OK, if I was talking to a host of other folks, I'd expect this deceptive debate tactic. But your personal standards are higher (and I know you hold yourself to a high standard), so you need to back off of this comment. Go back to my post #151...why was I even addressing the Romney MA record? Why? Well, it's because YOU said on an earlier post:
Believe it or not, Romney was generally conservative on about every other issue in his gubernatorial platform... a point which you now concede you can't defend based upon your latest tidbit (Still, I can meet your criteria, except, of course, the 2002 bit...)
So what then do you proceed to do in the latest post? You shift gears. Instead of talking about or defending what Romney said in his gubernatorial platform (2002), you first give a litany of what he did in his post 2002 years (that often didn't match his 2002 promises) and you then say, "We both know he has shifted right since 2002..."
Listen, yes I know what his post 2002-record, is thank you. I wasn't addressing that, because I was addressing YOUR 2002 assessment of his platform, which you concede in your latest post is undefendable ("Still, I can meet your criteria, except, of course, the 2002 bit...) Is that why you chose to shift gears? 2002 was undefendable; but 2003-2007 was more defendable?
So, not only should you back off your latest comment on this subject, but your previous comment on this subject: Believe it or not, Romney was generally conservative on about every other issue in his gubernatorial platform... Well, believe it or not, I don't believe it; and believe it or not, you don't either ("Still, I can meet your criteria, except, of course, the 2002 bit..." (And just so everybody else fully understands, the "2002 bit" was the year of Romney's gubernatorial platform)
I reject the premise that an endorsement from the Log Cabin Republicans is an undesirable thing. The party is a big tent; LCR are primarily fiscal conservatives, and they liked that about Romney.
OK, if you want to believe that the Log Cabin sees itself as primarily a "fiscal-focused" special interest group, you go ahead and believe that. But for others who want to check out the issues alignment between Romney and the Log Cabin folks between 1994 and 2002, please go to "The Romney Files" at http://baywindows.com. They lay out a litany of issues they agreed upon (including funding of what you might call a "fiscal" support of GLBT youth-based organizations.)
Somehow it’s OK for some of us to forget that gays are God’s children, too.
No, we don't forget that ex-gays were in the Corinthian church; no, we don't forget that ex-gays are in the Kingdom of heaven. No, we don't forget that ex-heterosexually promiscuous people are likewise in the church and in the kingdom. But let me add the words of Jesus and apply them here: Somehow it's OK for some of us (Christian and Mormons) to forget that both (most) gays and (most) non-gays are NOT the "children of Abraham" they think themselves to be: (Allow me to cite Jesus himself): "'I know you are Abraham's descendants. Yet you are ready to kill me, because you have no room for my word. I am telling you what I have seen in the Father's presence, and you do what you have heard from your father.' 'Abraham is our father,' they answered. 'If you were Abraham's children,' said Jesus, 'then you would do the things Abraham did...You are doing the things your own father does.' 'We are not illegitimate children,' they protested. 'The only Father we have is God Himself.' Jesus said to them, 'If God were your Father, you would love me...you are unable to hear what I say. You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire.'" (John 8:37-44)
Yet these are not the gays we should be worried about - my understanding is that they generally do not promote the radical gay agenda. Why shouldn’t LCR be fully accepted into the Republican movement?
Well, your understanding is not backed-up by a firsthand look at what LCR stands for, which again, you go ahead and concede by saying the following: That being said, while MA’s LCR organization may have endorsed Romney, the national organization is none too happy with him right now (OK, if LCR is "none too happy" with Mitt right now, what does that say about the u-turn Mitt has done on almost every homosexual issue (except "gay" "marriage")?
The counter-question, then, becomes, what in Romney’s record as governor or rhetoric today demonstrate that he is in any way supportive of the life issues or gay “rights” issues you’ve mentioned?
He is pro domestic partnership benefits; and he was pro-civil unions in 2005. Both are just "marriage lite" under euphismistic labels. Not only are these not good for society for same-sex couples, but they are not good for opposite-sex couples themselves--let alone their kids and society at-large. (what? are you pro-cohabitation?). [There. That disproves the point you were trying to make about us being "scared of people who are different from us" The point is that cohabitation is not good for the health of marriages that follow cohabitation; and it's not statistically healthy for the kids they produce, either...(of course, you can find exceptions to everything)].
What leads you to think that his conversion is not genuine, that he is really closet pro-abortion or will in actuality support gay marriage if elected?...you tell me one religious doctrine in Mormonism that would affect Romney’s public policy. Since we see Mormons running the gamut from left to right, it seems a very reasonable conclusion that religious doctrine in Mormonism has very little intersection with public politics. though, I, for one, fail to understand how Reid reconciles his religious convictions with his liberal policies; still, he evidently does it).
Let me take that two different directions. Direction #1:
You don't get it, do you? Let's hit the rewind historical tape & import something from the Mormon past to a more contemporary time. Let's say that the living Mormon "prophet"--rather than...
introducing polygamy for himself in the 1830s...
and introducing it to the LDS community at large in the 1840s...
and putting something finally into print in 1852...
let's say the living Mormon "prophet"...
introduced polygamy for himself during the turbulent mid-1930s (it was easier for him to explain to his wife why he was taking in all these poverty-stricken single women);
introduced it to the larger LDS community during the WWII years ("well somebody's gotta take care of these women at home with all the men overseas");
and then put something in writing for wider distribution in 1952.
Now answer this question: Would polygamy as a combined doctrine & social issue be considered by the rest of the US as (a) a traditional family value? or (b) a "liberal" policy?
If you answer (b), then you have to ask the same question to your then living "prophet" that you asked of Harry Reid (though, I, for one, fail to understand how this living prophet reconciles his religious convictions with his liberal policies; still, he evidently does it). [You see, Harry Reid, like other LDS leaders, can at any time, simply say to himself..."Well, if Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, Taylor, Woodruff and others could all embrace 'liberal' policies on marriage and yet maintain their religious convictions, so can I."] Now what I meant by you "not getting it" is that from the outset, religious doctrine in Mormonism has had plenty intersection with public politics...and it's exactly because of this, and the fact that religious doctrine in Mormonism has played both sides of the same fence, it is precisely on this basis I argue that a Mormon can be a pro-closet anything! (I mean, who would have thunk it? (1) Book of Mormon was published...anti-polygamy; (2)Joe Smith embraced polygamy himself so D&C became pro-polygamy; (3)Woodruff then said church was anti- polygamy; (4)LDS off-shoot religions are often pro- polygamy].
So, tell me, what LDS would have thunk it? Who would have thought in 1834 that Joseph Smith was a closet "liberal" on marriage? Who would have thought it at the time that Woodruff was making his rah-rah pro-polygamist statements in the 1880s that he was a closet "traditional values" guy?
What you fail to understand is that the two sides of Romney we've seen on a dozen or so issues pertaining to abortion & homosexuality is, in fact, partially justified by the moral & social issues schizophrenia unveiled in Mormonism: Historically, LDS is anti-polygamy, pro-polygamy, anti-polygamy. Mitt is pro-abortion, anti-abortion, [and then who knows what? pro-abortion again?]. Mitt is pro-homosexual behavior [minus marriage], then pro-marriage protection, [then who knows what? pro-homosexual behavior again?].
Direction #2, zeroing in especially on your comment, ...you tell me one religious doctrine in Mormonism that would affect Romney’s public policy.
Since we're talking about Mitt, which is a slightly different question than just "any" Mormon, allow me to start by referencing the Encyclopedia of Mormonism, Vol. 4, where Mitt's father, George Romney, was writing about what you keep harping on in a lot of threads--what George Romney referred to as "religious intolerance and his view of God." (Can't get any more relevant to this discussion than that, right?) Here's one George Romney excerpt from that source:
The LDS principles of tolerance are rooted in the teaching that all who have lived, now live, and will yet live on this earth are spirit children of God and are responsible only to God for their religious beliefs and practices. "We claim the privilege of worshipping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience," says Article of Faith 11, "and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship, how, where or what they may." A corollary of this statement is a declaration of belief regarding governments and law, adopted by the Church in 1835. It affirms that governments have no power to prescribe rules of worship to bind the consciences of men or to dictate forms for public or private devotion. In matters of religion, the declaration asserts, "men are amenable to God and to Him only for the exercise of their religious beliefs, unless their religious opinions prompt them to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others" (D&C 134). The Church has maintained these principles while accommodating to secular authority: "We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring and sustaining the law" (A of F 12; cf. D&C 134:1-12).
Do you notice George Romney's reference to D&C 134 there at the end? (For the uninitiated, what is "D&C?" It's LDS "Scripture"--short for "Doctrine & Covenants." LDS usually don't mind citing D&C 134:1-11 at will; but they usually become a little more shy in citing verse 12 as George Romney did) So, since we're looking at how religious doctrine intersects with Mitt's perceived public policy, let's look at how Mitt's adherence to LDS "Scripture" (& Mitt's father, I remind you) thinks about black slaves in the "bigoted days" of the 1800s:
D&C 134:12: We believe it just to preach the gospel to the nations of the earth, and warn the righteous to save themselves from the corruption of the world; but we do not believe it right to interfere with bond-servants, neither preach the gospel to, nor baptize them contrary to the will and wish of their masters, nor to meddle with or influence them in the least to cause them to be dissatisfied with their situations in this life, thereby jeopardizing the lives of men; such interference we believe to be unlawful and unjust, and dangerous to the peace of every government allowing human beings to be held in servitude.
How's that for LDS "Scripture" commenting upon the public policy of bond-servants (read "slaves") and Mastuhs! (What? You think slavery is only a yesteryear concept? Time to bone up on FOREIGN POLICY, which just happens to land in the lap of the POTUS. Try reading up on Sudan; try reading up on the global trafficking of women & children). So, what's Mitt's real position on this delicate foreign policy matter of the future...issues like slavery in Sudan and human trafficking and human rights violations?
On the one hand, many LDS pretend to "allow all men the same privilege" (LDS articles of faith); yet that claim was written exactly at the same time that LDS claimed they really didn't believe in "religious freedom...for everyone else" as "bond-servants" (slaves) worldwide are to be excluded as recipients of the gospel, lest their "masters" (and rogue governments that sanction slavery) become a bit riled up. [What you need to wrestle with here is exactly the same question as to polygamy, and that is, If the eternal God's word is eternal, and IF he was the inspirer of this "scripture," then it becomes a universal and eternal word that can be neither bound by time nor geographic lines in the sand drawn by men. IOW, if D&C 134:12 was God's word for slaves in the 1800s, then it also applies worldwide to slavery and trafficking today (likewise, if D&C 130 is an "everlasting covenant," then "everlasting" doesn't = 60 years)].
So, one last review of D&C 134:12: Are slaves & trafficking victims worthy of the "gospel?" LDS Answer? Nope! "neither preach the gospel to, nor baptize them..." says LDS "Scripture" (and Mr. George Romney who referenced this specific Scripture.) And why not? Well, says D&C 134:12: We don't want ta meddle with the Mastuhs' business property, or to say it as precisely as LDS "Scripture" says it: nor to meddle with or influence them in the least to cause them to be dissatisfied with their situations in this life... (Nah. We can't have unhappy slaves now, can we? Too disturbing to their "stations" of life, eh?) Now what are the ultimate reasons for this again? D&C 134:12 provides the answer:
Reason #1: ...such interference we believe to be unlawful and unjust... (There ya have it...wouldn't want to be "unjust" by giving slaves the gospel & baptizing them, would ya?)
Reason #2: ...and dangerous to the peace of every government allowing human beings to be held in servitude. (And, of course, the "closer": Wouldn't want to disturb the peace & quiet of slavery-sanctioning governments, now would ya?)
But, then, we do hear some people saying things along the line of, Well, there are hundreds of senators and representatives. A Mormon in that position won’t be able to do much damage. A Mormon in the White House would be far too dangerous.
For example, I think the idea of the “rapture” is patently ridiculous; but do I oppose an Evangelical because he’s certain that I’m going to be “left behind” because of my evil ways (that is, my Mormonism)?
Straw man at its most basic level (tho I understand why folks reject the added baggage attached to this word). All "rapture" = is reference to 1 Thess 4:17, where "we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air." So if all Evangelicals, Protestants, Catholics, and yes, even Mormons believe this, it's not "biblical" to label a Biblical verse as "ridiculous."
Now, it's true, people put 2 & 2 together...verses like 1 Thess. 4:17 together with Matt. 24:40-41...and again, those bare verses are fine as is...but it doesn't mean folks have to accept extra-biblical theories about all that's been presented under the broad umbrella of "the rapture."
On this subject, you might find the following article interesting: http://www.christiancentury.org/article.lasso?id=3594 It’s a remarkably even-handed attempt at taking on the demanding task of explaining to mainstream Christians what makes Mormons tick, and therefore what Romney’s religion might do to inform his presidency.
I'll read it.
You severely misunderstand LDS doctrine. Our goal is to get ourselves right with God. This is done through faith in Christ and repentance.
Well, why you personally may have a better handle on faith than other LDS, the fact is that LDS severely misunderstand Biblical doctrine. The Bible isn't simply about man getting right with God; it's about God getting men right with him. It may seem a subtle way of saying the same thing, but it's not. It's God who has always taken the initiative. It's His Son who already accomplished that (getting right) on the cross.
Can't you understand the big "gulf" here between LDS & Evangelicals? For LDS, "getting right" is a seemingly endless process (that's why they call it eternal progression) that is always a seemingly never-ending "futurequest." (Saved by grace "after all you can do" = forever doing "all you can do" just so you hope grace will kick in one day). Evangelicals instead find reassuring forgiveness in the cross. As those who are adopted by our Father (John 1:12; Eph 1:5; Rom. 8:23; 9:4), we don't have to ask daily, "Am I worthy enough for Dad? Am I worthy enough for Dad?" ("And I saw a mighty angel proclaiming in a loud voice, 'Who is worthy to breeak the seals and open the scroll?' But no one in heaven or on earth or under the earth could open the scroll or even look inside it. I wept and wept because no one was found who was worthy to open the scroll or look inside. Then one of the elders said to me, 'Do not weep! See, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has trumphed. He is able toopen the scroll and its sven seals.'...And they sang a new song: 'You are worthy to take the scroll and to open its seals, because you were slain, and with your blood your purchased men for God from every tribe and language and people and nation. You have made them to be a kingdom and priests to serve our God, and they will reign on the earth.'" (Rev. 5:2-5, 9-10)
We don't have to constantly wonder, "Do I have eternal life with Him if I died tonight?" (Why? Because we share John's inner testimony: "And this is the testimony. God HAS GIVEN eternal life, and this life is in HIS SON. He who HAS the Son HAS life; he who does not HAVE the Son of God does not HAVE life. I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may KNOW THAT YOU HAVE ETERNAL LIFE" (1 John 5:11-13)
Only a faith that transfers a trust from ourselves to Jesus could make the assurance, the confidence, the present-tense structure of 1 John and the book of John makes about "eternal life."
Jesus himself when, "When I am lifted up from the earth, I will draw all men to myself." (John 12:32). Jesus also said: "No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven--the Son of Man. Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the desert, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life." (John 3:13-14)
So first, it all God's initiative ("No one can say that Jesus is Lord, except by the Holy Spirit" - 1 Cor. 12:3). Secondly, the "getting right" is Jesus' deed on the cross, not our meek-worthy deeds on this planet. Thirdly, even in Old Testament times (Moses onward) it wasn't about keeping Old Testament Commandments that opened some future door to a spiritually healthy eternal life; no, it was simply looking at the bronze snake lifted up and believing that the source of healing was beyond you (vs. residing in your own empowerment) that led to life. (See Num. 21:8-9, which Jesus then says was a physical reality depicting the spiritual reality in John 3:14)
[BTW, did you ever notice in John 3:13 that Jesus said, "No one has ever gone into heaven [at that point] except the one who came from heaven." (So much for the "pre-existence" of the folks who lived up to Jesus' time).]
Now, since we are discussing the religious aspects, let’s broaden it to the other major contenders. Giuliani? Catholic-in-name-only. Thompson? He attends church when he’s visiting his mother. Both may well believe in God; but do they worship God? Do they humble themselves before Him? Do they earnestly try to apply Christ’s saving grace in their lives? Their actions would not seem to indicate so.
I am not pro-Giuliani nor pro-Thompson. If they worship God, they tend to hide whatever impact that has on their lives (I don't know their inward hearts). As for Mitt, I don't know his heart, either; but if his god is the god of the Doctrine & Covenants, then I can tell you he would be a self-described worshipper of many gods (a polytheist). (You can't get around the "council of gods" in the Book of Abraham) As for "humbling himself," I don't think men aiming for godhood is a very "humbling" characteristic...so while you ask very worthwhile questions about Rudy & Fred re: applying saving grace, etc., I think the actions of all of the so-called front-tier Republican candidates seem to be on the "empty" side when it comes to responding to the LONE true and living God.
Agree with Mormonism or not, which of the three do -you- think is most likely to meet this particular criteria?
Listen, you could hand me three supposed "legal tender" bills. Two of them could be blank (like a blank check) for me to come up with on my own to try describe Rudy & Mitt's public and personal faith. You say it seems to be missing. I don't argue with you. Then you hand me a third bill, a $3 bill, which represents Mitt since coincidentally, Joseph Smith really made $3 bills at his bank in Kirtland, Ohio).
My immediate reaction if you handed me a $3 bill? Well, suspicious, of course. "Hmm. A $3 bill. Must be counterfeit." That is, until I remembered....
No, there really are no $3 bills...you can't counterfeit what isn't even in real circulation...
You see, there really is no grand council of gods out there.
You see, Heavenly Father really had no grand-god and great grand-god.
No, no Scripture really has touted a "Mom" God, have they? (unlike LDS hymns written by prophet's wives and sung by all LDS ever since)
No, as of the pre-crucifixion era, "No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven" (and anyone arguing with Jesus about that calls him a direct liar)
No, men don't become angels (like Joseph tried claiming in the D&C);
And no, men and Jesus aren't brothers to demons;
And no, black skin is not a curse; and no, any myth claiming African-Americans were "less valiant" in the alleged pre-existence is itself an indictment against the entire doctrine of the pre-existence;
And no, Adam and Eve's fall wasn't this "celebrative" experience (LDS general authority's word); and no, Adam & Eve's fall wasn't the marvelous "upward fall" and led to these "marvelous" wars, "marvelous" abuses and exploition of men, women, and children; and "marvelous" rapes; and "marvelous" greed & coveting; and "marvelous" murders; and "marvelous" thefts; and "marvelous" (fill-in-the blank). Go on, de-program yourself. Say it out loud: "Adam and Eve's fall were not wonderful events. Adam and Eve's fall was disobedience on the grandest scale because of the impact it had upon every other human who has lived."
I'm sorry, but do we really want a president who interprets the original and profoundly consequential first and second sin on this earth through the LDS grid of seeing it as a "celebrative" event? (For all of the folks who constantly congratulate the integrity of their LDS neighbor and co-worker, you can discover the real foundation of their moral acumen by asking them: "Was Adam & Eve's fall ultimately a good thing or a bad thing for mankind?" Now, imagine some reporter or debate questioner asking Mitt this exact question post-nomination.
You’re right; I was inconsistent. I should have said “gubernatorial policies” rather than “gubernatorial platform.”
That said, you have not debunked the idea that Romney has a generally conservative governing record. This is a bit of goalpost-shifting when compared to what I actually said to you, but it still comes to bear in the current discussion.
~”Is that why you chose to shift gears?”~
It was, in fact, an accident on my part. I don’t like a lot of what Romney said as a gubernatorial candidate. I -do- like a lot of what he -did- as a governor. This is not a shift for me; I simply articulated this poorly before. The “platform” point is conceded.
~”...what does that say about the u-turn Mitt has done on almost every homosexual issue (except “gay” “marriage”)?”~
That’s a good point. So... Romney’s flipping in the right direction. You concentrate on “flipping” rather than “direction,” and so you harbor a distrust of him. I concentrate on “direction.”
Still, the point must be made: Thompson has quite a few blemishes in his senatorial record that irk conservatives, ranging from CFR to his vote against one of the articles of impeachment of Clinton. Yet, he doesn’t get called out for “flipping” on FR.
~”The point is that cohabitation is not good for the health of marriages that follow cohabitation; and it’s not statistically healthy for the kids they produce, either...”~
I agree with that. My point is that there’s no justification for conservatives, particularly Christians, to say “ick” whenever the word “gay” is mentioned. Yet we see gays pilloried all the time around here - even when they’re trying to be allies. This leads to attempts to hang an endorsement by LCR around Romney’s neck - it must obviously be a bad thing, because those Christian conservatives will say “ick.” I reject that philosophy on every level.
I fully support vigorous opposition to the radical gay agenda, on the basis that the traditional family unit is the foundation of our society, and it must be safeguarded at all costs. Romney is not perfect in this arena, but he is very good - better than his detractors like to paint.
Your direction #1 displays a deep misunderstanding of the purpose behind plural marriage. In any event, placing that policy into today’s context (or even that of a century ago) is not a productive way to judge it. In the context in which it took place, it made much more sense. But I don’t want to get bogged down into that argument again. My point is that the doctrines of Mormonism don’t affect public policy, other than the tendency to support traditional Christian values in the public square.
You cannot disprove the above statement until you cite for me a contemporary Mormon politician who is advocating some public policy because his religion or his prophet told him to do so. The LDS Church organization simply doesn’t involve itself in partisan politics.
As for your Direction #2:
Let’s start by quoting another verse from D&C 101:79:
79 Therefore, it is not right that any man should be in bondage one to another.
Hmm.. sounds anti-slavery to me. My point is that you have decided to interpret the verses you cite according to your preconceptions. Yet you miss the fact that the verses in question were a commentary on the morality of provoking violence by setting slave against master. In other words, between slavery and the violence associated with revolt, the former is the lesser of the two evils.
You further ignore the fact that the early LDS Church was staunchly abolitionist - a stance that was the primary factor for the early Mormons to get blasted out of Missouri on pain of extermination.
And, so, your argument is based on a false premise - that Romney would potentially ignore continuing slavery in the world because his religion says it is not to be interfered with. Be that as it may, Romney is running for a secular position. The verses you cite from the D&C are an outline of the position of the ecclesiastical organization. The -LDS CHURCH- was opposed to the meddling we are discussing. If Romney, as -PRESIDENT- were to tackle the issue, he would be perfectly free to set any -GOVERNMENT- policy he chooses.
The division between church and state is a revered and honored concept in Mormon tradition. Yet, somehow, you think that Mormons would be in favor of abolishing this separation. It’s ridiculous on the face of it.
~”likewise, if D&C 130 is an “everlasting covenant,” then “everlasting” doesn’t = 60 years”~
We’ve been over this one time and again. The term “everlasting covenant” refers to the sealing power. NOT to plural marriage. Read the section again; the distinction is quite clear, if you don’t choose to ignore it.
I agree that the “faith” vs. “faith and works” debate is a broad gulf, though the LDS position is by no means aberrant; ask a Catholic.
~”We don’t have to constantly wonder, “Do I have eternal life with Him if I died tonight?””~
Neither do we. It’s a little thing called the “Holy Spirit of Promise.” Discussion of this is beyond the scope of this forum. Suffice it to say that a person trying to follow Christ will be a recipient of salvation. A person who stops striving to follow Him risks loss of that salvation unless he or she repents. And our doctrine is fully in agreement with you that we are not saved by our works. We are saved by the grace of Christ - where the difference lies is that we believe that grace is conditional upon faith in Him -and- our repentance (what I referred to as getting ourselves right with God).
~”...it was simply looking at the bronze snake lifted up and believing that the source of healing was beyond you...”~
Ah, but they -looked.- That is -action.- That is -works.- It would not have been enough for a person to think, ‘Well, I have faith that -if- I look, I will be healed.’ They had to actually -look.- Likewise, we must actually -strive- to be obedient. God will do the rest.
~”...then I can tell you he would be a self-described worshipper of many gods (a polytheist).”~
Uh, no, you couldn’t tell me that. Belief in the existence of multiple divine beings does not equate worship of them. We only have to deal with God the Father; He and Christ are the only beings worshiped in our faith. You show me the place in D&C that contradicts this statement.
~”I think the actions of all of the so-called front-tier Republican candidates seem to be on the “empty” side when it comes to responding to the LONE true and living God.”~
That’s because you are applying a parochial view of who and what God is. Would you say that God hears the prayers of a Muslim? What about a Hindu? How about the pagan bushman? Or are those of His children who ascribe to your narrow definition of what He is - be it right or wrong - the only ones that God hears?
Even if Mormonism is the misguided travesty you claim it to be, are its adherents not God’s children? Will He not hear their prayers and answer their pleas? Romney is a devoutly religious man; I think there is no argument about that. So if He asks God for help, as a true believer in his misguided faith, will God turn him away?
And if not, then your above statement is entirely invalidated.
Allow me to clarify something to you: I seek each day to build a personal relationship with God and with my Savior. Yet, I am a Mormon. When you abrogate to yourself the power to say that my relationship with God is invalid because I do not believe as you do, you certainly do not act with humility or the charity that Christ exemplified. You commit the same error when you do so to Mitt Romney, or any other of the candidates.
I want a sincerely religious man in that office. A sincerely religious man behaves in certain identifiable ways. Of the three, which one behaves in a manner most consistent with this behavioral pattern? Your or my personal religious beliefs have no bearing on the identification of that pattern.
Of the three top tier candidates, Romney most closely meets this qualification.
As for the $3 bill comparison... The only reason it doesn’t exist is because it isn’t in print. The government can change that with an act of Congress, and it would be fully legal tender.
Likewise, the concepts you list (some of which actually accurately represent LDS doctrines) exist because God decided to print a $3 bill. Man’s philosophies, you see, have a very reliable way of corrupting God’s teachings. Hence the need for a restoration. Just because you don’t believe it, doesn’t make it false. I’d much rather take God’s word over yours.
~”Now, imagine some reporter or debate questioner asking Mitt this exact question post-nomination.”~
Romney’s answer: “I don’t discuss religious doctrine. I’m running for a secular office. If you want to know more about my faith, please visit mormon.org. Next question.”
Score one for Romney.
For full disclosure: this discussion has helped me gel my thoughts. I am as of writing this sentence a Romney supporter. I think, of the three viable choices, he will make the most effective candidate and best leader.
I suspect my rhetoric on political threads will change markedly in the future. It’s been a good experience; I know precisely why I support him, and I know precisely why I don’t support his main rivals.