Romney Can't Ignore Questions About Mormonism

RealClearPolitics ^ | 8/20/2007 | Mark Davis

[mojito]

Even though Mitt Romney can't seem to dislodge Rudy Giuliani atop the national GOP polls, and can't even draw as much poll support as Fred Thompson, who isn't even running yet, there is an understandable anticipatory buzz about him.

He may well be the eventual choice of his party if the Thompson phenomenon fizzles or if Giuliani supporters simply grow weary of navigating the obstacles posed by his past and his politics.

In an appearance in Texas last week, I saw Romney energize a crowd with just the kind of speech a GOP nominee should give-- strong and unapologetic on the war, upbeat and resolute about the future. This is a typical Romney performance, and it earns him speculation that he has nowhere to go but up.

This is wholly deserved. But the issue of his religion, which some say has been overplayed, has in fact not been addressed with nearly the thoroughness and honesty that will be necessary to satisfy some in the Republican voting base.

It has not been addressed well by the candidate, and it has not been handled honestly by pundits. Until it is, it lurks as a torpedo that could spell the doom of his promising candidacy.

[samtheman]

I don’t know who is more ridiculous. You Clofornian, and your ridiculous fear that a President Romney would Mormonize America. Or you, soccermom, who pretends to “switch from Fred” because (among other reasons) people like Clofornian have ridiculous fears. I suspect, soccermom, you were never really a Fred fan at all. FR is full of Fred-critics who claim they USED to like Fred but now not anymore. I don’t believe any of them. Including you.

[samtheman]

Woops, not you soccermom. Spiff. Spiff is the one who CLAIMS to be an ex-Fred. Don’t believe it.

[samtheman]

All the bigotry and hatred being projected at the Mormon Church and at Romney because he is a member is one of the reasons that I dropped my support for Thompson and decided to back Mitt Romney. While I can't agree with all of his politics, I can't stand to see a good man or his Christian faith slandered. You can bet that I'm not the only one who feels this way or who has made or will make the switch.

Since I made the mistake of confusing soccermom with you, Spiff, I'm reposting your words here to make it crystal clear what I believe about you:

You were NEVER a supporter of Fred Thompson. You are a member of a small group of posters on FR who like to say "I used to support Fred". I don't believe any of them. Including, and especially, you.

[samtheman]

Soccermom. Sorry. I misstoke an earlier post of Spiff as one of yours. I still disagree with you about preferring Mitt over Fred, but I withdraw my labeling your post as ‘ridiculous’, as it wasn’t your post I was referring to but Spiff’s. Sorry for the misdirection.

[Spiff]

You were NEVER a supporter of Fred Thompson. You are a member of a small group of posters on FR who like to say "I used to support Fred". I don't believe any of them. Including, and especially, you.

Are you calling me a liar?

Check my posting history, punk. Ask the person who keeps the Fred Thompson ping list if you can't figure that much out. You know, if you want to win supporters for or back to Fred Thompson, you've gotta stop being such a jackass.

[colorcountry]

Yawn....another Mormon backs Mitt because he is Mormon. You’ve added the additional reason of Mitt being a “picked-on” Mormon. Utah voted for Mitt 88% in their Republican straw poll. What else is new?

[samtheman]

Sorry, Charley. I’m VERY suspicious of all claims to “well, I used to support Fred, but not anymore”. You know who does that a lot? L Ron Paul (surreptitious) supporters. You know what they say. Lie down with dogs...

[Colofornian]

...don’t know who is more ridiculous. You Clofornian, and your ridiculous fear that a President Romney would Mormonize America

Allow me to reiterate: I never said Mitt was currently mounting any such campaign. Secondly, I've never indicated Mitt (or his handlers) would do so if he gained the White House (doncha love it when posters put words in other folks' mouth and then apologize for misstating their views?)

What I have said is that I believe LDS HQ Central (for the record, LDS HQ IS NOT Mitt) would consider such a cultural and political eclipse as the pivotal and optimal time to shift into its highest-ever PR gear. (And could you blame them?)

I'm not portraying this as some sort of deep, dark conspiracy arising in the vaults of SLC. Look at the 70 or so LDS general authorities. Most of them are highly respected business leaders. Business leaders have it ingrained in them to be public relations' minded. The LDS track record in recent decades shows a church to be so highly minded.

By all means disagree with me. You apparently don't have any or much respect for the LDS public relations and missionary program. It just so happens I do. I highly respect the organizational and administrative abilities of this church. It's a genuine compliment. All I'm saying it, "Don't underestimate their abilities."

[samtheman]

You say don’t underestimate their abilities, I say, don’t overestimate them.

If Mitt was President for 8 years it would mean, for one thing, that Mormonism correctly took a back seat in his administration in at least the first 4, or he wouldn’t get reelected.

And if Mitt was President for 8 years, I’m pretty sure that the total number of Mormons in the US at the end of those 8 years wouldn’t be much different than if he hadn’t been president for those 8 years. That’s what I believe. Can’t prove it, of course. But it’s what I think.

There are reasons to be against Mitt, but Mormonism isn’t one of them (even though I see Mormonism as a cross between Scientology and Christianity and don’t have any intellectual respect for it at all).

[Elsie]

How is the article about the LDS Church helping the people of Peru relevant to the presidency? Because Mitt Romney is a member of this great Church that has an international outreach of mercy. That’s all.

Then do NOT complain when the dictates of that church are brought under fire in these threads!

[soccermom]

OK — so you don’t view anything he has done in elected office, thus far, as relevant when it pertains to his faith. So what, potentially, do you find so threatening? Do you think he’s going to force you to go door-to-door on a bicycle? Do you think he’s going to force you to have multiple wives? Do you think he is going to ban tobacco and alcohol? What, pray tell, is the master plan that he is going to spring on us all?

[soccermom]

Yeah, I gathered that and I didn’t say I preferred Mitt over Fred, either. I just don’t get the hypocrisy of those who would oppose Mitt based on religious reasons, but see nothing wrong with Fred or Newt.

[samtheman]

Cool, sorry for getting you mixed up in my rant back there. And I agree with you about the absurdity of going ape-shit over Mormonism. It’s just another religion. There’s only one religion that is truly evil. All the others are just simply what people believe about life-after-death and other spiritual issues. There’s only one religion that deserves our hate, our fear, our prejudice and our profiling. And it’s NOT Mormonism, or any other branch or subset or offshoot of Christianity.

[Elsie]

(Ya hear that, LDS? From now on, when folks ask about your faith, just refer them to the church for the oficial, pure clarification).

 

Excellent advice. With viscious, sneering, sarcastic clods like you roamming around, why should they waste their time on answering?

 

 

Here ya go!

 

Straight from the horses   mouth:

 

---

 

 

THE BOOK OF JACOB
THE BROTHER OF NEPHI

CHAPTER 2

 

  24 Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.
  25 Wherefore, thus saith the Lord, I have led this people forth out of the land of Jerusalem, by the power of mine arm, that I might raise up unto me a righteous branch from the fruit of the loins of Joseph.
  26 Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old.
  27 Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none;
  28 For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.
  29 Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes.
  30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.
  31 For behold, I, the Lord, have seen the sorrow, and heard the mourning of the daughters of my people in the land of Jerusalem, yea, and in all the lands of my people, because of the wickedness and abominations of their husbands.
  32 And I will not suffer, saith the Lord of Hosts, that the cries of the fair daughters of this people, which I have led out of the land of Jerusalem, shall come up unto me against the men of my people, saith the Lord of Hosts.

 

 

 

 

THE DOCTRINE AND COVENANTS

SECTION 132

Revelation given through Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Nauvoo, Illinois, recorded July 12, 1843, relating to the new and everlasting covenant, including the eternity of the marriage covenant, as also plurality of wives. HC 5: 501—507. Although the revelation was recorded in 1843, it is evident from the historical records that the doctrines and principles involved in this revelation had been known by the Prophet since 1831.

 1—6, Exaltation is gained through the new and everlasting covenant; 7—14, The terms and conditions of that covenant are set forth; 15—20, Celestial marriage and a continuation of the family unit enable men to become gods; 21—25, The strait and narrow way that leads to eternal lives; 26—27, Law given relative to blasphemy against the Holy Ghost; 28—39, Promises of eternal increase and exaltation made to prophets and saints in all ages; 40—47, Joseph Smith is given the power to bind and seal on earth and in heaven; 48—50, The Lord seals upon him his exaltation; 51—57, Emma Smith is counseled to be faithful and true; 58—66, Laws governing the plurality of wives are set forth.
 

---

---

 

Now you know EXACTLY what our position is!!

 

--MormonDude(Looking for #2)

[samtheman]

Do you think he’s going to force you to go door-to-door on a bicycle?

LOL!

[Colofornian]

You say don’t underestimate their abilities, I say, don’t overestimate them. If Mitt was President for 8 years it would mean, for one thing, that Mormonism correctly took a back seat in his administration in at least the first 4, or he wouldn’t get reelected. And if Mitt was President for 8 years, I’m pretty sure that the total number of Mormons in the US at the end of those 8 years wouldn’t be much different than if he hadn’t been president for those 8 years.

OK. How can I say this any clearer? I spent the last post making a number of distinctions between the Romney campaign and Salt Lake City PRsters & its proseltyzing program. The "abilities" referred to the latter, not the former. I'm not talking about a would-be ROMNEY ADMINISTRATION when it comes to my comments about PR and proselytizing campaigns!!!! Since you seemingly still don't "get it," to put it another way, I'm not talking about what would happen in the Beltway!!! (It's what would be mounted outside the Beltway that would be of concern).

[samtheman]

I'm not talking about a would-be ROMNEY ADMINISTRATION when it comes to my comments about PR and proselytizing campaigns!!!!

Then your comments are pretty much irrelevant in regards to this thread, which is all about the Romney candidacy for PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES and the role of Mormonism in that candidacy and, if applicable, subsequent Presidency.

Do you have any RELEVANT comments on the subject?

[colorcountry]

I left the Mormon Church because it lies. It lies about everything from its history and doctrine to its missionary work (it has missionaries in countries that prohibit missionaries) and beliefs.

Many of its members will tell you one thing to your face, while saying something entirely different behind your back. I think Mitt Romney lies, I think he is trained to lie. He has never shown otherwise (notice his pandering and flip-flopping). I don’t trust him.

I don’t trust him because he is Mormon, I don’t trust him because he is a panderer. I will not vote for him on both grounds. Now you are free to call me a bigot and hater - - I’ve heard it many times before on FR, but it won’t change my mind.

[Elsie]

Are you not aware that some of the reason that Mormons were mistreated and driven out of some areas is because of their opposition to slavery.

 

Nope; I'm not.

 

 

 

A Discourse by President Brigham Young, Delivered in the Tabernacle, Great Salt Lake City, Feb. 18, 1855.

 

The seed of Ham, which is the seed of Cain descending through Ham, will, according to the curse put upon him, serve his brethren, and be a "servant of servants" to his fellow-creatures, until God removes the curse; and no power can hinder it. These are my views upon slavery. I will here say a little more upon this point. The conduct of the whites towards the slaves will, in many cases, send both slave and master to hell. This statement comprises much in a few words. The blacks should be used like servants, and not like brutes, but they must serve. It is their privilege to live so as to enjoy many of the blessings which attend obedience to the first principles of the Gospel, though they are not entitled to the Priesthood.

 

Journal of Discourses/Volume2 page 184

 

 Has God removed the curse yet???

[Colofornian]

I just don’t get the hypocrisy of those who would oppose Mitt based on religious reasons, but see nothing wrong with Fred or Newt.[soccermom]

Well, first of all, let me know if Fred announces in his declaration speech that he has his sites set on taking up some divine throne in another world. And then I'll raise some concerns about an apparent power-hungry presidential appetite.

Secondly, I guess this "hypocrisy" is kind of like the "can't-get-labeling-folks-as-bigots-off-of-my-mind" kick we see when they don't similarly label folks like LDS voters who may tend to vote only or primarily for LDS candidates just because of their religion, isn't it?

Wanna explain why a voter who uses religion as a primary or only guideline for voting for a candidate is NOT a bigot? Yet one who may use it as only one of multiple reasons NOT to vote for someone receives the complimentary knee-jerk label of "bigot?"