Evangelicals Against Mitt

Mitt Romney is facing an unexpected challenge in Iowa from rival Mike Huckabee, who has enjoyed a groundswell of support from religious voters, particularly evangelical Christians wary of the clean-cut former Massachusetts governor because of his Mormon religion.

The common worry among evangelicals is that if Romney were to capture the White House, his presidency would give legitimacy to a religion they believe is a cult. Since the LDS church places heavy emphasis on proselytizing -- there are 53,000 LDS missionaries worldwide -- many mainstream Christians are afraid that Mormon recruiting efforts would increase and that LDS membership rolls would swell.

THE ONLY PROBLEM with those fears is that they don't add up. Evangelicals may be surprised to learn that the growth of church membership in Massachusetts slowed substantially during Romney's tenure as governor. In fact, one could make the absurdly simplistic argument that Romney was bad for Mormonism.

ONE WAY TO GAUGE what might happen under a President Romney would be to look at what happened during the period of the 2002 Olympic Winter Games. Held in Salt Lake City, they were dubbed the "Mormon Olympics."

Despite all the increased attention, worldwide the Church grew only slightly, and in fact in the year leading up to the games the total number of congregations fell. Overall, from 2000 to 2004, there was a 10.9 percent increase in memberships and a 3.6 percent increase in congregations.

The LDS church is likely to continue its current modest-but-impressive growth whether or not Romney wins the White House. Perhaps the only real worry for evangelicals is that, if elected, the former Massachusetts governor will demonstrate to Americans that Mormons don't have horns.

Carrie Sheffield, a member of the LDS Church, is a writer living in Washington, D.C.

"It’s good logic, DU."
No it is not good, it is inaccurate.

LOL! One man's theology is another man's Bird cage liner, wait, did I misquote that a bit?

The Mormonism apologist wrote the following ... which other Mormons apparently haven't the intellect to see is flawed, so I'll explain the vacuousness:

My mother told me to stick with what I am good at, I Guess yours did too, go ahead and explain Vacuousness, oh, and ping me next time...

DU :
If the Bible is true, and there is even one scripture that says that Grace is required, then it is. If the Bible is true and there is even one scripture that says that Works are required, then it is. If there are no such scriptures than neither are required. If there are scriptures requiring both, then both are required.

MHG :
First, the poster assumed that a single verse would establish his asserted legs to his syllogism stool, ignoring the FACT that the Bible is its own best commentary and thus will ALWAYS have more than one citation to establish a fundamental truth. Second, the poster makes flawed/mismatched legs of his assuming syllogism ... the poster goes from single citation is all that is required to multiple citations required to establish 'both are true' and then doesn't follow through, as we see below:

Either the Bible is inerrant or it is not. IF the Bible is inerrant, and it says anywhere that something is required, then that is required or the Bible must be errant, or must not say that.

There is no pancake so thin that it has only one side.

your logical argument is a one sided pancake.

Even if I needed more than one citation, there are plenty of more citations and you know that, I specifically said I was only showing one to save space (You have complained about my long posts in the past)

As for the "Follow through, I though that was obvious.

DU : Are there any that list Both? ... 3. James 2:20 20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? ... OK, so if you actually believe the whole Bible, not just cherry picked scriptures then you need faith and works.= MHG : Aside from the obvious violation of his own verdict against 'cherry picking' (read trying to take a passage out of context to use it speciously), works are not asserted in the passage found in James as making Faith alive, nor are works stated as necessary to keep Faith alive, it is ONLY positing that a claim of faith is not alive if no works authored by God's presence within are in evidence (as contextual teaching from the preponderance of the Bible teaches), thus the claimed faith is not LIFE as taught in other scriptures passages which are conspicuously absent from the flawed three leg syllogism. Um, OK, here it is in context: James 2:14-26

14 What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?
15 If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food,
16 And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?
17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.
19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.
20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?
21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?
22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?
23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.
24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
25 Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way?
26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

Actually, my edit was that you accept the whole bible, not just pieces, cherry picked. If someone will just show me a scripture where it says Works are not needed for salvation, I'll just add this to my list of contradictions, because this clearly states that they are.

My selection of scriptures stands, if the Bible is inerrant, then you have to accept it as a whole, and it cannot contradict itself (For a contradiction with the Bible, I am told on this thread makes anything that contradicts the Bible wrong), therefore if it clearly says you must have works, you must have them. If the Bible clearly says you must have faith then you must have that. if the Bible clearly states you are saved by Grace, then you must have grace. if the Bible says both anywhere, or worse in one scripture then the true doctrine from the Bible must include Grace, Faith, and Works.

MHG : You cultist need to stop with your echo chamber of reinforcing each others' foolishness.

Why, does it bother you? Can you show me a rule on FR against saying Hi to your friends or complementing them on a good turn of phrase?

MHG : FreeRepublic is not some field of uneducated dupes.

OK ... They let you post... (It had to be said.)

MHG : Do Mormons really think that illogic and cherry picked scriptures exhibited would be swallowed because one apologists slaps another apologist on the back claiming flawed logic is 'good logic'?

No, but it is good logic.

IF something is inerrant that means it has no errors, it is all true. You guys claim to believe that about the Bible, then you cherry pick and say "well we read this scripture, but not that one", "we interpret this to mean the opposite of what it says", "that's just an allegory" and so on. Cherry picking only works if you only read the one scripture, it does not matter if you focus on one for a moment and say the others are equally true, for you must keep them all. Cherry picking "Works" if you read a few scriptures that agree with your point and ignore any that don't

At least Mormons are honest, we say we believe the Bible "as far as it is translated correctly". And you beat us up for that, and say we don't follow the "True Gospel" contained in it. Then while saying it's inerrant, you cherry pick, and freely Obviously, and wind up twisting thing your way. It's the inerrant, and then cherry picking that is getting you guys in trouble here. Just be honest and admit that the Bible has errors and you are correcting them by only reading the "Good" parts" and interpreting the rest. Just be honest.

To all the LDS out there, a big high five and a Good Job!

Responding to Reno 232 on these comments:

Well, I can see where you're going here Colofornian. Straight out of the anti-Mormon handbook.

No "anti-Mormon" handbook open here...Oh, I get it. The only open book I had last night with the football game on in the background was the Bible. (Yup, you're right. It is anti-Mormon...like Paul warning Timothy very specifically about the "doctrines of demons")

The Lord never indicated that He wouldn't give us additional revelation, in fact the opposite. You use Hebrews 1:1-2, "1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, 2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds". Where does He state that there would be no more Prophets?

Well, show me where Jesus said, "My prophetic status is now suspect, because I said the gates of hell wouldn't prevail against my church...therefore, as future Latter-day Saints will claim, I now forfeit my Prophet role since Matthew 16:18 didn't turn out to be so...sorry...Hence, like that referee in some future NFL commercial will say, he'll "make it up" to the other team in the second half...And, so, I'm "making it up" by letting other prophets--those who will be known as Mormon prophets--come & permanently pinch-hit for me in my stead."

Question: Is Jesus a liar when he told the disciples in giving the Great commission of Matthew 28:20 that He would " be with them always? to the end of the age" [Oh, yeah. I forgot. LDS do consider Jesus to be such a liar...since they claim the Jesusless church leaders fully apostatized from being the Church...Orson Pratt has already authoritatively settled what the LDS opinion is of Jesus and Matthew 16:18 with this LDS general authority teaching:] The gates of hell have prevailed and will continue to prevail over the Catholic mother of harlots, and over all her Protestant daughters; but as for the apostolical Church of Christ, she rests secure in the mansions of eternal happiness, where she will remain until the apostate Catholic church, with all her popes and bishops, together with all her harlot daughters shall be hurled down to hell... (Orson Pratt’s Works, p. 189-190)

So Mormons come up with pinch-hitter "prophets" inserted in place of Jesus! Why, Mormons won't even pray directly to Jesus! [Even tho the Nephite disciples reportedly repeatedly did so in 3 Nephi!!!] Some Mormons won't worship Jesus, saying they worship only Heavenly Father (these Mormons want to be strict monotheists like those in the Bible)

So LDS...

(a) ...don't acknowledge Jesus as their prophet...they assign that role to Hinckley & a number of dead guys...(My "Prophet" is still alive & still revealing HIMSELF)

(b) ...don't pray directly to Jesus (I pray to Him AND through Him);

(c) ...Some Mormons openly acknowledge even on FReeper Web sites that they don't WORSHIP Jesus (I worship HIM); and...

(d) ...LDS apostle Bruce McConkie told BYU students in a devotion not to seek a special relationship with Jesus! (Christians intimately relate to Jesus!)

(Wow! What's left for Jesus to do in the Mormon church?..especially since Brigham tried to take away Jesus' Savior role by saying that some folks had to atone for their own sin--Jesus' blood was just too anemic in Brigham's eyes to cover ALL of folks' sin!)

I say: If you wanted to get the scoop on a Hollywood celebrity, would you rather talk to the celebrity, or to some Hollywood reporter who just interviewed the celebrity? If you wanted the scoop on a pro athlete, would rather talk to the athlete, or to some journalist who just interviewed the athlete? You see Mormons get into one similar problem as experienced by many Roman Catholics, who may feel awkward praying directly to Jesus and try to contact Mary or dead saints instead. What does the NT say? For there is one God [not 3, not millions] and one mediator between God and man...Christ Jesus... [1 Tim. 2:5]

Where did the Lord indicate that he would never have prophets again? Amos 3:7 states "Surely the Lord GOD will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets"...Your post really shows just how little you really know about the church. Revelation by prophets isn't just found in the Doctrine & Covenants or the BOM.

This is funny. We both say the same thing, with entirely different meanings (referencing your last phrase here re: Revelation by prophets...) Even when I quoted John 5:39 to you in the last post, the implications of that still doesn't impact you. Jesus plainly says to you that "eternal life" isn't found in a prophet named Smith or one named Hinckley or even one named Amos. Now why does He say that? Because revelation is much, much greater than what is found embedded in a book. Jesus, in John 14:6, says that Revelation is ultimately defined by what is embodied in Him: I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father but by Me. Jesus is Truth. Jesus is Eternal Life.

IOW, Jesus Himself IS the Living Revelator!!! Of course, revelation by prophets isn't just found in the D&C & BoM! It's found in the Very Person of Jesus Christ!

As for Amos 3:7: I don’t think I’ve yet encountered an LDS missionary (of any lengthy convo, that is) who doesn’t get around to citing Amos 3:7 as a proof quote to underscore the “need” for an ongoing living revelator: Surely the Sovereign Lord does nothing without revealing his plan to his servants the prophets. [The way they often apply this verse, Reno, I’m often thinking, What? Now we have prophet-weathermen because the Lord won’t let it rain & snow without telling an LDS prophet of his “plan?”]

Ya gotta understand how LDS missionaries have often plastered this verse on us & how it’s used: The following is a bit of an exaggeration of the tone, but not much: “Naa, Naa, Naa, Naa, Naa…we have a 24/7/365 living revelator & you doe-on’t.”

My question to you is: What good is an ongoing living “seer & revelator” of God if he can’t properly ID who God is? (“He’s Adam.” “You’re kidding?” “Nope.” “Imagine that. Well, we’ll just have to name our most prominent university after you because of your amazing perception of who God is!”)

What good is an ongoing living “seer & revelator” of God (like Young) if he inserts ourselves in place of the Savior’s blood a temporary doctrine of blood atonement? (How trustworthy then is to apply Amos 3:7 in any absolute way to an LDS prophet?) Or since Young inserted our blood for Jesus’ blood in that doctrine, what about a Joseph Fielding Smith who emphasizes the LDS church as saviors of the world due to the practice of baptizing dead folks? (And I thought we only had one Savior of the world)

What’s ironic here is that it’s LDS who cite Amos 3:7 & say God doesn’t do anything without revealing His plan & will to His prophet. So you expect to tell us that we can continually look to him for church-wide ongoing plan revelations and ongoing will revelations?--yet when we look at the LDS “prophetic” track record of canonless PUBLIC statements by LDS “prophets”—and then when we quote them back to LDS—we tend to get qualifier after qualifier after qualifier from Mormons. They essentially say, “Hey don’t be disappointed…99.99999999999% of what Prophet X or Prophet Y had to say publicly didn’t even qualify as core doctrinal level statements let alone be sustained as a new revelation. What gave you the idea that everything that comes out of the mouth or the pen of every living revelator, seer, prophet, God’s only authoritative rep on earth is the authoritative gospel? Why we just can’t understand how you would misconstrue our build-up of an Amos 3:7 prophet!!!”

Let’s say, for argument’s sake, that we buy what LDS criticize others for…Let’s say, “OK, heaven’s revelationally wide open…God still reveals Scripture…You’re telling us His mouthpiece is that old guy over there…Let’s take a look @ what he has to say since I guess we need to apply Amos 3:7 according to the way you’ve structured it…”

Two minutes later we say, “Wait a minute.” You say, “What?” “I thought you told me that the Lord does nothing without revealing his plan to his prophet?” “And?” “Well, I just reviewed his general conference talk on the Lord’s will?” “And?” “Well, when’s this going to be added to the D&C as a new revelation?” “Uh, it probably won’t be.” “Why not?” (Silence)

And this scenario is what I think, Reno, what you have implied with your comment, Your post really shows just how little you really know about the church. Revelation by prophets isn't just found in the Doctrine & Covenants or the BOM. -- 'cause other LDS have told me that even General Conference comments by Hinckley qualify as church-wide applicable "revelation" (I'm not talking about personal illumination available to all Christians).

But LDS speak out of both sides of their mouth: On the one hand, they imply like you have that LDS revelation from their "prophets" goes beyond what can be found in the D&C & BoM. The problem then becomes when plenty of other LDS folks around you are quite satisfied to lambast some deceased LDS prophets & apostles as dried-up, antiquated sources of irrelevant obscure directives from the Lord. [Example: Notice the cartwheels LDS grassroots jump through to not face squarely the sermonic words of a Brigham Young in Journal of Discourses]. I mean just look how LDS folks tend to distance themselves from the words of a Brigham Young or an apostle like Bruce R. McConkie (and LDS already say that apostles & prophets are essentially interchangeable) when these sources embarrass Mormons.

Yet, inevitably, we get zealous online Mormons like yourself, alongside LDS missionaries, who will elevate the current “prophet” to the highest post on earth when they want their PR ambassadors to be able to market, “See, we have God’s ONLY direct authoritative pipeline to earth.”

Bottom line: LDS, please stop putting “prophets” up on the New Scripture-producing pedestal. LDS folks can't keep saying out both sides of their mouth that this guy is the highest revelational post on earth--but whatever his predecessor said publicly was irrelevant, non-doctrinal, uncanonized, unofficial drivel. [DelphiUser is good at trying to distance himself from McConkie & anything Journal of Discourses related] (You can't blame us for identifying a disconnect there, can you?)

Where does Peter in 2 Peter 1:3 say that everything is in the Bible? You fully realize that the Bible didn't even exist then, right? You state that Jesus was the great prophet & that is enough Scriptures, interesting term. What scriptures was the Lord referring to? Was the Bible around back then? Who made the decisions as to what scrolls would be included in the Bible in the 4th century A.D.?

You fully realize, don't you, what Peter wrote later in that SAME letter? Here, read it: Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do THE OTHER SCRIPTURES, to their own destruction. (2 Peter 3:15-16)

You fully realize don't you that 2 Peter was written toward the end of Peter's life? (Now this was likely as early as 68 AD...some claim that FIRST Peter wasn't even written til 95-105 AD). You fully realize, don't you, that all of Paul's letters were written between 48 & 58 AD? You fully realize, don't you, that 20 or 21 books of the 27 in the NT were written by Peter, Paul, and John?..and that with Peter being the recognized chief shepherd of the early church, he would certainly have had access to what was authoritative already in circulation!

You fully realize don't you that canonization of the New Testament wasn't a matter where a bunch of church folks got together several dozen scrolls & cast die to see which, from scratch, they would toss in as ingredients for a recipe on Scripture? IOW, canonization was a process where they simply confirmed what was already authoritative to the early church because of who wrote it!

Who made the decisions as to what scrolls would be included in the Bible in the 4th century A.D.? Was it the Lord

LOOK @ WHAT THE NT ITSELF PROCLAIMS ABOUT THESE WRITINGS

As Warfield wrote, "The Christian church...was never without a 'Bible' or a 'canon'" because revelation was preached "in the Holy Ghost" (1 Peter 1:12)...clothed by the Holy Ghost (1 Cor. 2:13)...and even the leaders' own commands "were, therefore, of Divine authority (1 Thess. 4:2) and their writings were the depository of these commands (2 Thess. 2:15; 3:14; 1 Cor. 14:37). These writings were read during early worship meetings of the church (1 Thess. 5:27; Col. 4:16; Rev. 1:3).

To put all this in Mormon terms, I mean what you are saying would be like me saying that Smith didn't know what was in the BoM "scripture" in late 1829 because it's copyright wasn't til 1830...or that Smith didn't know any of what the Lord supposedly revealed to him for the Book of Commandments--predecessor to the D&C--until its publishing date of 1835. I'm sorry, but "copyright date" or canonization date doesn't = revelation date!!!

The first canon, the Muratorian Canon, was compiled in 170 AD & included all of the NT books except Hebrews, James & 3 John. Less than 200 years after that, the NT canon was confirmed. As one Wikipedia entry says: ...the New Testament supports the view that Paul (2 Timothy 4:11–13), Peter (2 Peter 3:15–16), and ultimately John (Revelation 22:18–19) finalized the canon of the New Testament.

One author named McDonald wrote: Although a number of Christians have thought that church councils determined what books were to be included in the biblical canons, a more accurate reflection of the matter is that the councils recognized or acknowledged those books that had already obtained prominence from usage among the various early Christian communities.

Some believe all NT books were completed by 85 AD...some go 20 years later than that. "It is clear that the sayings of Jesus had a scripture-like status from the very beginning of the church." (McDonald) We know that by 90 AD the church had already settled its Old Testament canon. By 95 AD, Clement had mentioned at least 8 NT books. Ignatius acknowledged 7 NT books in 115 AD--in fact, at this time, he is already referencing it as the new "Bible." Polycarp, a disciple of John, acknoledged 15 books in 108 AD. So these Christian documents cite the gospels, the Pauline epistles, and the Epistle to the Hebrews as authoritative. (It continued in this vein: Irenaeus mentions 21 books in 185 AD and Hippolytus, recognized 22 books shortly thereafter, dying in 235).

Who made the decisions as to what scrolls would be included in the Bible in the 4th century A.D.? Was it the Lord? Why weren't all the books included? There are many books mentioned in the Bible that aren't there. Why not?

By 200 AD, the only books that were still under uncertainty were: Hebrews, 2 Peter, Jude, 2 & 3 John, and Revelation--most of these for authorship questions. (Some also put James in there). Some felt that the following books should be part of the New Testament: Epistle of Barnabas; The Epistles of Clement; The Shepherd of Hermas, and the Gospel of Thomas (Thomas was probably not written til 140 AD...was not written by Thomas...none of the early church fathers from Clement to Irenaeus quoted this book). But NONE of the non-canonical works of the NT are recognized or quoted as authoritative by AD 130 like we have the canonical books. As one writer said: We DO have several quotations that were evidently preserved by means of oral tradition - but NONE that appear uniquely in the non-canonical works. This would point to the non-canonical works being of a later date than the canonical works (range of 50-100 AD), and would certainly move to destroy any claim that they were written by authoritative eyewitnesses to the life of Jesus!

Finally, I could ask the same thing of the BoM: DelphiUser has already conceded many supposed "books" were left out the BoM--perhaps almost half was excluded. If that doesn't make it less authoritative for you, then you raising this issue is just an irrelevant red herring tossed out so that you can ignore the implications of my previous post.

~”I have a question for you and I really mean no disrespect by this but; would you really be a Romney supporter if you were NOT a Mormon? Ff yes, can you tell me what specific policies of his that you support the most?”~

That’s a great question, thank you.

I did start looking at Romney earlier than most people, because the fact that he’s a Mormon did interest me, and I wanted to see what sort of person was about to bring my faith to the fore of political discussion.

Interestingly, I was at first repelled by him; I’m staunchly pro-life, as are so many Mormons, and I felt that a former Stake President should have known better than to be anything less than adamantly pro-life. Romney wasn’t always. That is a factor that kept me from supporting him for several months. I also wanted to wait and see what Fred Thompson brought to the table. Additionally, I was (and continue to be) irked by Romney’s pandering.

I started keeping up with his campaign on FR, started reading the criticism of him, then started researching that criticism in order to separate fact from fiction. During that period, I learned that 9 out of 10 of the criticisms against Romney were made up out of whole cloth by taking various things out of context, or by not considering the whole picture, etc.; many of the remaining criticisms, I found, where at least unfair. Romney has changed positions on issues - one way. He’s flipped. He’s yet to flop. Flips, though, are supposed to be good things, when they’re in the right direction. But not with Romney. It became apparent to me that he was, for some reason, being scrutinized in a way that other candidates weren’t. Policy-wise, for example, he’s no worse than Thompson, yet Thompson isn’t criticized nearly as heavily.

During this process, I came to identify factors that led to my support of Romney (in no particular order):
- He’s a successful, and ruthless, business manager. The federal government is a monster. I don’t know if anybody can fix it, but if anybody can, it has to be somebody with Romney’s skill set. I say it’s time we let him take a whack at it.
- He’s pro-life. He is a convert to this position, that’s true; but that’s good enough for me. He certainly can’t switch back.
- He’s fiscally conservative. His record as MA governor demonstrates this.
- He’s judicially conservative. He understands firsthand the damage an activist court can do, and we need someone with that viewpoint in office - we’re about to enter the most crucial period for judicial nominees that we’ve seen in generations.
- He not only preaches but demonstrates impeccable family values. The American family is falling to pieces. It needs all the help it can get. A role model can never be a bad thing.
- He’s telegenic. This is the media age. Like it or not, that matters.
- He’s optimistic. In this trait, he reminds us of Reagan. For him, the best days are still yet to come. I like that.
- He’s religious. I want a man in that office with the humility to kneel before God and ask for help. I don’t care about his denomination. This is one characteristic I really like about Bush, for example.
- He’s a gifted communicator. Bush has his good points, but after eight years, we need a standard bearer who can teach the American people back to conservatism.
- He is just as hawkish and tough in regards to the War on Terrorism as any other candidate.
- He isn’t afraid to tackle seemingly impossible problems. We face a lot of those right now. Bush has done well with one such problem, but he’s kicked a lot of others down the road. We need to stop doing that. I’m young. I’m going to have to deal with those problems when they’re far worse if they aren’t solved soon.
- I see China as a rising threat; I’ve been thinking about it for a couple of years. Imagine my delight at hearing Romney echo my thoughts on the topic. To my knowledge, he’s the only one.
- He is in favor of enlarging the military.
- He vociferously believes that America’s rightful place is in a dominant position culturally, technologically, and militarily. He’s not ashamed to embrace American exceptionalism.
- Generally speaking, other candidates appeal strongly to a specific subset of the conservative coalition. Romney is the only candidate among them that can credibly appeal to all of them.

No candidate is perfect, and Romney does have some positions and traits that I don’t like. However, on balance, he’s closer to what I would consider an ideal president than anybody else in the race.

Now, I will admit one thing to you: I’ve been engaged in apologetics for Mormonism for some time now, and the insults to my faith that I’ve encountered over the last months have been tough to swallow. It has been a strong temptation for me to root for Romney for the sake of the schadenfreude I will certainly feel if he wins towards those who demean what I hold dear and sacred. I’ve had to work hard to maintain enough discipline to disallow that bias from changing my thought pattern.

The short answer to your question, though, is probably yes. Romney shares my values as a voter. In fact, there’s a good chance I would have supported him sooner were I not a Mormon, because I wouldn’t have had such lofty expectations of his record.

Interestingly, I’ve challenged three other FReepers to ask me for this explanation, and they all ignored me. You’re the first that has asked me the question. Gold star.

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.