Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: reaganaut

At least you’re honest and you’ll give a reason to your objections to Mormons in office. There are many here who are anti-Mormon, but fail to give reasons beyond theological disagreements with Mormons while ignoring disagreements they have with other faiths.

I find it unfortunate that many Freepers view Mormons in the same light as Muslims (sans the murder aspect) instead of accepting them as a large conservative voting block. You don’t have to agree with their religious views, but ignoring the way they vote seems somewhat irresponsible to me.


769 posted on 05/03/2009 9:02:12 PM PDT by Skenderbej
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 553 | View Replies ]


To: Skenderbej

You don’t have to agree with their religious views, but ignoring the way they vote seems somewhat irresponsible to me.

- - - - - - - - -
Thank you for your level headed comment.

One thing I will say about the LDS (positive) is their ability to be consistent when voting as a bloc. This got them in trouble in the early days in MO, IL and OH, as well as some problems out in “deseret” (now Utah, parts of AZ, CA, NV), but even now, as shown by Prop 8 in CA, when they choose to vote a certain way they do so almost unanimously. That can work for the Conservatives.


774 posted on 05/03/2009 9:14:17 PM PDT by reaganaut (Ex-Mormon, now Christian "I once was lost, but now am found; was blind but now I see")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 769 | View Replies ]

To: Skenderbej; reaganaut
At least you’re honest and you’ll give a reason to your objections to Mormons in office. There are many here who are anti-Mormon, but fail to give reasons beyond theological disagreements with Mormons while ignoring disagreements they have with other faiths.

There's LOTS of reasons -- though most of them tend to apply only to POTUS.

Point 1: Too much fuel for massive LDS public relations propaganda campaign. Bill Clinton was a presidential role-model disaster for our young generation re: the scandal. A POTUS is highest role model position in U.S. & accords the highest level of respectability re: public aspects of what that person stands for. If that person, for example, is a neatly tucked-away communist who's adopted a mask of "family values," & we elect him president, we are telling our kids that communism is OK to emulate. Furthermore, we are handing proselytizing fuel to communists everywhere, fueling door-to-door boldness & other aggressive campaigns to be able to say, "See. Our respectable Communist leader holds the highest office in the land. Come study what helped make the man he is today!"

Point 2: Let's say the candidate is an open doctrinaire communist. He comes to me (let's say I'm a successful businessman who has benefitted from capitalism) & says: "If you check out my most closely-held tenets of my 'faith,' they state that you are an apostate from Marx. Every capitalistic creed is an abomination before the sovereign state. Your capitalistic leaders are corrupt. There are only two economic systems: the system of the devil (if he exists), capitalism; and the perfect ideal system, communism. I can expect your vote, then?"

Now ya wanna explain this would be distinct than a doctrinaire Mormon who subscribes to the Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith - History, verses 18-19? 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..." LDS cannot just jettison this -- it's authoritative "Scripture"; this verse originates as the supposed description of the very foundation of the church--the First Vision of Joseph Smith. It's one of top 4 teachings explained by every LDS missionary (doctrine of universal "apostasy" of the historic Christian church). Any true-believing LDS candidate (not necessarily a Jack Mormon candidate) who approaches us historic Christians is saying: "You are an apostate; I am a restorationist built upon the complete ashes of your faith. Your creeds--all of them--are an 'abomination' before God. Your professing believers are 'corrupt.' As it says in the Book of Mormon, 1 Nephi 14:9-10, there's only two churches...Ours, the Church of the Lamb; and yours, the Church of the devil. Now, that I've properly inspired you, Mr. Joe Voter, I can expect your vote on Tuesday, then?" [Just because this is NOT communicated face-to-face by an LDS candidate or somebody at the LDS grassroots level doesn't mean it's not being done millions of times each year as every Pearl of Great Price/Book of Mormon comes off the printing press in dozens of languages--all supported by tithing members...and, by the LDS missionary enterprise which is supported by every local ward & stake whereby all 60,000 LDS missionaries go door-to-door proclaiming their doctrine of alleged Christian apostasy...]

Point 3: Taking this voter alienation into consideration, & taking the potential MSM onslaught into consideration in '12 with an African-American Democrat running against a 1978-policy changing LDS church, a smart voter MUST consider candidate viability. We would see MSM questions like, “Mr. Romney, why as a 30 year-old adult did you belong to a religion restricting blacks from priesthood?” "Do you believe you will be a god? Do you believe conservative voters from other churches are 'apostates?' Do believe that although polygamy is no longer practiced on earth, it's being practiced at now & for eternity in another dimension known as the celestial kingdom?"

Point 4: (related to Point 1 & applicable only to POTUS):

If I... .

..(a) was a POTUS candidate from a commonly regarded "cultic group"; and

...(b) mislabel 75% of my voting base's primary faith tenets & claims as mere "apostate" status (Note: 75% of people claim to be "Christians" in the more mainline/Protestant/Catholic sense--& frankly, this % is higher in the Republican party)

Then...

Conclusion: I not only show open disdain for my voting base, but betray my ability to inspire confidence in my ability to accurately define a major world religion. If I cannot accurately define a major world religion, what confidence do I inspire re: my ability to handle national security issues, terrorist issues, & negotiation issues pertaining to another world religion like Islam? (Besides, how are LDS who in print openly label all Christians as “apostates” any different than Muslims who in print openly label all Christians as “infidels?”)

Point 5: (Not sure if this applies beyond POTUS). The Bible shows that true successful leadership in public office is done by those who fear the true Lord & who do not worship false gods/idols. The OT is replete w/ such examples. The Israelites had secular kings, not "pastors in chief." But that didn't mean that these kings' ministrations were any less a "ministry." Romans 13 makes it clear that public office is also a "ministry." Those who contend against this are openly militating against this Scripture. It doesn't mean that public officeholders administrate in a parochial way; it just means that public office is a "ministry of service" just like the soup kitchen down the street. History (biblical & otherwise) shows that the more pagan or counterfeit god that a leader holds, the more trouble that leader's "exhaust" settles on the people-at-large. Kings & presidents need all the grace, mercy, & guidance possible, since God gets more credit for preserving & directing leaders than we care to give Him credit for. Therefore, one who worships a false god & has no true relationship w/the living God is stifling access to God's resources; & a nation may suffer for that.

802 posted on 05/03/2009 10:41:10 PM PDT by Colofornian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 769 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson