Mitt the Mormon -- Why Romney needs to talk about his faith.

Mitt is no Ben Franklin! LMAO!

As to your tagline:

Leviticus 25:17
Do not take advantage of each other, but fear your God. I am the LORD your God.

Exodus 20:20
Moses said to the people, "Do not be afraid. God has come to test you, so that the fear of God will be with you to keep you from sinning."

2 Timothy 1:7
For God has not given us a spirit of fear, but of power and of love and of a sound mind.

I agree that the Mormon religion is a ridiculous religion that has no basis in reality and is full of fictional history and criminal founders, but even so, this does not mean Mitt is unable to defend your religious beliefs.

I never said he wouldn't be able to defend my religious beliefs. (In a legal venue, Mormon attorneys, I'm sure, would be able to defend my religious beliefs)

But, first of all, some Mormons are going to take the Pearl of Great Price more literally than others. (Can you tell me that the verses of Mormon Scripture, Joseph Smith - History, vv. 18-19, are not taken literally by Mitt? Can you tell me he doesn't regard members of Christian sects as apostates like Mormon doctrine does; as corrupt--the verses say ALL such "professors" are "corrupt"; as creedally an "abomination before the Lord?")

Secondly, if a Mormon Governor or representative is spiritually illiterate, it won't have the same international ramifications as would the leader of the free world. IOW, if a Mormon gov thinks that 75% of the country is an apostate world religion (Christianity), that's no comparison to if the leader of the free world can't accurately define a world religion. If he thinks that one world religion (Christianity) is 100% creedally abominable, absolute chock full of corrupt professors, and is apostate then how does that inspire voters to think that he can accurately define the multiple strands of Islam?

You've confused a flipflop with a change for the better. Mitt now holds a correct view on abortion and family values, so you cannot call his decision a flipflop. He has acted on his beliefs and I see no evidence that he will repeat his former mistakes.

No I haven't. The first principle of true conversion: STOP waffling back to old ways. (Reagan didn't waffle multiple times back & forth like you see below)

Shall we review Mitt's case?

(1): Romney comes from a heritage that is primarily pro-life. = He flipped from a Mormon pro-life perspective when he sided with his mom when she ran as a pro-abortion senator in 1970. This continued into his 1994 and 2002 campaign commitments.

(2): In November of '04, he & his wife had simultaneous pro-life "conversions." = (so since he already "flipped" above, is that a flip or a flop?)

(3): On May 27 '05, he affirms his commitment to being "pro-choice" at a press conference. ("I am absolutely committed to my promise to maintain the status quo with regards to laws relating to abortion and choice.") = So that would be one or the other, a flip or a flop from his "conversion" 6 months previous.

(4): What about his gubernatorial record 2003-2006? Mitt NOW says his actions were ALL pro-life. So I assume somewhere in 2005 or so were so pro-life decisions. ("As governor, I’ve had several pieces of legislation reach my desk, which would have expanded abortion rights in Massachusetts. Each of those I vetoed. Every action I’ve taken as the governor that relates to the sanctity of human life, I have stood on the side of life.") = So, then THESE ACTIONS were not only a reversal of his 2002 commitment, but his May 27, 2005 press conference commitment. So "flipping" is beginning to be routine

(5): April 12, 2006--Mitt signs his "Commonwealth Care" into existence, thereby expanding abortion access for poor women. (Wait a minute, I thought he told us post-'06 that ALL of his actions were "pro-life?"). Also, not only this, but as governor, Romney could exercise veto power to portions of Commonwealth Care. Did Romney exercise this power? (Yes, he vetoed Sections 5, 27, 29, 47, 112, 113, 134 & 137). What prominent section dealing with Planned Parenthood as part of the "payment policy advisory board" did Romney choose NOT to veto? (Section 3) That section mandates that one member of MassHealth Payment Policy Board must be appointed by Planned Parenthood League of MA. (See chapter 58 of the Acts of 2006, section 3 for details).

(6): Then POTUS season comes around. So in '07, just about all his statements are of a pro-life nature. = So, like a fish just reeled in, that tail has him on the other side of where he was 5/27/05 & 4/12/06...but somehow coinciding with "pro-life" vetoes he made in between those other statements & actions.

(7): Then comes his 8/12/07 interview with Chris Wallace of Fox: "I never called myself pro-choice. I never allowed myself to use the word pro-choice because I didn't FEEL I was pro-choice. I would protect the law, I said, as it was, but I wasn't pro-choice, and so..." = That whatever he was from 1970 when his mom ran as a pro-abortion senator & he sided with her, to 5/27/05, w/whatever interruption he had due to a pro-life altar call in Nov of '04, whatever that was...well, he assures us it wasn't a pro-abortion inlook or outlook 'cause he didn't feel "pro-choice..." = So does that make him a life-long pro-lifer?

Confused? Well don't be: This Harper's Magazine excerpt found at http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1921487/posts includes this excerpt:

"Earlier this year, the Boston Globe obtained a copy of an internal campaign PowerPoint presentation that outlined Romney’s strengths and weaknesses as he embarked on his presidential bid. One page—entitled “Primal Code for Brand Romney”—explained that Romney should market himself as a foil to such Massachusetts liberals as Senators Edward Kennedy and John Kerry, and also run against such “enemies” as Hollywood, France, and “moral relativism.” Problems identified by the campaign included the perception that Romney would not make a tough wartime leader and the possibility that voters would be spooked by his Mormon religion. The presentation also acknowledged the problematic view that Romney is a “phony” and a “political opportunist”; but that view is due at least in part to the fact that by any reasonable standard it’s true."

Oh yeah, so in that case most of our founding fathers would not have received your vote. This includes Thomas Jefferson, Samuel Adams, and Ben Franklin among many others. So who needs to use their head now?

You need to bone up on true history, not just what the media has told you.

Let's start with Jefferson.

If you go to this FREEPER thread http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1000354/posts you'll see that David Barton references the time of Jefferson's life where indeed he was "anti-Christian and anti-religious," but Barton says:

"Jefferson expressed some doubts about the divinity of Christ. But what is never pointed out about Jefferson is the fact that he said that he expressed those doubts when he was in France and part of the time after he got home. And he said in those years he had studied the writings of David Hume, an atheist philosopher… so you have a period where Jefferson was anti-Christian, anti-religious. But at the end of his life, he never considered himself anything but an orthodox Christian...he thought of himself as a true Christian.

D. James Kennedy said of Jefferson: A nominal Christian – as demonstrated by his lifelong practice of attending worship services, reading the Bible, and following the moral principles of Christ – Jefferson was not, in my opinion, a genuine Christian. In 1813, after his public career was over, Jefferson rejected the deity of Christ.

Still, how was Jefferson during the POTUS years? Kennedy wrote: Most intriguing is the manner in which Jefferson dated an official document. Instead of "in the year of our Lord," Jefferson used the phrase "in the year of our Lord Christ." Christian historian David Barton has the proof – the original document signed by Jefferson on the "eighteenth day of October in the year of our Lord Christ, 1804."

According to Kennedy (source: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=28006), Jefferson...

Wrote 9 documents in 1776 ("Notes on Religion") which are "very orthodox statements about the inspiration of Scripture and Jesus as the Christ," according to Mark Beliles, a Providence Foundation scholar...

Wrote an abridgement of the gospels for the benefit of Native Americans in 1804...(he gave his money to assist missionary work among the Indians, believing his "abridgement of the New Testament for the use of the Indians" would help civilize and educate America's aboriginal inhabitants...It's also a myth that this abridgement cut out ALL Biblical miracles...the Table of Texts that survives includes several accounts of Christ's healings.)

What about Franklin?

Consider also the fact that Franklin proposed a Biblical inscription for the Seal of the United States; that he chose a New Testament verse for the motto of the Philadelphia Hospital; that he was one of the chief voices behind the establishment of a paid chaplain in Congress; and that when in 1787 when Franklin helped found the college which bore his name, it was dedicated as "a nursery of religion and learning" built "on Christ, the Corner-Stone." Franklin certainly doesn't fit the definition of a deist

Franklin speech given to Congress on June 28, 1787 asked that Congress have a prayer every morning before conducting business:

In this situation of this Assembly, groping as it were in the dark to find political truth, and scarce able to distinguish it when presented to us, how has it happened, Sir, that we have not hitherto once thought of humbly applying to the Father of lights to illuminate our understandings? In the beginning of the Contest with G. Britain, when we were sensible of danger we had daily prayer in this room for the divine protection.--Our prayers, Sir, were heard, and they were graciously answered. All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of a Superintending providence in our favor. To that kind providence we owe this happy opportunity of consulting in peace on the means of establishing our future national felicity. And have we now forgotten that powerful friend? I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth--that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings, that "except the Lord build the House they labour in vain that build it." I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the Builders of Babel: We shall be divided by our little partial local interests; our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall become a reproach and bye word down to future ages. And what is worse, mankind may hereafter from this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing Governments be Human Wisdom and leave it to chance, war and conquest. I therefore beg leave to move--that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the Clergy of the City be requested to officiate in that service.

Finally, in Franklin's 1749 plan of education for public schools in Pennsylvania, he insisted that schools teach "the necessity of a public religion...and the excellency of the Christian religion above all others, ancient or modern."

In regard to education, a quote from Samuel Adams is similar to that of Franklin: "Let...statemen & altruists unite their endeavors to renovate the age by...educating their little boys & girls...leading them in the study & practice of the exalted virtues of the Christian system." (Source: Samuel Adams and John Adams, "Four Letters," 1802, pp.9-10)

So, let's compare Samuel Adams' talking about the "exalted virtues of the Christian system" & Franklin talking about "the excellency of the Christian religion above all others" to the LDS "scriptures" Romney holds to:

I asked the personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right — and which I should join. I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong, and the personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in His sight: that those professors were all corrupt..." (Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith - History, vv. 18-19)

Let's compare Adams' & Franklin's comments of the Christian system/religion to that of the ancestor of Romney, his great-great-great uncle Orson Pratt:

"The Roman Catholic, Greek, and Protestant church, is the great corrupt, ecclesiastical power, represented by great Babylon...." (Orson Pratt, Orson Pratt, Writings of an Apostle, "Divine Authenticity," no.6, p.84...Pratt in The Seer, p. 255, called this "great Babylon" the "whore of Babylon.")

"...all the priests who adhere to the sectarian religions of the day with all their followers, without one exception, receive their portion with the devil and his angels." (The Elders Journal, Joseph Smith Jr., editor, vol.1, no.4, p.60).

"...all other churches are entirely destitute of all authority from God; and any person who receives baptism or the Lord's supper from their hands will highly offend God, for he looks upon them as the most corrupt people." (Orson Pratt, The Seer, p. 255).

I find that the fact that you must have an elected official with your same exact religious beliefs shows that you have little understanding of our political process.

Never said that. (Don't put words in my mouth)

At for faith adherence, obviously I take into consideration the difference between a Bill Clintonista Baptist & a Huckabee Baptist...I do realize a number of pro-abortion mainliners exist among Methodists, etc.

Once again, I challenge any of you to prove to me how Mitt Romney will not be able to uphold our religious freedoms and other conservative values just because he is a Mormon.

Let's first look at Mitt's "gumbility" (gumby flexibility). And then let's see what LDS role models he had where this kind of "gumbility" was perfectly fine:

Romney was against legal fake marriage ("gay marriage") while being for legal fake marriage (civil unions and dometic partnerships).

Romney underwent a pro-life "conversion" in Nov 04 only to be forcefully "pro-choice" at a press conference in May 05, followed by expanding Commonwealth mandated "healthcare" in '06 where he further subsidized the abortion industry. Now he says everything he did as governor was "pro-life" and that he never "felt" he was "pro-choice."

In '94 in 2 back-to-back sentences, Romney spoke about the rights of the Boy Scouts of America to determine its own policy, and in the very next breath say that the Boy Scouts should be open to people of any "sexual orientation."

Romney was twice endorsed by the Log Cabin Club of MA only now to have ads run against him by the Log Cabin Club.

Romney was in favor of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act before he was 'agin' it.

Romney came alongside Catholic social services to help them keep homosexuals from adopting thru their agency before telling them that "No...can't help you."

Romney was in favor of embryonic stem cell research and then underwent a "conversion." He was in favor of Roe until he was against it.

Question: Now, how may have the evolution of Mormon theology influenced the evolution of Romney's theologically laced social stances?

Example 1: The Book of Mormon was anti-polygamy; but then its original prophet WAS a polygamist (along with many to follow); but then the LDS church cracked down on polygamy; but then polygamy is still supposedly being practiced forever in the celestial kingdom (IOW, "right now"--as much as "eternity" can be "now").

Example 2: LDS leaders said black skin was a "curse" and prevented blacks from the priesthood. Then they changed their mind in 1978.

Example 3: LDS were largely anti-slavery in history. But then you get curious pro-slave owner "Scriptural" passages like Doctrine & Covenants 134:12.

Example 4: Except for the doctrine of grace and some others, just about all of the major distinctions between LDS & the historic Christian faith doesn't even come from the Book of Mormon. What that means is that LDS theology itself "evolved" (one God in BoM; multiple gods later...no priesthood in BoM; priesthood later; no created God in BoM; LDS god a created God later; no 3 degrees of heaven in BoM; 3 degrees later; no baptism for dead or geneology works or temple works in BoM; all of that later...I could on and on)

Example 5: LDS position on abortion. If you read the LDS position on abortion (particularly the one I've seen written for LDS bishops), it initially comes across as "pro-life." But as you read it carefully, you realize that the holes in this cheese makes you ask, "Where's the cheese?" I mean there's an exception for rape. An exception for generic "health." (And guess who gets to define "health"?--that's right, the abortionist). An exception for if you pray to God about it and then you make God an accessory to murder by saying, "He answered 'Yes'." An exception for life of the mother...

Conclusion: When folks point to Gumby Romney waffling on this or that, I guess I have to ask, "What's the big deal?" (That's what LDS leaders have done from the get-go)

(Can you tell me that the verses of Mormon Scripture, Joseph Smith - History, vv. 18-19, are not taken literally by Mitt? Can you tell me he doesn't regard members of Christian sects as apostates like Mormon doctrine does; as corrupt--the verses say ALL such "professors" are "corrupt"; as creedally an "abomination before the Lord?")

No I can't and neither can you, because he hasn't commented on it. I know that whatever he believes about the Mormon religion is dead, wrong, but I will remind you that many of our founding fathers owned slaves and as for

Secondly, if a Mormon Governor or representative is spiritually illiterate, it won't have the same international ramifications as would the leader of the free world. IOW, if a Mormon gov thinks that 75% of the country is an apostate world religion (Christianity), that's no comparison to if the leader of the free world can't accurately define a world religion. If he thinks that one world religion (Christianity) is 100% creedally abominable, absolute chock full of corrupt professors, and is apostate then how does that inspire voters to think that he can accurately define the multiple strands of Islam?

I have no qualms about Romeny's position on Islam or terrorism, he certainly did not back down when he was tested. I remind you that President John Adams did not believe in the Trinity, and was a Unitarian, but I would never question his ability as a world leader.

Me: (Can you tell me that the verses of Mormon Scripture, Joseph Smith - History, vv. 18-19, are not taken literally by Mitt? Can you tell me he doesn't regard members of Christian sects as apostates like Mormon doctrine does; as corrupt--the verses say ALL such "professors" are "corrupt"; as creedally an "abomination before the Lord?")

You: No I can't and neither can you, because he hasn't commented on it. I know that whatever he believes about the Mormon religion is dead, wrong, but I will remind you that many of our founding fathers owned slaves...

Not so. When you look at this pro-Mitt article, http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1929161/posts, note this quote from Mitt:

"I know there are some people hoping that I will simply declare in some way that my church is all well and good, but that I don't really believe it and I don't try to follow it. That's not going to happen. I'm proud of my faith. I love my faith. It is the faith of my fathers and mothers. I do my best to live by its teachings."

What is the foremost foundational teaching of the LDS church? The apostasy & restoration. No 100% apostasy of the Christian church, no need for a new ground-up structured church "restoration."

No, Romney is a restorationist. (If he wasn't, no true believing Mormon or LDS leader would want him representing them in public)

You think that this is like some past "slave-owning" past position. I can walk down to the biggest store around here, go to the book section, go to the LDS portion of the book section, and find a major prominently displayed book on the alleged 100% apostasy of the Christian church.

I'll betcha you can't even go to a Southern-Baptist owned bookstore in the South & find a pro-slavery book there!

But a jihadist Muslim is nothing like an ordinary Mormon, and their lifestyles are just as Nightshift described.

It is not fair to attack any group who are an established part of society, contributing to it. The issue of whether this guy is much of a Mormon is a different thing. The hate towards Mormons is really very disconcerting, I have often noticed it, and I think it is a silly irritation in American society. Anyone’s religion can sound absurd if described in a hostile way. Leave them to it.

Anyone’s religion can sound absurd if described in a hostile way. Leave them to it.

Which is exactly what I'm objecting to. Illustration: Imagine if you had access to a chapter of George Bush's memoirs he was working on prior to the 2004 election; in it, let's say George W. said he subscribed to the senior Bush's take on the entire Christian church...that ALL the professors of every Christian sect were "corrupt" and that ALL their creeds were an "abomination before the Lord" and he just thought the entire world of Christendom was 100% apostate.

Imagine you're a journalist & you have access to all that. What? You don't think there'd be quite a sensationalistic & highly combustible article there once it hit the media?

You're exactly right: Anyone's religion (like the "Christian sects" mentioned in the Mormon Pearl of Great Price "scripture") can sound absurd if described in a hostile way. (What? You don't think Smith, of whom Mitt Romney is a follower of, doesn't describe Christianity in a "hostile" manner by calling us all abominable & corrupt apostates?).

Why is it that we get your lecture of "Leave them to it" when Smith never thought twice about "leaving it up to" the historic Christian church to define ourselves. Instead, he pretended to speak for God by slandering the entire worldwide Christian church!

It is not fair to attack any group who are an established part of society, contributing to it.

OK, who launched the opening salvo? (It wasn't the Christian church) Smith was a mere 14 yo lad when he decided to verbally "nuke" the Christian church. Ever since then, the Mormon church (1) elevated those words to "scripture" status; (2) have never retracted, recanted or apologized for them...instead their leaders write books about the apostasy & put them front & center in the largest stores of our country; they print millions of Pearl of Great Prices & ship them out worldwide; and they send 60,000-70,000 missionaries around the world, where one of the top three teachings they convey door to door is our so-called "apostasy" & restoration.

Every true believing Mormon believes all these things, yet you have the gall to harangue those who won't sit back & take this open slander & denigration of every single Christian denomination!!!