Can I vote for a Mormon? By Ken Starr

Ken Starr ^ | January 8, 2012 | Ken Starr

[reformjoy]

Tuesday’s New Hampshire primary looms large on the political horizon. In the midst of lively public debates over taxes, jobs, the national debt and similarly important questions related to the future vitality of our nation, a different kind of question continues to privately occupy the minds of some prospective voters: Can I vote for a Mormon?

... If an unbeliever such as Jefferson or non-churchman like Lincoln can serve brilliantly as president, then America should stand — in an intolerant world characterized all too frequently by religious persecution — as a stirring example of welcoming hospitality for highly qualified men and women of good will seeking the nation’s highest office. ...

[reaganaut]

So, how devout is Romney in his beliefs? Very. He has held mid-level church jobs like Stake President (similar to Catholic Bishop), served a LDS mission and was married in an LDS Temple (limited to only about 15% of membership).

Does he tithe? Yes, or he wouldn't have had those church jobs or a Temple recommend.

Does he hold a temple recommend?Yes.

Does he wear the "garments"? Yes.

Alot of people accuse Mitt of being Mormon in name only but that is far from the case. He is what is referred to as a TBM (True Blue Mormon).

[aimhigh]

The LDS cult has a variety of politicians, but I can’t think of a single one who is a conservative. LDS pretends to be conservative, but where’s the evidence?

[sten]

the left WANTS romney to be the nominee. why? they know for a FACT the far right won’t come out to vote. why won’t they? strictly because he’s a mormon. don’t believe me? wonder on over to the religious forums and take a gander at the daily bigot posts bashing mormons right here on FR

if he gets the nod, the media will go into overdrive to ‘investigate’ mormonism, the history, impacts, personal behaviors, etc

in presidential politics, the game requires you to pull your WHOLE base... and a greater percentage of the independents then the other guy.

romney can’t get his whole base out... so he loses

the left knows this... which is the reason he’s the one they’re pushing (with ron paul being a close second to split the vote as insurance)

[guitarist]

Many of the criticisms of the Romney are fair. But all I can say is that if you crazies here, should it come down to Obama v Romney, vote for Obama, or 3rd party, or don’t vote—THEN YOU WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR HIS INSTALLATION OF THE NEXT 2 OR 3 WILDLY LEFT SC JUSTICES. Sorry for shouting, but not as sorry as you will have to be if you do something so foolish.

[Burkean]

One might also add to the list:

Does he stay faithful to his marriage?

[Kenny Bunk]

He is what is referred to as a TBM (True Blue Mormon).

Perhaps Earth is the planet upon which Romney is supposed to achieve Mormon "God" status. There are many similarities between Mormon doctrine and Scientology, especially in the theological "End Game."

But, I am more interested in Romney's Program, Plan, and Leadership. So far, I have seen no specifics put out by his campaign and a whole lot of negative attack,especially against Newt, whom I like, but is really just as shy on hard ideas.

So,where is the meat in the Republican campaigns, anyway? Where are the specifics on ending the Education and EPA fiefdoms? Where is the tax strategy? Where are the Foreign Affairs initiatives? The Border Lock down? The Social Security Program?

I love Mom, The Flag, Apple Pie, and the Red White and Blue. Can I be President? Please?

[MeganC]

I would vote for a Mormon but I absolutely will not vote for Romney.

[fight_truth_decay]

Can I vote for a Mormon? By Ken Starr

I dunno can you? How should I know?

The Mormon thing is running pretty thin. A lib who went to BYU for his Masters 40 years ago [in library science but never got a job in that field]made that comment to me--I said but you love Harry Reid--as usual he stops and "a pull back blank look into his brain" appears, with no come back. I add Kennedy as a Catholic for good measure. Oh I threw in the 5 year "predominant"[Obama's words Snopes] Muslim schooling some Catholic, when living with his stepfather .....with of course no media collected schoolboy photos with classmates perhaps because they were all in Jakata? I said that never bothered you...........still no answer.[Then we move on..]

Chris Christie is giving Romney quite a media profile boost; and then the Mormon comments turn to Fat Guy comments and I picture Sr Winston Churchill rolling his eyes-- "been there done that" with Chamberlain..and we could turn to Obama's closeted "smoking"..so just have to laugh at desperation tactics from both parties.

We know who will get the nomination. Just ask Ann Coulter. ;)

[CzarChasm]

Silly typo, here let me fix that -

Can I Vote for a Mormon Moron?

The answer is: yes, you can. But please don't. We've got enough of 'em in DC already.

[Liberty Valance]

Sure i can vote for a Mormon. But Romney is another question entirely.

[dragonblustar]

Is Ken trying to do some ass kissing to get back into the good graces of the GOP elite?

BTW, his article was pure tripe. Same recycled talking points that Rove and Coulter have been using.

[JAKraig]

While he financially supported a Presbyterian Church, there is ample evidence he did not believe in the doctrines taught by that Church. . . .

________________________________________________________

Yes there is plenty of evidence, nearly all of it published by his detractors during a vicious election campaign.

I have read all the letters he wrote that are still available. It is enlightening reading. In those letters he is mortified that people have accused him of being non-Christian. He wondered in his writings about the physical resurrection of the body of Christ but never denied his divinity.

[Colofornian]

From the article: In fashioning this remarkably enduring document, the 55 delegates to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia made it absolutely clear that no religious test should ever be imposed to hold office. The Founders also made clear that religious dissenters (such as the Quakers) should not be compelled to take an oath if doing so would be a violation of conscience. Building on those twin pillars of tolerance, the Supreme Court at its finest moments has likewise vigorously defended the right of all persons to participate in the democratic process, including holding office, without the burden of religious tests or qualifications.

Well, put 2 & 2 together (the headline with the above graph by the writer)

What a crock!

Who is calling for a "religious test" that makes you eligible to get on the POTUS ballot? Who? Is that some frothy issue under debate somewhere that we just have missed somehow?

I'm not exactly sure why I even need to repeat the following...but for those isolationists like Ken Starr who somehow thinks this is some hotly contested issue...I can at least repeat it for the brainless who somehow think he's wading in on some key point:

Point 1- RELIGION: Religion IS NOT a qualification or disqualification for public office; but it's certainly one quality of voter discernment among many others...namely, voting record, present position statements & rampant inconsistency of past position statements, social issues' stances, character, viability, scandal-free past, etc. Article VI, section 3 of the Constitution is aimed at the candidate (must be of a certain age and must have resided in our country for a certain number of years) and the government so that religion does not become a disqualification to keep somebody otherwise eligible for running for public office. Article VI, section 3, is NOT aimed at the voter. Otherwise, voters would have to 100% disregard character, beliefs, other-dimensionly commitments, and spiritual discernment in weighing candidates.

POINT 2 - ELIGIBILITY: Newsflash!! Every person on the ballot, & even most write-in candidates, have proper "qualifications" to not be excluded from office consideration (at least based upon religious grounds). Of course, millions of us have the "qualifications" to be considered a potential POTUS & shouldn't be excluded outright from a ballot because of the religion we hold! Nobody has a "Religious Ineligibility" tattoo on their forehead!

POINT 3- BOTTOM LINE: Too many, including Mr. Starr, confuse "qualifications" (language within the Constitution) with "qualities." (language that’s NOT in the Constitution). I focus on what voters base their votes on in the "real world": Qualities

Otherwise, Article VI says absolutely nothing...nada...zero...about how voters must weigh--or not weigh--the "qualities" of a candidate...So, nowhere does Article VI say that voters MUST 100% disregard character, beliefs, other-dimensionly commitments, and spiritual discernment in weighing candidates!

"Qualifications" have to do with what gets a man on a ballot. "Qualities" has to do with who gets elected.

And, unlike Mitt Romney, I hardly doubt that either Thomas Jefferson or Abraham Lincoln thought of themselves as "gods-in-embryo" on their way to being grown-up gods.

Ken Starr isn't going to start chastising people for a refusal to vote for somebody who thinks he's divine now, is he? These writers need to stop falsely presenting what the Constitution says!

[Elsie]

Now if he were a Muslim then....no way.

Selective BIGOTRY?

[Elsie]

 

“I Will Be a Second Mohammed”

In the heat of the Missouri “Mormon War” of 1838, Joseph Smith made the following claim, “I will be to this generation a second Mohammed, whose motto in treating for peace was ‘the Alcoran [Koran] or the Sword.’ So shall it eventually be with us—‘Joseph Smith or the Sword!’ ”[1]

It is most interesting that a self-proclaimed Christian prophet would liken himself to Mohammed, the founder of Islam. His own comparison invites us to take a closer look as well. And when we do, we find some striking—and troubling—parallels. Consider the following.

• Mohammed and Joseph Smith both had humble beginnings. Neither had formal religious connections or upbringing, and both were relatively uneducated. Both founded new religions by creating their own scriptures. In fact, followers of both prophets claim these scriptures are miracles since their authors were the most simple and uneducated of men.[2]

• Both prophets claim of having angel visitations, and of receiving divine revelation to restore pure religion to the earth again. Mohammed was told that both Jews and Christians had long since corrupted their scriptures and religion. In like manner, Joseph Smith was told that all of Christianity had become corrupt, and that consequently the Bible itself was no longer reliable. In both cases, this corruption required a complete restoration of both scripture and religion. Nothing which preceded either prophet could be relied upon any longer. Both prophets claim they were used of God to restore eternal truths which once existed on earth, but had been lost due to human corruption.

• Both prophets created new scripture which borrowed heavily from the Bible, but with a substantially new “spin.” In his Koran, Mohammed appropriates a number of Biblical themes and characters—but he changes the complete sense of many passages, claiming to “correct” the Bible. In so doing he changes many doctrines, introducing his own in their place. In like manner, Joseph Smith created the Book of Mormon, much of which is plagiarized directly from the King James Bible. Interestingly, the Book of Mormon claims that this same Bible has been substantially corrupted and is therefore unreliable. In addition, Joseph Smith went so far as to actually create his own version of the Bible itself, the “Inspired Version,” in which he both adds and deletes significant portions of text, claiming he is “correcting” it. In so doing he also changes many doctrines, introducing his own in their place.

• As a part of their new scriptural “spin,” both prophets saw themselves as prophesied in scripture, and both saw themselves as a continuation of a long line of Biblical prophets. Mohammed saw himself as a continuation of the ministry of Moses and Jesus. Joseph Smith saw himself as a successor to Enoch, Melchizedek, Joseph and Moses. Joseph Smith actually wrote himself into his own version of the Bible—by name.

• Both prophets held up their own scripture as superior to the Bible. Mohammed claimed that the Koran was a perfect copy of the original which was in heaven. The Koran is therefore held to be absolutely perfect, far superior to the Bible and superceding it. In like manner, Joseph Smith also made the following claim. “I told the Brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding its precepts, than by any other book.”[3]

• Despite their claim that the Bible was corrupt, both prophets admonished their followers to adhere to its teachings. An obvious contradiction, this led to selective acceptance of some portions and wholesale rejection of others. As a result, the Bible is accepted by both groups of followers only to the extent that it agrees with their prophet’s own superior revelation.

• Both Mohammed and Joseph Smith taught that true salvation was to be found only in their respective religions. Those who would not accept their message were considered “infidels,” pagans or Gentiles. In so doing, both prophets became the enemy of genuine Christianity, and have led many people away from the Christ of the Bible.

• Both prophets encountered fierce opposition to their new religions and had to flee from town to town because of threats on their lives. Both retaliated to this opposition by forming their own militias. Both ultimately set up their own towns as model societies.

• Both Mohammed and Joseph Smith left unclear instructions about their successors. The majority of Mohammed’s followers, Sunni Muslims, believe they were to elect their new leader, whereas the minority, Shiite Muslims, believe Mohammed’s son was to be their next leader. Similarly, the majority of Joseph Smith's followers, Mormons, believed their next prophet should have been the existing leader of their quorum of twelve apostles, whereas the minority, RLDS, believed Joseph Smith's own son should have been their next prophet. Differences on this issue, and many others, have created substantial tension between these rival groups of each prophet.

• Mohammed taught that Jesus was just another of a long line of human prophets, of which he was the last. He taught that he was superior to Christ and superceded Him. In comparison, Joseph Smith also made the following claim.

“I have more to boast of than ever any man had. I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam. A large majority of the whole have stood by me. Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jesus ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such a work as I. The followers of Jesus ran away from Him, but the Latter-day Saints never ran away from me yet.”[4] In light of these parallels, perhaps Joseph Smith's claim to be a second Mohammed unwittingly became his most genuine prophecy of all.

---

[1] Joseph Smith made this statement at the conclusion of a speech in the public square at Far West, Missouri on October 14, 1838. This particular quote is documented in Fawn M. Brodie, No Man Knows My History, second edition, (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1971), p. 230–231. Fawn Brodie’s footnote regarding this speech contains valuable information, and follows. “Except where noted, all the details of this chapter [16] are taken from the History of the [Mormon] Church. This speech, however, was not recorded there, and the report given here is based upon the accounts of seven men. See the affidavits of T.B. Marsh, Orson Hyde, George M. Hinkle, John Corrill, W.W. Phelps, Samson Avard, and Reed Peck in Correspondence, Orders, etc., pp. 57–9, 97–129. The Marsh and Hyde account, which was made on October 24, is particularly important. Part of it was reproduced in History of the [Mormon] Church, Vol. III, p. 167. See also the Peck manuscript, p. 80. Joseph himself barely mentioned the speech in his history; see Vol. III, p. 162.”

[2] John Ankerberg & John Weldon, The Facts on Islam, (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 1998), pp.8–9. Eric Johnson, Joseph Smith & Muhammed, (El Cajon, CA: Mormonism Research Ministry, 1998), pp. 6–7.

[3] Documentary History of the [Mormon] Church, vol.4, pp.461.

[4] Documentary History of the [Mormon] Church, vol.6, pp.408–409.

[Elsie]

If Romney’s the nominee, you can believe the pre-1978 doctorine of his church will be a campaign issue.

Like THIS???

---

---

"You see some classes of the human family that are black, uncouth, uncomely, disagreeable and low in their habits, wild, and seemingly deprived of nearly all the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind.

The first man that committed the odious crime of killing one of his brethren will be cursed the longest of any one of the children of Adam. Cain slew his brother. Cain might have been killed, and that would have put a termination to that line of human beings.

This was not to be, and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin. Trace mankind down to after the flood, and then another curse is pronounced upon the same race--that they should be the 'servant of servants', and they will be, until that curse is removed."

Brigham Young-President and second 'Prophet' of the Mormon Church, 1844-1877- Extract from Journal of Discourses.

---

---

Here are two examples from their 'other testament', the Book of Mormon.

2 Nephi 5: 21 'And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people, the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.'

Alma 3: 6 'And the skins of the Lamanites were dark, according to the mark which was set upon their fathers, which was a curse upon them because of their transgression and their rebellion against their brethren, who consisted of Nephi, Jacob and Joseph, and Sam, who were just and holy men.'

---

---

August 27, 1954 in an address at Brigham Young University (BYU), Mormon Elder, Mark E Peterson, in speaking to a convention of teachers of religion at the college level, said:

"The discussion on civil rights, especially over the last 20 years, has drawn some very sharp lines. It has blinded the thinking of some of our own people, I believe. They have allowed their political affiliations to color their thinking to some extent.I think I have read enough to give you an idea of what the Negro is after."

"He is not just seeking the opportunity of sitting down in a cafe where white people eat. He isn't just trying to ride on the same streetcar or the same Pullman car with white people. It isn't that he just desires to go to the same theater as the white people. From this, and other interviews I have read, it appears that the Negro seeks absorption with the white race. He will not be satisfied until he achieves it by intermarriage."

"That is his objective and we must face it. We must not allow our feelings to carry us away, nor must we feel so sorry for Negroes that we will open our arms and embrace them with everything we have. Remember the little statement that we used to say about sin, 'First we pity, then endure, then embrace'...."

(Rosa Parks would have probably told Petersen under which wheel of the bus he should go sit.)

---

---

1967, (then) Mormon President Ezra Taft Benson said,

"The Communist program for revolution in America has been in progress for many years and is far advanced. First of all, we must not place the blame upon Negroes. They are merely the unfortunate group that has been selected by professional Communist agitators to be used as the primary source of cannon fodder."

---

---

We are told that on June 8, 1978, it was 'revealed' to the then president, Spencer Kimball, that people of color could now gain entry into the priesthood.

According to the church, Kimball spent many long hours petitioning God, begging him to give worthy black people the priesthood. God finally relented.

---

---

Sometime before the 'revelation' came to chief 'Prophet' Spencer Kimball in June 1978, General Authority, Bruce R McConkie had said:

"The Blacks are denied the Priesthood; under no circumstances can they hold this delegation of authority from the Almighty.

The Negroes are not equal with other races where the receipt of certain blessings are concerned, particularly the priesthood and the temple blessings that flow there from, but this inequality is not of man's origin, it is the Lord's doings."

(Mormon Doctrine, pp. 526-527).

---

---

When Mormon 'Apostle' Mark E Petersen spoke on 'Race Problems- As they affect the Church' at the BYU campus in 1954, the following was also said:

"...if the negro accepts the gospel with real, sincere faith, and is really converted, to give him the blessings of baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost, he can and will enter the celestial kingdom. He will go there as a servant, but he will get celestial glory."

---

---

When Mormon 'Prophet' and second President of the Church, Brigham Young, spoke in 1863 the following was also said:

"Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God is death on the spot. This will always be so."

(Journal of Discourses, Vo. 10, p. 110)

---

---

Yeah; Native Americans are althroughout the Book of MORMON; too.

 

“I saw a striking contrast in the progress of the Indian people today ... they are fast becoming a white and delightsome people.... For years they have been growing delightsome, and they are now becoming white and delightsome, as they were promised.... The children in the home placement program in Utah are often lighter than their brothers and sisters in the hogans on the reservation.

At one meeting a father and mother and their sixteen-year-old daughter were present, the little member girl-sixteen-sitting between the dark father and mother, and it was evident she was several shades lighter than her parents—on the same reservation, in the same hogan, subject to the same sun and wind and weather.... These young members of the Church are changing to whiteness and to delightsomeness.

One white elder jokingly said that he and his companion were donating blood regularly to the hospital in the hope that the process might be accelerated.

 

(Improvement Era, December 1960, pp.922-23). (p. 209)

 

---

---

 

[Elsie]

There is one huge difference, of course - one flies planes into buildings.

The other just kills lots of men, women and children in a wagon train: the FIRST 9/11 disaster in America!

[Gator113]

I am not looking for a president that I can go to church with or one that we can pretend is oh so holy. I want a strong leader, with a proven record of accomplishments and a clear vision of the future. I am not looking for a Reverend, Priest or Rabi. I want a president that will turn this country around intelligently, quickly and consistent with our constitution.

I would proudly cast my vote for Jefferson and perhaps Lincoln.

I don’t like Romney as a man, let alone his mormonism. I see his religious beliefs as silly, spooky and weird.... but being a mormon is his choice. I loath those that support the killing of babies and liars. Frankly, I will not vote for Romney, because he is Romney.

I will continue to support the one man that I believe in my heart and head can turn this country around and set the course for my children and grandchildren to have a better future........ that man is Newt Gingrich.

GO NEWT GO.........

[Colofornian]

One might also add to the list: Does he stay faithful to his marriage?

Mitt was temple-married to his wife...obstensibly forever.

But do you know what happens if Mitt's wife dies first (Ann was diagnosed in 1998 with MS, after all)...
...and Mitt remarries...
...and say, he was to marry a second wife in the temple...ALSO obstensibly forever?

Well...per Mormon doctrine...Mitt upon death becomes an eternal polygamist.

"A" could be for "Wife A" -- Ann
"B" could be for "Wife B" -- Betty

If "Betty" died, Mitt...as such a would-be widower... could marry again...Say, "Wife C" for "Cathy"...

And if Mitt is "sealed" to "Betty" and "Cathy" (to join Ann), so much for your "faithful" to Mitt's marriage stuff...

That is...if Mormon doctrine is "correct," after all.

And if Mormon doctrine is correct, who said Mormon polygamy is past tense?

And then why are Mormon believers so deceitful about such a practice? (Claiming that it only applies to yesteryear)

[loveliberty2]

Starr's mischaracterization of Jefferson's most closely-held beliefs reflect a lack of study of the actual writings and statements of Jefferson himself, and the great body of work he left. What it represents is the revisionist history most 20th Century Americans have been fed in the so-called "progressives'" efforts to undermine the Founders.

Perhaps he never read the complete works of Thomas Jefferson which document Jefferson's intense study and devotion to understanding of religious beliefs and faith. Although he refused to flaunt his religious beliefs as some have done, in his privately recorded moments, as well his letters, the story clearly is not as Starr and others who claim to be scholars often assert. A good example of the discrepancies in their claims about Jefferson can be found in "The Works of Thomas Jefferson," Federal Edition, Vol. 2, Editor, Paul Leicester Ford. Jefferson's "Notes on Religion" reflect his deep devotion to study and learning, and his own words are revealing.

For instance, at one point Jefferson observes, "Our Savior chose not to propagate his religion by temporal punmts (sic) or civil incapacitation, if he had, it was in his almighty power. But he chose to extend it by it’s influence on reason, there by shewing to others how they should proceed." And, at another point, "Christ has said ‘wheresoever 2 or 3 are gatherd. togeth in his name he will be in the midst of them.’ This is his definition of a society. He does not make it essential that a bishop or presbyter govern them. Without them it suffices for the salvation of souls."

Now, there is much, much more in his "Notes" about the numerous historical sects; but who of us, today, had at Age 33 (his Notes are dated 1776) have written so extensively on this subject?

And, who, here has read this quotation from Jefferson's 1824 letter to Martin Van Buren? This is one Jefferson statement that "progressives," and few conservatives attribute to the man they describe as "deist" only:

"Our Saviour... has taught us to judge the tree by its fruit, and to leave motives to Him who can alone see into them." --Thomas Jefferson to Martin Van Buren, 1824. ME 16:55

There are many, many more quotations from Jefferson which arose from his reading, reflection, and lifelong search and recorded musings on religious belief and on his conviction that civil government had no role in matters of conscience.

One last thought on the misrepresentations of Jefferson must include the misuse of his phrase in the letter to the Baptists as a reason to exclude from the so-called "public square" any expressions of uses related to religious belief and practice. The "progressives" never cite this letter:

To Doctor Thomas Cooper, 2 November 1822 (Ford 12: 270-1):

" In our annual report to the legislature, after stating the constitutional reasons against a public establishment of any religious instruction, we suggest the expediency of encouraging the different religious sects to establish, each for itself, a professorship of their own tenets, on the confines of the university, so near as that their students may attend the lectures there, and have the free use of our library, and every other accommodation we can give them; preserving, however, their independence of us and of each other. This fills the chasm objected to ours, as a defect in an institution professing to give instruction in all useful sciences. I think the invitation will be accepted, by some sects from candid intentions, and by others from jealousy and rivalship. And by bringing the sects together, and mixing them with the mass of other students, we shall soften their asperities, liberalize and neutralize their prejudices, and make the general religion a religion of peace, reason, and morality."- Thomas Jefferson

Might some think it strange that the whole fabric of the progressives' "separation of church and state" interference in freedom of religion might begin to unravel were "the People" informed of Jefferson's true beliefs about the desirability of "mixing" religious sects with the "other students" on college campuses?

This, combined with his pride in stating that in "our little village of Charlottesville" the various sects took turns meeting and "hymning" in the local courthouse, might shock those who have so solidly believed that Jefferson and the other Founders would shut off all "public" places from citizen use, if that use involved religious practice.