think that spin is unfair and inaccurate.

Do you believe then that there will be polygamous families in Mormon heaven?

Do you believe that King David and King Solomon will be in heaven? If a Christian politician believes that these polygamous Jewish kings will be in heaven, does that mean that he's less likely to be a good president? Again, this question just seems to be more mindless religion-baiting.

Do you feel that such anger is justified?

Are people justified in being angry when Christian churches pray for the conversion of non-Christians? If a politician doesn't feel that this kind of anger is justified, does that mean he'd do a bad job in office?

Do feel that these early polygamous and adulterous marital practices of the church founder were really commanded by God?

The Mormon church no longer endorses polygamy, so again, the question is moot.

Most Mormons believe that during that time, Mormons will be Christ's appointed officers and that the law will conform to Mormon teachings. Do you believe that?

Much Christian teaching has a similar millennial period where Christians will reign with Christ. Does this belief disqualify Christian politicians?

According to Mormon scripture (Doctrine and Covenants 135:3), Joseph Smith did more than any other man except Jesus Christ "for the salvation of men in this world." Do you agree with that, keeping in mind the contributions of men like the Apostles, Saint Paul, Thomas Aquinas, Saint Augustine and others?

Again, this question is just religion-baiting. If someone is a member of LDS, he's going to put a very high value on Smith's work to reveal what he believes is God's will and direction. The question is just another version of the "Is the Pope infallible" question. The question does nothing to show us what Mr. Romney will do in office.

I'm going back to bed. Your questions really add nothing to debate about who our next president should be. Instead, you've religion-baited Mr. Romney and all Mormons who seek office in this country. Religions may follow God, but they are administered by people, and people sometimes do evil things. All religions will have some skeletons in the closet. Those skeletons have nothing to do with whether a member of that religion is right for a particular office.

Bill

170 posted on 05/07/2007 8:32:54 AM PDT by WFTR (Liberty isn't for cowards)

"He is also a flaming Lib. I find it interesting that you are promoting an atheist flaming lib on this site."

LOL! The voice of desperation!

Good luck in your "guilt by association" campaign.

171 posted on 05/07/2007 9:50:45 AM PDT by Bonaparte

"A former founder of Black Panthers, Eldridge Cleaver is now Mormon."

Really?

I could have sworn he's been dead for about 10 years. Do you guys just prop him up in a chair at church?

Anyway, congrats on such a "distinguished" and notable convert. I still remember the scams he was running on lonely, gullible old ladies in Berkeley a few years before he died. Got one of them thrown out of her house, while her legal ownership was being challenged. It made the news.

Say, what year did he became a Mormon?

172 posted on 05/07/2007 10:07:49 AM PDT by Bonaparte

To: Bonaparte; TAdams8591

I went to Catholic parochial grade school in the 1980's. We did not have a Bible study class. We had religion class. Part of it involved studying the Bible, but we also studied a lot of other things, including the Catechism, Church history, and liturgy.

The Catholic parochial school curriculum is pretty standard accross the United States, so I seriously doubt there are many American Catholic grade schools that have a class specifically devoted to Bible study. You mind find an advanced electives specializing in the Bible at the university level, and maybe at some elite Catholic high schools, but definitely not at the grade school level.

The reason for all this is, of course, that for Catholics, unlike Protestants, the Bible is not the only source of revelation. We also believe that the sacred tradition is essential to understanding the truths that Jesus entrusted to his Church. Hence we do not study the Bible in isolation, but rather, we study both the Bible and tradition as a package.

173 posted on 05/07/2007 10:34:55 AM PDT by curiosity

I had a Mormon roommate one year in college. He was a remarkably upstanding and temperate person (no drinking, smoking, etc.) In my experience, all Mormons are like this. They seem to be significantly more temperate than the average Christian, even.

I don’t know the details of their religion, but if those beliefs result in their people having the kind of character they do, then it must be a decent and acceptable religion, as opposed to radical Islam, which turns you into a violent homicidal maniac.

The only way I see your questions as relevent is in a basic audit of the religion to make sure it’s not like radical Islam....OR, to make sure they don’t believe in some specific event, at which time, they go beserk and start slaughtering people in the name of their god.

If we’re going to go the questionable route of questioning religious dogma, lets also create a list of questions for all the various sects of Christianity, so they can go at each other.

For instance:

In the debate only 3 candidates indicated they believed in evolution. ‘Do you believe in evolution and why - if not, how long did it take God to create the world, according to your church’s teachings?’

(For Catholics) ‘How do you excuse all the injustices and corruption in the Catholic church’s past?’

(For Sunday-worshippers) ‘How do you rationalize worhshipping on SUN-day, rather than on the 7th day, as indicated in the 10 Commandments. Are you aware of the historical earthly switch from Saturday to Sunday to appease the pagans?

The Rapture (mentioned earlier)

End time events and prophecy: ‘Do you belief the U.S. is the ‘beast of Revelation’, and if so, is the 3-horned multi-headed lion represented by Israel? Is it our duty to enable end-time prophecy regarding all nations attacking Israel?’

Etc.

Another reason this tact is questionable is pragmatic. What percentage of your fellow churchgoers are dogmatic/orthodox/knowing the inner details of their church’s doctrine? It’s a small percentage. Whole churches popular nowdays exist solely on the idea of containing no dogma or detailed mythology (non-denominational, etc.). Dilute that percentage even more with casual church-goers, and non-church goers and you have the makings of...irrelevance.

174 posted on 05/07/2007 10:42:17 AM PDT by Swordfished

I have to confess that I sometimes get in a helpful mood. It usually passes without incident, if I just lie down for awhile. But sometimes, like today, I let it get the upper hand and I start helping people. Yep, I'm the guy who scrawls on the public restroom mirrors, "Stop me before I help someone again."

Now that you understand that it's a compulsion and I can't "help" myself, I'll help you with your "guilt by association" project. It's a worthy cause you've taken on. In fact, I think it's worthy of expansion and elaboration. So with that in mind, let's get rolling.

Nat Hentoff, whose articles have been routinely posted here at Free Republic for years (here's one right here) is a self-proclaimed atheist. And not only that, but many of his articles posted at Free Republic have been culled from the online pages of The Village Voice and The Nation, notoriously left-wing publications.

Given your laudable concern for the corruption of this website by atheist influence, I think you're the ideal man to lead the charge and set us all back on the path of righteousness.

I know you will spare no effort to contact these FR posters and set them straight. I also know you're far too resolute to let prattle about "ad hominem" argument distract you from this mission.

And while you're at it, it might not be a bad idea to have a serious talk with Jim Robinson, the man who owns and operates this website. I know this may come as a shock, but he's a registered democrat. As I'm sure you'll agree, this sends the wrong message and is bound to arouse murmurrings about the sincerity of his claim to be a conservative. A good strong dose of reproval and instruction from you is all Jim will need and he'll be a new man, free of unsavory association.

Now get out there and make us proud!

175 posted on 05/07/2007 10:51:07 AM PDT by Bonaparte

Thankyou so much for the intelligent and informative reply.

The point of my original post to Teri was that the RCC does not just leave their young charges ignorant of what's in the Bible. The church rightly recognizes that this is part of building strong Christians who are not taken in (as Teri was) by misrepresentation of Biblical account.

Accordingly, the parochial schools have always striven to familiarize students with the content of Scripture, even though this instruction may be structured differently than it is in the Protestant denominations.

176 posted on 05/07/2007 12:39:04 PM PDT by Bonaparte

To: Bonaparte; LeGrande; Jim Robinson

Interesting you focused on the atheist part. I have friends who are atheist and have no problem with atheists posting on this forum. (Legrande, for example an atheist who is "conservative"). The part I really care about is the Liberal Secular Humanistic philosophies promoted by the author. Your lack to fully disclose information about your liberal source shows your bias. You haven't answered how his liberal (or even atheist?) views would influence his depiction of mostly conservative religious Mormons.

Also you referenced Jim Robinson and Nat Hentoff (re: post #175) in a bid for "not guilty by association". You are supposed to ping those you are gossiping about. (Nat Hentoff apparently doesn't go by that moniker here, I was unable to ping him. You aren't outing a Freeper are you? A google showed that he considers himself a "Jewish atheist")

As for Democrats my mother was one and raised me one. So I am not "shocked and awed" at all like it appears you would hope. I have more respect for her than any conservative I've met. She was truly Christlike. However when it came to politics I feel she was among one of the elect who was deceived. As a Mormon Democrat she had a mix of Conservative values with Feminist liberal tendencies. So what is your point about Jim being Democrat?

177 posted on 05/07/2007 1:17:49 PM PDT by Rameumptom (Gen X= they killed 1 in 4 of us)

To: Bonaparte; Jim Robinson

My apologies Jim Robinson,

In post #175 Bonaparte alleged you (Jim Robinson) were a Democrat. I should have researched the matter before I replied to he and you in post #177. he perhaps is getting you mixed up with one "James Robinson" a senate democrat in 1861.

I found this article which seems to clearly state Jim's allegiances.

Statement by Jim Robinson Regarding the State of our Free Republic

The above is in response to the recent attacks on my character, my honesty and my devotion to principle. If anyone here really believes that I am dishonest, disloyal or unprincipled, then I wish you would resign from this website and leave us be.

I intend to use the Free Republic website to advance the causes of freedom and Liberty. I love my country dearly and do not wish to see it destroyed by any enemy, foreign or domestic, and this includes terrorists, socialists, communists, anarchists, nazis, liberals, democrats or anyone else.

Again my apologies Jim.

Rameumptom

178 posted on 05/07/2007 1:31:20 PM PDT by Rameumptom (Gen X= they killed 1 in 4 of us)

"So what is your point about Jim being Democrat?"

You really are humorless, aren't you? Can't you recognize satire when you see it? My hunch is that you can't recognize it any more than you can recognize when you are making an ad hominem argument, ie. that seeing value in the questions Mr. Packham suggests for Mr. Romney, constitutes endorsement ("promotion") of Mr. Packham's personal philosophy and spiritual persuasion.

By your reasoning, anyone who saw value in something written by that other atheist, Nat Hentoff, would also be "promoting an atheist." Oops, pardon me -- a "Jewish atheist" -- that added distinction seems to hold some special significance for you.

I can well imagine that you might consider those conservatives who have not only agreed with some of Hentoff's positions but have lavished praise on him as well, as having somehow adopted Mr. Hentoff's atheism.

Perhaps now you understand my point about Jim being a registered democrat. It's not up to me to invalidate his proven conservatism and his many relevant contributions to the "dialog," based on his choice, for whatever reasons, to register with that political party. Similarly, I am not going to invalidate the excellent list of incisive and well-sourced questions Mr. Packham has developed, simply because I may not be in sympathy with some, or even all, of his other personal views and preferences.

"Interesting you focused on the atheist part."

And it's odd that when I respond to the very notion that you, yourself, introduced (Packham's atheism), you find that "interesting," as though it were somehow a novel departure from the subject of discussion.

"I have friends who are atheist and have no problem with atheists posting on this forum."

And thankyou for the relevation concerning your "atheist friends." I take that to mean that you socialize with these people to some extent or have at least some points of agreement with them. If my assumption here is correct, then I would further surmise that when you do agree with this or that position they take, you don't consider that you are thereby "promoting" their atheism.

"The part I really care about is the Liberal Secular Humanistic philosophies promoted by the author."

You cite Legrande, for example, as one of your "atheist friends," and yet atheism is the very cornerstone of the secular humanism you claim to detest.

To put it bluntly, you object not so much to Mr. Packham's professed atheism (humanistic secularism), as you do to his criticism of the Church of Mormonism and his suspicions of the Mormon candidate, Mitt Romney.

"You are supposed to ping those you are gossiping about."

Am I really supposed to "ping" Mr. Hentoff, a public figure whose published commentary is discussed at Free Republic? And can you really believe that Hentoff is a registered Freeper, who posts here under a screen name? I've never seen any evidence that he does.

Shall I also "ping" Chris Hitchens, David Horowitz and Chuck Colson whenever I refer to them in my posts?

As for Jim, I've know him for 9 years. We've dined together and even partied together. We've participated in conservative rallies together, along with many others. I don't need to "ping" Jim when I'm "gossiping" about him, as you've so artfully put it. Those of us who are not relative newbies at this site, know very well that Jim is registered democrat. It's only news to people who don't know him.

Glad to hear you liked your Mom. I liked mine too.

179 posted on 05/07/2007 2:34:47 PM PDT by Bonaparte

"I just googled Richard Packman's name. He's an atheist and ex-mormon. He is also a flaming Lib. I find it interesting that you are promoting an atheist flaming lib on this site."

Duh! Good for you for thinking of it when the rest of us did not. Superb posting by the way.

180 posted on 05/07/2007 2:36:56 PM PDT by TAdams8591 (Mitt Romney for President '08)

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794