Well, if you had defenders of Dennis Kucinich in these threads, I'm sure more of his increasing fascination with New Age teachings would be discussed. (So it's not just Mitt's spiritual leanings that up are for discussion; so is Hillary's past White House seances and I know Nancy Reagan's astrology, etc. has been under discussion in the past...so in that way, I'm sure why you think these things should perhaps be off-limits(?))
Certainly Pat Robertson's religious ties & religious intensity wasn't off the MSM and voter discussion loop back in '88 when he ran.
The consistent position is to check their morals and values, understand that any President will be working for all Americans of many different faiths, and not dismiss a candidate just because they don’t go to the same church as yourself.
I don't take aim at reps of different churches of the historic Christian faith. Other than some unitarian presidents who happened to be around well before I was born, we've haven't had members of cults running for POTUS before. (So if you think folks can just lump what cultists believe in with any ole' church, then you're deliberately--or in ignorance--sanctioning those who send a message that the LDS church is just one "Christian" church among many...Well, I'm sorry, but even the LDS church doesn't believe that).
The original term ‘bigot’ referred to French women who looked down at people who went to the ‘wrong’ church, back when Europe had wars between catholics and protestants.
Thanks for your enlightening word on this (and I'm serious about that; not being sarcastic). But actually, you're making my point: In Joseph Smith's original vision, which every true believing Mormon adheres to, that's exactly what Mormons believe and teach and embody in their Pearl of Great Price "Scripture." Joseph Smith - History -- vv. 18-19 precisely records the "First Vision" upon which LDS was founded...
And in v. 18, Joseph Smith asks an unnamed personage which church he should join; and was told "none of them...for they were all wrong."
So, with your enlightening account of where the word "bigot" came from...you are basically confirming that all Mormons who believe this original vision and founding doctrine of their church are in fact "bigots." (Now why do I want to vote for an outright "bigot" again?)
“I don’t take aim at reps of different churches of the historic Christian faith. “
No, but if it’s outside that protestant comfort zone, then what? What about a Jewish Mitt Romstein? Polish Catholic Mitt Romanski? As a catholic, there’s been one or two times when an evangelical Christian spouted off to me about how the Catholicism is a cult. I’ve even seen it on FR too. Someone from some breakaway sect spouting off about the 1 billion strong 2,000 year old Catholic and Apostolic Church of Christ Jesus. Most don’t, but a few have. That is why I find it so unimpressive to have people going around calling another church ‘cults’. Might as well tattoo your forehead “Narrow-minded.” To a militant atheist, any bible-believing fundamentalist is in a cult. Should we care?
“Well, if you had defenders of Dennis Kucinich in these threads” ... the fact is that we dont because the value system wrapped around what he thinks doesnt match ours.
The fact that some anti-Christian leftists will dislike Christian leaders, same leaders who are trying to preserve family values against the tide of secularism, is a ‘no surpise there’ story.
Yet for Mormons, who give us the most Republican state in the union in Utah and are uber-family-values-oriented, we have a group of people sympatico with our values.
Delving deeper into arcane details of LDS only distracts from the many more serious and fundamental questions of what Mitt Romney Presidential Candidate brings to the table.
That is what is so disappointing with the anti-mormon types grinding away at their axes on it. It hurts conservative cause to be bashing a group of people who are in their hearts good people and many of them part of the GOP coalition.
Also, the mormon=bad my-religion=good judgment is so simplistic and shallow when it comes to judging politians that I cant imagine any thinking voter today falling for it.
For me, that religion-test means I should pick Catholic (supposedly) Rudy over Huckabee Thompson or Romney... yet Rudy is least compatible with my views, values and philosophy. Makes no sense. And further: Do you want to build a party based on no Mormons, no non-Christians, suspicious looks at Catholics, no atheists, and why not toss the liberal Anglicans while you are at it, by attacking and bashing candidates of the ‘wrong’ religion ... you’ve not got a majority party anymore, what you’ve got is a church... and we need to understand just a wee bit the difference between ‘church’ and government, dont we?
my original point - Huckabee gets a 1000 words, and Romney and Thomson got nothing. The shallowness of the thought was distressing. Suggestion: Go ahead and discuss Romney, but if you are going to discuss, discuss him as a whole candidate and dont just peg-hole ‘mormon’ and be done with it.
PS. you are citing Smith about how all the other guys are wrong. Okay but what religion doesn’t have that? Heck, that’s nothing compared with what’s in the Quran. Ann Coulter just got in trouble saying same wrt Jews. There’s nothing new there, just the same-old my-religion-gets-you-to-heaven and-the-others-guys-doesnt.
It reminds me of the Rowan Atkinson comedy skit where he’s the devil receiving people into Hell - The French, lawyers, etc., and members of some mainstream denominations ... and then delivers the punchline on which sect really got into heaven (”Sorry, the Jehovah’s Witnesses were right.” )