Replies

Neither Mormonism nor the idea of a Mormon president scares me ... the detail of Mitt's faith? Not a big deal.

I maintain Mitt's Mormon beliefs are a critical election issue and I raise following arguments in support of this position:

It is not right to say doctrine doesn't matter at all. Take Islam, for instance. It would be dangerously naive to assume, as American civil religion does, that all religions are pretty much the same. It's true that most religions share core ethical teachings, but orthodox Islam also teaches unambiguously that there is to be no separation of religion and state, that non-Muslims are to live subservient under law to Muslims, and in some sects that Allah commands a jihad or "holy war" be waged against non-Muslim "infidels". To the extent that a Muslim wishes to preside over our pluralist liberal democracy, he will have had to break radically from his faith's fundamentals.

Liberals who insist that religion has no place at all in American politics have to account for the Christian roots of many social reforms. Consider for example the abolitionism and the civil rights movement. When faced with the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., and other black clergymen explicitly appealing to Christian scripture against Jim Crow, Southern segregationists groused that religion had no business in politics. You can't praise religion's role in political discourse only when it advances causes of which you approve or is practiced by constituencies blacks, say, that vote Democratic.

If God doesn't exist, then by what standard do we decide right from wrong? If a society recognizes no independent, transcendent guardian of the moral order, will it not, over time, lose its self-discipline and decline into barbarism? The eminent sociologist Philip Rieff, who was not a believer, said that man would either live in fear of God or would be condemned to live in fear of the evil in himself.

Mitt, himself, has placed his Mormon faith under scrutiny. In his famous speech on Mormonism, Mitt said that a person should not be rejected . . . because of his faith. His supporters say it is akin to rejecting a Barack Obama because he is black. But Obama was born black; Romney is a Mormon because he accepts the beliefs of the Mormon faith. This permits us, therefore, to make inferences about his judgment and character, good or bad.

Mitt has promised to fully obey Mormon teachings without hesitation and without question.

In his February 26, 1980 speech at BYU titled Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet, LDS President Ezra Taft Benson maintained the Mormon Church President spoke with inerrant authority on "any matter, temporal or spiritual " and was "not required to have any particular earthly training or credentials to speak on any subject or act on any matter at any time."
As a Temple Mormon, Mormon Bishop and Stake President, Mitt has sworn among other things, he recognizes the President of the LDS Church as a "prophet, seer and revelator," and will "obey the rules, laws, and commandments of the gospel" as proclaimed by Mormon Prophets.
Mitt made these solemn vows with the understanding they effect "time and all eternity."

Mitt either intended to honor his promises to follow another man's instructions, or he lied. In the case of the former, we are entitled to know where these directives lead, and in the alternative, we should be concerned about Mitt's honesty.

For these reasons, among others, I assert Mitt’s beliefs are indeed a legitimate issue for determining his qualifications for elected public office.

Milt's Mormonism is a binary poison: stage one will be media exposing the blasphemies and heresies in Mormonism and the freaky beliefs never repudiated by current LDS inc, and stage two is arguing the very points you've raised, so Christians cannot ignore the vagaries of Mitt's false christianity. Guarantees a barry bassturd re-election and probably a landslide boost for the democrats to control House and Senate since so many Christian Conservatives will stay home rather than vote the ‘lesser of two real evils’ routine. The media and establishment (dems and pubbies) are busy trying to mix that binary on Newt regarding his three marriages. That's how we can be certain it will be used on Milt should the establishment pubbies succeed in placing Milt in the nomination via the Santorum siphon of anti-Romney votes away from Newt.

Then there is this:
JOSEPH SMITH’S “WHITE HORSE” PROPHECY..

LDS attachment to the Constitution has been further encouraged by an important oral tradition deriving from a statement attributed to Joseph Smith, according to which the Constitution would “hang by a thread” and be rescued, if at all, only with the help of the Saints. Church President John Taylor seemed to go further when he prophesied,

“When the people shall have torn to shreds the Constitution of the United States the Elders of Israel will be found holding it up to the nations of the earth and proclaiming liberty and equal rights to all men” (JD 21:8). To defend the principles of the Constitution under circumstances where the “iniquity,” or moral decay, of the people has torn it to shreds might well require wisdom at least equal to that of the men raised up to found it. In particular, it would require great insight into the relationship between freedom and virtue in a political embodiment of moral agency. (Encyclopedia of Mormonism, Vol.1, 1992)

http://www.utlm.org/onlineresources/whitehorseprophecy.htm

We disagree. Faith, belief, scripture, and doctrine are central issues in judging a person in many situations, but the externalized values and resulting actions are the critical factors in choosing a political leader. We apparently arrive at the same conclusion about Romney, since I find him completely reprehensible because of his values and actions, but I know quite a few Mormons, some of them very well, and several would be on a par with some of our top conservatives in their suitability for the White House. Many are unwavering in their support for the First Amendment, including freedom of speech; for the Second Amendment RKBA; for repealing ObamaCare and cutting the federal government back to its enumerated powers; for welcoming legal immigrants at a rate compatible with American interests and barring illegal immigrants energetically; for national defense; for protecting innocent life even before birth; and essentially for the right position on every issue relevant to the office of the presidency.

Where we differ is that I think it is both better human relations with those who will react to a PC fuss over "anti-Mormon bigotry on FR" even when stirred up by the same people who plan to use that bigotry as a weapon if Romney is the nominee, and it is more relevant when choosing a candidate to look at actions and values. Romney is unacceptable those, so we agree on the point that is important in this election.

Romney is a liar when he claims his church will have no bearing on his attitude towards this country,.... his faith will have everything to do with every decision he makes.

Mormons who reach the Priesthhod as Romney has in his church vow to do whatever the head of his church tells him to do...that would be "Monson"...., because Romney believes that a guy named Elohim tells his leader what to do and say.

Romney is sworn to sustain and obey the church president, etc., Monson, who is the only one on Earth who has the direct line to God,.... imparts Gods current "message" and Romney must comply.... So Monson, Pres. of LSD, would really be running the country?.....

Mormon prophecy says the U.S. gov will fail, or almost fail, and they will take it over to bering in THEIR KINGDOM...it's a political agenda that is dangerous for our country and so is Romney!