Yes, Romney needs to answer questions about his religion

Mitt Romney's own Republican Party has made religion fair game, and Romney will be asked how his faith would affect his policies.

But Mitt Romney is a serious contender in 2008, rich and disciplined, and he's running in an era when presidential candidates are virtually expected to parade their religiosity. This is particularly true in the Republican camp, where religion and politics are now routinely intertwined; indeed, candidate George W. Bush upped the ante in 2000, when he said that his favorite philosopher was Jesus, ''because he changed my life.''

So it's no surprise Romney is facing questions about his lifelong devotion to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the breakaway theology that considers itself humankind's ''one true church.'' He had hoped to stonewall this issue, insisting in a TV interview 18 months ago that ''I'm never going to get into a discussion about my personal beliefs.''

But today word is circulating that Romney will discuss his faith in an autumn speech - and seek to disarm the skeptics much the way John F. Kennedy in 1960 dampened fears that a Catholic president would take orders from Rome.

Romney is dealing with potential hostility, fair or not, on several fronts. Many Christian fundamentalists, particularly southern Baptists, dismiss Mormonism as a cult (thereby imperiling Romney in the GOP primaries, particularly in pivotal South Carolina). Many secular voters are uncomfortable with the church's passion for proselytizing and its superior attitude, particularly its scriptural insistence that all nonbelievers are worshiping ''the church of the devil.'' Pollsters say that at least 30 percent of voters won't back a Mormon.

Romney's biggest problem is that skeptics are simply weirded out. They cannot quite envision having a president who believes that a man named Joseph Smith dug up a book of golden plates, long buried in a hillside, with the help of an angel named Moroni in 1827; that these plates, written in Egyptian hieroglyphics, spelled out the precepts of the true Christian faith; that Smith translated these hieroglyphics by wearing decoder glasses and burying his head in a hat; that Jesus visited North America after the resurrection; that the Garden of Eden was really in Missouri.

Some questions do seem appropriate. First, the Mormon faith puts a high premium on ''faith-promoting'' information, sometimes at the expense of unpleasant facts. As a high-ranking Mormon leader said in a famous 1981 speech, ''Some things that are true are not very useful.'' Would Romney be able to assure swing voters that he would not merely perpetuate the faith-based thinking, and the rejection of empirical reality, that has trapped us in a ruinous war?

Second, since the Mormons consider themselves stewards of ''a quintessentially American faith'' (Romney's words), and since Mormons believe Jesus will return and rule the world from U.S. territory, does this suggest that a President Romney might wave the flag a bit too fervently, at a time when we need to repair our relations around the world? The Mormon faith is heavily rooted in what is commonly called ''American exceptionalism,'' the belief that we are special and we know best. Would Romney govern accordingly, and, if so, would that be a help or a hindrance in the war on terror?

What matters, in other words, is not whether he really thinks Joseph Smith met an angel in 1827. The crucial issue is whether, or how, a devout Mormon would apply his faith on the job in 2009. His supporters have suggested that any such questions are symptoms of religious bigotry, but it is the Republican Party, over the past several decades, that has put religion front and center. They have made Mitt Romney fair game.

Thanks for your response. We’ll have to disagree with our understandings of it. The Matt. 15:24 reference clearly states that Christ was only sent to the sheep of Israel, NOT the gentiles, they were converted through the apostolic preaching.

And we know by countless references in the OT that sheep if Israel were scattered over all the earth.

The John 10 reference seems pretty clear:

John 10: 16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.

The gentiles never heard his voice, and He didn't bring them personally.

Further, we believe HE visited all the House of Israel, not just the tribe of Joseph that resided in the Americas. Consider these further reference:

3 Nephi 15: Neither at any time hath the Father given me commandment that I should tell unto them concerning the other tribes of the house of Israel, whom the Father hath led away out of the land.

3 Nephi 16:

1 And verily, verily, I say unto you that I have other sheep, which are not of this land, neither of the land of Jerusalem, neither in any parts of that land round about whither I have been to minister.

2 For they of whom I speak are they who have not as yet heard my voice; neither have I at any time manifested myself unto them.

3 But I have received a commandment of the Father that I shall go unto them, and that they shall hear my voice, and shall be numbered among my sheep, that there may be one fold and one shepherd; therefore I go to show myself unto them.

4 And I command you that ye shall write these sayings after I am gone, that if it so be that my people at Jerusalem, they who have seen me and been with me in my ministry, do not ask the Father in my name, that they may receive a knowledge of you by the Holy Ghost, and also of the other tribes whom they know not of, that these sayings which ye shall write shall be kept and shall be manifested unto the gentiles, that through the fulness of the Gentiles, the remnant of their seed, who shall be scattered forth upon the face of the earth because of their unbelief, may be brought in, or may be brought to a knowledge of me, their Redeemer.

5 And then will I gather them in from the four quarters of the earth; and then will I fulfill the covenant which the Father hath made unto all the people of the house of Israel.

Seven,

Here again is the problem with mormonism’s use of the Bible...

“The Matt. 15:24 reference clearly states that Christ was only sent to the sheep of Israel, NOT the gentiles, they were converted through the apostolic preaching.”

And so He was. That doesn’t mean what you claim. If you make
this statement a “hard claim” then what do you do with His
ministry to, for example, the Samaritan woman (not a jew)?
The Roman Centurian (not a jew), and on and on?

“And we know by countless references in the OT that sheep if Israel were scattered over all the earth.”

And still are. That doesn’t mean what you claim. Some day
they will be regathered in the twinkling of an eye back
to Israel. He has no need to visit them now where ever they
are. Some day, they will come directly to Him.

“The gentiles never heard his voice, and He didn’t bring them personally.”

If you do not believe Christ draws all men to Himself,
you clearly do not understand salvation.

“Further, we believe HE visited all the House of Israel, not just the tribe of Joseph that resided in the Americas. Consider these further reference”\

You may believe this, but that doesn’t make it true -
or Biblical!

Scripture never says He will - nor does mormonism’s false
teaching take into account the wider context of Christ’s
future coming to reign over Israel.

Seven, I am not busting on you here. The problem is that
mormonism is a set of religious beliefs that are read back
into specific phrases of the Bible in an attempt to then
claim them as evidence. Nothing could be further from the
truth.

Why don’t you start with creating an outline of the Book of
John - determine its theme, major divisions, history, geography,
figures of speech, and then how it fits into the prophecies
of the Old and New Testaments. If you do this, you will
quickly find that the beliefs you are putting forth here
are foreign to the Bible. Have you ever done this Seven?

Without the mormonism false scriptures to try to read into
the Bible, the rubric you are creating would not even appear
based on the Word of God.

best,
ampu

FC: but I will reply to this false statement:
“If I were the victor you would cease to attack the church,”

DU: Perhaps you forgot that in post #820 I addressed all that, here, let me refresh your memory

So, since you cannot quote me directly, you have to make things up out of blue sky.

FC: Because your whole world is based on the word of a crystal gazer, how can I take anything you say seriously?

DU: Because your world is based on X.. what a stunning argument, I’ll have to remember that one. /sarc.

If I were to claim my entire sum of knowledge was derived from magic monkeys that flew out of my butt, you would label me insane. However, you base your world on (missing) Golden tablets written in Egyptian hieroglyphics plunked down in New York by an angel and translated by a guy using seer stones looking into his hat, and I am to take you seriously? Not likely.

DU: It is my experiance that when you take someone who is kicking Joseph and or the church , and try to get them to actually substaciate one point, not jump arpund from point to point, they can’t, and I have taken point after point after point. No one has ever been able to substanciate their case, just as you FC have been unable to substanciate yours here.

No one has ever been able to substanciate their case? Well, when you always put yourself in the position of judge and jury (and your entire religious tradition is at risk should Joseph Smith be found a humbug) why sure, I guess in the kangaroo court you have constructed, nothing is provable against Joseph Smith. That’s why it is a waste of time to spend time discussing Kirtland with you much less anything else.

I asked that an impartial moderator be selected, (perhaps a jury is a better idea), but you rejected that. You would never allow Joseph Smith’s life to be ajudicated by a random pool of normal non-Mormon Americans. And that is what this is really about, I refuse to play on your trumped up terms, so you must try to fabricate a case against me.

For anyone still reading our flight into irrelevance, DU’s suffocating approach to dissent is more typical than not of Mormon’s I have encountered in positions of power, and the reason I believe a Romney presidency brings great risks (if not from him then through his many Mormon appointees). Here’s an example of the ego problem DU exhibits from an earlier diatribe on this thread:

DU: F) becoming a God with his own planet, of course - I keep telling you, you under estimate me, for we receive everything the Father hath, anyone who is exalted to the highest degree can expect to create his own universe, eventually.

DU regularly creates his own micro-universe in his answers where he plays God (prosecution, judge, jury, executioner). Just think what it would be like with multiple similar personalities in appointed positions exhibiting the same tendencies.

As always, you cannot directly quote any statement from me that expressly says I will not attack the Mormon church on myriad other grounds should the Kirtland Bank fiasco turn out to have been caused by incompetence rather than greed alone. There are simply too many heresies and false prophesies extant in Mormonism to make a statement like that.

Translation into english, it's too rich for my blood now that I've lost.

FC, you forget the other side of the coin, if you could prove your case in this one instance I would no longer be able to defend, you said I did not have "enough skin in the game", so I upped the anti, and you accepted by responding to my post and starting your defense of your position without objecting to my terms.

That's OK, I never actually thought you would pay the money either when I won, I even suggested you donate however much you though should be paid to FR (since you were having a problem living up to your end).

Now you are not even willing to do that, sigh, not entirely unexpected.

So, since you cannot quote me directly, you have to make things up out of blue sky.

I gave links tot he post so anyone can look at what was said, so saying I didn't do what I did doesn't make it so, it just makes you funny. (for any new lurkers out there, I will repeat...) And I quote from post #895

In post #562 when you were asking me to put up some money, I counter proposed the following:
Fine, you prove that Joseph smith was a fraud, I will publicly apologize for doubting you. I will give you an abbreviated version you can use as a tag line. I will allow you to reprint my apology, heck, I'll send you framed copy of the sucker.

If you cannot prove Joseph smith intentionally defrauded people of money in the bank / Joint stock company known as Kirtland Safety Society, I expect an apology for ever attacking the church, and a commitment that you will never do so.
I know you read this far, because you later remarked on my suggested name changes for your login. After this post you began to defend you position, accepting the terms (which I am sure you would have held me to) In post 805 you say the following.
Okay, you win I lose.
It's hardly thin air, it's a response to your request for money, and you responded to it which fuels the presumption that you read it.

FC: Because your whole world is based on the word of a crystal gazer, how can I take anything you say seriously?

FC:If I were to claim my entire sum of knowledge was derived from magic monkeys that flew out of my butt, you would label me insane. However, you base your world on (missing) Golden tablets written in Egyptian hieroglyphics plunked down in New York by an angel and translated by a guy using seer stones looking into his hat, and I am to take you seriously? Not likely.

Please show where I ever claimed that the sum of all my knowledge came from Joseph smith, or any other man. (Now who is making things up?)

DU: It is my experience that when you take someone who is kicking Joseph and or the church , and try to get them to actually substantiate one point, not jump around from point to point, they can’t, and I have taken point after point after point. No one has ever been able to substantiate their case, just as you FC have been unable to substantiate yours here.

FC: No one has ever been able to substantiate their case?

Because they are wrong.

Well, when you always put yourself in the position of judge and jury (and your entire religious tradition is at risk should Joseph Smith be found a humbug) why sure, I guess in the kangaroo court you have constructed, nothing is provable against Joseph Smith. That’s why it is a waste of time to spend time discussing Kirtland with you much less anything else.

There is a jury, it is made up of all the lurkers and posters on FR, they can all read what we write here, there is no panel, no judge to rule winner and loser, there are only Facts and logic as proposed by us and validated (or not) by the readers of this forum, if that is not a diverse enough jury for you, then I can't help you.

I am prepared to let my statements stand before the intelligent people of this forum without an interpreter, but because I have actually been posting facts and links to sources, you keep posting common rumor as fact with no backup but how was it you put it "I still believe". FC, believe whatever you want, I am not here to attack your faith that the LDS church is false, but you may not state it as fact and expect not to be called on it. At least I know where facts and my faith divide.

I asked that an impartial moderator be selected, (perhaps a jury is a better idea), but you rejected that.

You're darn right I did, I thought it a cheap delay tactic while you went and looked up evidence you should have had before leveling a charge.

When a DA like Nifong files a case without evidence, or the DA in Rush's home town persecutes (not a typo) Rush for "Doctor shopping", or a DA in Texas goes after Tom Delay for non crimes, or we have the Valerie Plame non-covert revelation trial, we conservatives denounce these actions. Repeating these tactics should not be an option for us. That is why I wanted to start immediately, FC, you stated you would like a month (a month is forever in FR years) to go and find evidence and then you would come back and report on why Joseph was a fraud. Yeah, right, let's wait till everyone has moved on then issue our report, I could make a few comparisons there too.

You would never allow Joseph Smith’s life to be adjudicated by a random pool of normal non-Mormon Americans. And that is what this is really about,

That is EXACTLY what I am demanding I want everyone here to see the evidence, everyone to have the facts, everyone to hear the reasoning, and make up their minds for them selves, not some blue ribbon panel issuing a report, not some carefully selected jury I want every Tom Dick and Harry to make up their own minds, I do not want to tell them what to think, but have the case presented fairly, and you will never get a fairly heard case if you jump from topic to topic like some demented verbal grass hopper.

FC, you keep telling me my world will fall apart if Joseph was ever wrong, I think you are projecting, for we never said he was perfect, but your world just may fall apart if Joseph was ever right, and that is why you post to shock, not reason, that is why you will not focus on a single issue, that is why you behave the way you do on this forum, at least that is my best guess.

For anyone still reading our flight into irrelevance, DU’s suffocating approach to dissent is more typical than not of Mormon’s I have encountered in positions of power, and the reason I believe a Romney presidency brings great risks (if not from him then through his many Mormon appointees). Here’s an example of the ego problem DU exhibits from an earlier diatribe on this thread:

Suffocating approach? I wanted to have an open discussion of the facts, no back room deals, no closed door sessions, no white washed report published after no one cares anymore. I wanted to debate here, in the open where everyone gets to read all the arguments and decide for themselves.

You are the one who wants to bury dissent beneath a pile of unsupported allegations and never focus on one long enough to know if it is real, or just an allegation. Why I ask our readers would anyone not want his allegations addressed in detail? Could it be because they cannot be substantiated?

DU: F) becoming a God with his own planet, of course - I keep telling you, you under estimate me, for we receive everything the Father hath, anyone who is exalted to the highest degree can expect to create his own universe, eventually.

This is biblical, God gives everything to those he exalts... Sigh.

DU regularly creates his own micro-universe in his answers where he plays God (prosecution, judge, jury, executioner). Just think what it would be like with multiple similar personalities in appointed positions exhibiting the same tendencies.

So FC, you never had an imagination, even as a kid? Never mind, I will not bother to refute the charge about what I think except to say Bzzzzt! Wrong.

People, read this chain of posts, make up your own minds, FC wants to tell you what to believe, I want to give you the facts and let you decide, please don't disappoint me. If you choose to, that is your right for you are free to chose, that was given to you by God and who am I to deny you that which God gave you.

God bless each and every one of you, may his wisdom distill upon you as the dews of heaven, I am feeling an overpowering love for all my freeper friends as I write this (you to FC) may God bless all of your efforts and may your thought lead you to God who is your home, Amen.

I said: “The Matt. 15:24 reference clearly states that Christ was only sent to the sheep of Israel, NOT the gentiles, they were converted through the apostolic preaching.”

You said: And so He was. That doesn’t mean what you claim. If you make this statement a “hard claim” then what do you do with His ministry to, for example, the Samaritan woman (not a jew)? The Roman Centurian (not a jew), and on and on? These people came to him, and lived among the Jews. He did not ever go t

o personally minister among the gentiles.

Some day they will be regathered in the twinkling of an eye back to Israel. He has no need to visit them now where ever they are.

Where do you get that the gathering of Israel will happen in the twinkling of an eye? This should be a fun discussion. The gathering of Israel is taking place now.

I find great solace in the fact that Jesus is the God over all the earth, and that He visited His children where they were, not just confined to one geographical location.

If you do not believe Christ draws all men to Himself, you clearly do not understand salvation.

Now you are just twisting my words to be mean spirited, shame on you.

And yes, I've read the bible many times, and continue to do so, and the doctrines of salvation are not foreign to me. Thanks for caring though.

No, I said he was to only PERSONALLY minister to the house of Israel. He said it from his own mouth, not me.

I repeat Matthew 15:24 ...I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

And how do you know that Jesus did not administer to any other tribes of Isreal, how do you know this? Does he ever say that he will only confine his ministry to the tribe of Judah? I Please show me?

As far as the tribes twinkling reference in the old testament, you’ll have to be more specific. This is a point that is very important, not to be shrugged off.

And yes, you were twisting my words. I was talking specifically about Christ personally letting other sheep hear his voice, and you nastily imply that I don’t comprehend the all encompassing love of my Savior.

Lastly, consider Ezekiel 34:

11 For thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I, even I, will both search my sheep, and seek them out.

12 As a shepherd seeketh out his flock in the day that he is among his sheep that are scattered; so will I seek out my sheep, and will deliver them out of all places where they have been scattered in the cloudy and dark day.

It's not a very loving shepherd that doesn't tend to the whole flock, don't you think? His other sheep spoken of in John are not the gentiles, they are his flock, the lost tribes of Israel.

We can disagree with each other, nothing wrong with that.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.