Posted on 06/11/2007 8:06:18 AM PDT by ZGuy
I would not vote for Mitt Romney under any circumstances. This is not because I think he is a bad person, or that Mormons in general are evil people - quite the contrary. Most are very “nice” people. In fact, I do not think we could find a more outwardly decent person for president in this country than Mr. Romney.
So what is the problem?
The problem is that Mitt Romney is a Mormon, more, he is a Temple Mormon, and Mormonism is a very aggressive cult, a deceptive religion that leads people to eternal separation from Jesus Christ of the Bible. I ought to know. I used to be a Mormon.
In terms of the secular effects upon government, the public should also be aware that Mormomism’s blood-oaths bind Mitt Romney to obey the Mormon Church in Salt Lake City above the Constitution, above US law, and, yes, above the Christian and Jewish understanding of God. We’ve heard Romney argue that this is all the same bum wrap they laid on Jack Kennedy in the sixties. But it’s not. It’s not the same at all. Here’s why.
A US president with no definite religious beliefs, or a membership in some mainstream Christian denomination, may not have influence that could effect the eternity of individuals, but a man with deep-rooted cultic beliefs would persuade millions of the credibility of Mormonism, especially when taking into consideration that the LDS Church has a nearly sixty thousand strong missionary force. They could and would use President Romney as ”bait” for an introduction into Mormonism, not only in the United States, but around the world.
That’s point number one: does the “In God We Trust” Republic want Mormon missionaries to be the new face of America? Our ambassadors to the world? Picture:
Knock, Knock! “The President thinks Jesus is the brother of Satan – have you heard? Yes, until 1978 the President thought all black people were cursed of God, and could not hold the Mormon priesthood, but no, now he doesn’t believe that any more. Why? Oh, because pressure was put on the Mormon Church to change their teachings on that matter. And their “prophet” got a new “revelation” from his god. It allowed blacks into the priesthood – but nothing else changed. Yes, according to Mormon scriptures, black skin is still a curse from god! That’s the eternal word, don’t you know? But don’t worry. It won’t interfere with the Justice Department…”
The majority of people in this country, as well as elsewhere, are not familiar enough with Mormonism to be able to separate it from traditional Christianity – after all, the buzzwords sound the same. But are they? All Black skin a sign of a curse from God?
The Mormon Church does not believe in the same Christ as biblical Christianity. But even though Mormon President Gordon B. Hinckley, the head guy in Salt Lake City, has said publicly that he does not believe in the Christ of Christianity, Mitt Romney claims Mormonism does. I saw this over and over again while I was a Mormon – there is a systematic deception of the public about what the cult actually believes.
Al Sharpton and the rest of the American public may not know that Mormonism uses all the Christian terms…but that it has given to all of them a totally different meaning. Sharpton probably also may have gotten some vague answers that seemed to speak of the same beliefs, but in reality those compared beliefs are not even close. And Mormon belief, far from being just the private business of a person’s own conscience, has very public consequences for all of us if they reside in the highest office in the land.
Had Sharpton been told the truth, he would have learned that the God of the Mormon Church is not Eternal God of the Bible. He is a creation of Joseph Smith, made after his image.
“God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man…I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea…you have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves…the same as all Gods have done before you… until you attain to the resurrection of the dead and are able to dwell in everlasting burnings…” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 345-347.)
The Christ I know has always been God, will always be God, and his goal for me is to avoid everlasting burnings, not learn to live in them.
When I was a member of the Mormon Church, they taught me that Jesus Christ was the brother of Lucifer, the devil of Hell, and they still teach that. The Jesus of Mormonism was not begotten by the Holy Ghost, but was the natural physical offspring of an exalted former human being; a ‘god’ who had physical sexual intercourse with Mary.
That’s about as far as you can get from the Virgin Birth.
Are evangelical Christians going to support Mitt Romney’s candidacy if they know more about his beliefs? I sincerely hope not.
Mormonism comes to American Christians preaching “another Jesus”. This is a “Christ” that wasn’t born of a virgin, isn’t the eternally pre-existent Creator, has no inherent supremacy above any average Joe except for what “god” supposedly “earned”, and is allegedly equal in origin to Satan.
My fellow Americans, there could not possibly be a more anti-Christ theology in existence.
I can say with emphasis, as a former Mormon, and as a Christian today, it is without conscience for a Christian to vote for Mitt Romney for President of the United States.
To those more concerned with secular matters, I wish to point out that Mitt Romney’s religion is important if things like consistency, character, duplicity, the rule of law, and constitutional authority…are important.
Consider. Romney knows he’s not a Christian; the President of the Mormon church said so. Yet Romney consistently deceives people about this fact on the campaign trail. He says he believes in Jesus Christ! Jesus Christ who? If your religious beliefs are sincerely your own private business, then here we have someone’s private business causing them to be deceptive in public life. That’s just not OK for the President of the United States. If it was his mutual-funds that were causing him to lie in public about his private affairs, you could see it perhaps more clearly. But it makes no difference. If he’s lying, he’s lying.
But worse, for those who do believe in God, and Romney is supposed to, Romney is playing around with eternal matters…all to get votes.
And that’s supposed to be OK too?
Mitt Romney and Mormons in general maybe nice people as people go, but electing him President would influence millions positively for the Mormon Church - millions who do not know what Mormonism teaches about God, Jesus and salvation. The identity of America since our founding has been Judeo-Christian with all denominations of Christianity and Judaism being present from the earliest stages. The Christian faith is 2000 years old and has formative history in the USA since Jamestown. The Jewish faith is many thousands of years older and the influence of the Jewish Scriptures and people on the USA are also foundational. But Mormonism is a cult founded by polygamists who died in a gun fight, one of which was wanted as a con man in New England, less than two centuries ago. Is that the new ideological face “we the people” wish to represent us to the world? Does religion really “not matter” that much? There is a difference between tolerating your Mormon neighbor and electing him the President…with his finger on the nuclear button.
Only the most faithful of Mormons are eligible to enter a Mormon temple. Mitt Romney is in that elite group - he is a temple-card holding Mormon. I can tell you that not only is he planning on his own godhood after this life, but he has also taken oaths in a Mormon temple to put the LDS church above all else. His oath in the temple was to “consecrate himself, his time, talents, and everything he now has, or will have in the future, for the building up of the Kingdom of God here upon the earth, and for the establishment of Zion”.
It is important to know and understand that the ‘Kingdom of God’ to a Mormon, is not at all the same as the Kingdom of God to a Christian. To a Christian, the phrase means throwing the goodness and love of God into the world wherever you go and sharing the truth with others. But to a Mormon, building the ‘Kingdom of God’ means advancing the physical earthly organization of the Mormon Church in Salt Lake City, Utah. That multi-billion-dollar business entity is part of the conglomerate Mitt Romney was referring to when he took that oath. And he cannot talk about that oath, or what goes on in a temple, because of the pact of absolute secrecy.
People who haven’t been under the pressure of the cult don’t understand. They think it all sounds like being afraid of Kennedy responding to the Pope in Rome. No my friends. It’s just not like that. JFK was not even an active, practicing Roman Catholic, nor was he under oaths to protect and promote Vatican City above all else. But Mitt Romney is a temple-Mormon, a former LDS bishop. Nominal believer in a real religion versus all out devotee to a cult…makes a difference.
Governor, we saw Jack Kennedy: We knew Jack Kennedy’s religion; Governor, you're no Jack Kennedy.
Romney’s oath to consecrate himself means that he would have to do all that his church leaders ordered him to do, even if the US Government and her interests were in opposition to the wants and desires of the Mormon Church. And while the Roman Catholic Church or the varieties of Protestant Christianity do not have political theocracy built into their doctrine, Mormonism absolutely does.
And this political aspiration is dangerous. The LDS scriptures show all other churches and their professors (believers) are abomination to God. While Christians may assume that Mormons would deal with “abominations” in the same way that Christians do (i.e. preach the truth and leave the rest up to God) Mormons definitely don’t do that. Please remember September 11th.
On September 11th 1857, the Mormon leadership ordered the massacre of 120 California-bound settlers from Arkansas. After a first attack failed, the Mormons brokered a cease-fire with the settlers, persuading them to lay down their guns. Then the Mormons fell on them and murdered every man, woman, and child over 8-years of age. The leader of the massacred was none other than Brigham Young’s adopted son, a Mormon bishop, John D. Lee. He personally authorized and carried out the mass-murder along with other Mormon leaders from the area. The justification? The men, women, and children massacred were abominations, infidels.
That sounds too much like Osama bin Laden’s religion for my taste, thank you.
Romney, as a temple-card holding Mormon, accepts and believes non-Mormons are “abominations”, whether he admits it or not to his voters. But consider these politics: Joseph Smith was, in a secret ceremony of his council of fifty, “ordained as the King to rule and reign over the House of Israel forever.” Joseph Smith was also a candidate for presidency. And Smith made a prophecy concerning the elders of the Mormon church, saying they must save this country’s government and the world.
September 11th, 1857 is not too long ago.
Here is a last disturbing thought. It’s hardly the absolute last – you could fill books with the alarming oaths and political pacts of Mormons. But think about this:
Mitt Romney’s grandfather swore an oath against the United States of America. The oath said, “You and each of you do covenant and promise that you will pray and never cease to pray to Almighty God to avenge the blood of the prophets upon this nation, that you will teach the same to your children and to your children’s children unto the third and fourth generation.”
So Mitt Romney was taught what?
I don’t know about you, but I expect most American grandfathers were working to build this nation, not making blood-oaths of vengeance on behalf of their pastors against the stars and stripes.
This oath was discontinued 80 years ago – like so many of the objectionable Mormon doctrines when they come out into the light of day. But Mitt Romney’s grandfather, great grandfather and great-great grandfather have all sworn that oath. Is that American?
Generations of Romney’s forefathers swearing blood-vengeance against the United States of America? And family oaths to avenge blood against the nation have no meaning when selecting a man to put his finger on the launch-button? We forget: hundreds of millions of lives will be at the mercy of this man, this President of the United States. Who are we picking here?
Let me ask you one last thing. If Satan were a good looking man, running for office, and he said that anyone who was against his religion was just, you know, a religious bigot, would that argument hold water with you?
It’s perfectly OK to ask what’s in the religion.
And it’s perfectly OK to vote for someone else if that religion is deeply wrong.
What I have never understood about Calvinists that they, on the one hand, subscribe to something like fatalism and then on the other frantically act as though the fate of the world were in their hands. For my part, I think we need to understand that ideas have consequences and it is reasonable to look at the theology that Romney claims to believe in, just as we need to look at the eccentric Catholicism that Guiliani claims to believe in. Certainly I don’t expect Rudy to take any meaningful steps that will reduce the number of abortions. I don’t understand Romney’s posture on abortion at all. Do Mormons oppose abortion or not, and if so why? Theology means nothing unless it is not applicable to cases.
We look at the president of our church as the living prophet, and they still get revelations from God, so these practices can change through history. Stop using the anti-mormon sites for your background information on my religion, it shows through your words...la
I speak from experience, not so called anti-mormon sites.
I was at BYU when the 1990 changes took place and the changes startled and disturbed every temple going member I knew. Many expressed concern about,even with continuing revelation, how the oaths and other portions could be changed when this was specifically required to enter the CK.
I don’t know how old you are, but there was great consternation and many temple attending LDS believed the changes were directly related to the so-called “Pace Memo” that was all over the news. I sugguest you research that (in print, not the internet). The Church later admitted (around the end of 1991, I believe) that the changes were related to the issues addressed the Pace memo. The SL tribume and the Desert News covered this almost daily for awhile.
Nevertheless, continuing revelation is meant to guide the Church, but no one could answer the question, if the GOSPEL is eternal, and the Temple ordinances the same as the temple of Solomon (as I and many others were taught), then how can they be changed. If the ordinances are either the same signs and tokens God took when he was mortal (again as I and many others were taught) they the cannot be changed.
If they are Eternal, they are Eternal, if not then the Church misleads its members.
By the way, in full disclosure here:
1) I am a "Temple Mormon"
2) I am not a Romney supporter. I support Huckabee (although since he is a Baptist, maybe I should oppose him since, if he gets to be President, some Mormons might become Baptists?). I also like Hunter and Thompson, but neither of them has any executive experience. I could vote for Romney, but am leery of his recent conversion on many of the social issues.
Well, by all means, don't vote. If you, as a Calvinist, stay home on election days (primary & general election), those God has elected to put in office will be elected--Mitt Romney or not. God has all power, and if he wants to use Mitt as a tool to carry out his purposes, He doesn't need your vote. It will happen w/out you, and if he doesn't want it to happen, then your not-vote will show forth God's fore-non-election.
There. I can be a political Calvinist, too. :)
Please hear me on this.
The whole “Mitt Romney is to Mormonism what Jack Kennedy was to Catholicism” thing is an inaccurate construction. Mormonism is NOT ANYTHING LIKE Catholicism. To be against Mitt Romney for his Mormonism is not at all “religious bigotry”, it is not analagous to anti-Catholoicism.
Mormonism holds beliefs that are 100% opposite to Christianity. It is an anti-christ theology. Catholicism is, like it or not, a denomination of Christianity. America is a Christian nation, able to incorporate Jewish and Christian beliefs in its public culture and not step outside its national identity.
But it is an absolute MISTAKE to regard Mormonism as benign, benevolent, and “probably just like my religion”. It isn’t just like your religion. Here are a bunch of examples.
* Did your religion ever order you to massacre ‘infidel’ men, women, and children? (Brigahm Young’s son, John D Lee, did just that)
* Did your religion ever tell you that your church organization will, some day, be in control of the world politically and spiritually?
* Did your church ever found a multi-billion dollar business empire, controlled and purchased with offering plate donations?
* Did your church ever appoint it’s prophet as candidate for president, and send all its elders and missionaries to campaign for that man to be president?
* Did the founder of your church ever hold more than 20 women as ‘wives’ and tell them that if they would not stay and have sex with him, they would go to hell?
Friend, Catholicism is NOT Mormonism.
Mitt Romney is NOT Jack Kennedy.
And opposing Mormonism is NOT religious bigotry.
It’s horse sense.
When your Temple oaths say things like the following, of course you are going to deny that they take place. That’s the whole point. Mormon Temple blood-oaths swear chiefly that they will never reveal the blood-oaths. Fortunately for the rest of us, some of the Mormons left the pact, and have published what Mormons swear to in the temple.
Would you like to deny that these things are true?
Of course, if you’ve sworn these things, you are supposed to be terribly afraid of revealing that they are, in fact, what was used in such ceremonies.
But another convenient device of the MOrmons is that such things are moving targets. They change them so fast that you will again be easily able to say “I didn’t swear that!”
The syntax having been “updated”.
The source is
http://www.i4m.com/think/temples/temple_oaths.htm
Death Oaths Made by All Mormon Temple Patrons Prior to the 1930’s:
ADAM : “We, and each of us, covenant and promise that we will not reveal any of the secrets of this, the first token of the Aaronic priesthood, with its accompanying name, sign or penalty. Should we do so, we agree that our throats be cut from ear to ear and our tongues torn out by their roots.”
ADAM: “All bow your heads and say Yes.”
TEMPLE PATRONS: “Yes.” (All patrons sit down.)
PETER: “The brethren and sisters will now stand, push back the seats, place the robe on the left shoulder, and receive the Second Token of the Aaronic Priesthood. We and each of us do covenant and promise that we will not reveal the secrets of this, the Second Token of the Aaronic Priesthood, with its accompanying name, sign, grip or penalty. Should we do so, we agree to have our breasts cut open and our hearts and vitals torn from our bodies and given to the birds of the air and the beasts of the field.”
“All bow your heads and say yes.”
TEMPLE PATRONS: “Yes.” (All patrons sit down.)
PETER: “We and each of us do covenant and promise that we will not reveal any of the secrets of this, the First Token of the Melchizedek Priesthood, with its accompanying name, sign or penalty. Should we do so, we agree that our bodies be cut asunder in the midst and all our bowels gush out.”
“All bow your heads and say yes.”
TEMPLE PATRONS: “Yes.” (All patrons sit down.)
Death Oaths Made by All Mormon Temple Patrons from the 1930’s until April 1990:
Mormon Temple Death Oath #1:
ELOHIM: “All arise.” (All patrons stand.)
ELOHIM: “Each of you make the sign of the First Token of the Aaronic Priesthood, by bringing your right arm to the square, the palm of the hand to the front, the fingers together, and the thumb extended. This is the sign. Now, repeat in your mind after me the words of the covenant, at the same time representing the execution of the penalty.”
“I ________, think of the new name, covenant before God, angels and these witnesses that I will never reveal the First Token of the Aaronic Priesthood, with its accompanying name and sign, and penalty. Rather than do so, I would suffer my life to be taken.”
He didn’t affirm to being a Calvinist, just ‘replying as a Calvinist (as in this is how a Calvinist would reply). There are multiple ID posters scurrying to and fro at FR currently. And they are slick just like the guy they are working to get the nomination, Slick Romney.
You post an article attacking the Christian faith of a number of FReepers and millions of upstanding, Christian Americans and you want to keep it “civil”. How would you feel if someone were to dump all over your faith in this conservative forum? Tell me, in what way does this divisive post support or promote the conservative mission of this website? I tell you that it doesn’t. It distracts from that mission and sows division.
Is the religion forum really a place for attacking other people's religions? Is that what it's really for? If so, then I don't know why the religion forum exists as it serves to cause division among FReepers instead of promoting mutual respect and focusing upon or similarities and common goals. This kind of article is a disgrace and is a disservice to this conservative forum. Shouldn't we stick to faith-promoting articles and not faith-disparaging attacks? Isn't that what the religion forum should be about? Not this offensive and divisive stuff.
I've been involved in conservative and Republican politics for some time and I know that some of the people that I've worked alongside on various campaigns have had trouble with some of the beliefs of my Church. But they had the good sense to keep it to themselves in order to support and not detract from our common goals. Free Republic has clearly defined conservative goals. Shouldn't we be expected to be respectful of each other's religious beliefs in order to support and promote those goals?
We do however have closed threads on the Religion Forum which are treated as if they are occuring behind the closed doors of a church. Prayer threads, devotionals and caucuses are closed. To qualify for a caucus, neither the article nor the replies may make represtantations about other confessions.
Hmmm...interesting. And how does attacking the religious faith of a number of FReepers and a great many conservatives support the conservative mission of this website? I guess I just don't get it.
Well, I guess if I was a religious bigot, I could go to town in your "town square" and post all kinds of nonsense tearing down one faith or another. I'm sure it would be great fun (not). But what would be the point? What would it achieve except for sowing division and contention throughout the site? Maybe you ought to reconsider the purpose of the religion forum and how it fits in with or promotes the overarching conservative mission of this website. And if it doesn't, maybe a few changes might be in order. Just something to think about.
Now, back to the regular bigoted, anti-Mormon falsehood-ridden nonsense that passes as "debate" in your "town square". Enjoy.
‘It is religious bigotry to slam the beliefs of others’. Isn’t that the definition of bigotry the Romney supporters have been using of late to squelch opposition to Mormonism? Of course, when Joe Smith did it, it wasn’t bigotry, right?
Pretty scary stuff ZGuy. It seems to me you put a certain spin on certain words to create a frightening scenario. And yet, despite the the picture you painted of a Mitt Romney presidency-sealed to his church by “blood oath”—you didn’t mention that our current Majority Leader in the Senate is also Mormon. To date, Harry Reid has never been reprimanded by his Senate colleagues or constituents for being a puppet. And the church has never censored him for the apparently contrary positions he has taken. According to the picture you painted, that’s not likely. I’m afraid that, with all your information, you left out many of the nuiances of the Mormon experience. It is just so much easier to paint Mormons as Branch Davidians than to confront the complexities of this movement, and it’s diverse people. You could take obscure Old Testament scriptures, blur the line between official doctrine and a leaders’ opinions, and make monster of just about any religion.
Ho Hum, the 2,134th justification for bigotry this month. Wake me up when you grow up.
I did not write the article. I posted it last June and specifically asked Freepers to respond to the merits of what the authors’ said. Your comments were good, but should have been directed to the author instead of me.
A. This article was posted eight months ago, so your reference to "this month" is inaccurate.
B. You assume that the person posting an article subscribes to what is said in the article. I didn't. In fact I voted for Romney. I posted it because 8 months ago it brought up points worthy of discussion and exploration at that time. In fact, I posted it with a plea that others would not use it as a post to advance bigotry. You might want to hold your fire a little longer next time.
ZGuy, I’m not sure why you felt that this article contained information worthy of discussion. It is nothing more than a direct and vitriolic attack on Mormon beliefs and believers. It is filled with misrepresentations and gross distortions of Mormon beliefs. Like many anti-Mormon attacks, it begins by professing that Mormons are such “nice” people, but it then accuses Mormons of being bereft of character and filled with duplicity. It concludes by comparing a vote for a Mormon politician to a vote for Satan. As followers of the Jesus of the Bible, we are challenged to speak the truth in love. I found little truth and no love in this article.
B. You assume that the person posting an article subscribes to what is said in the article. I didn't. In fact I voted for Romney. I posted it because 8 months ago it brought up points worthy of discussion and exploration at that time. In fact, I posted it with a plea that others would not use it as a post to advance bigotry. You might want to hold your fire a little longer next time.
Oh crap. lol. You're correct. I've just been so friggin' tired of all this I did speak before I investigated. Sorry.
Like this guy?
In a heartbeat.
Or a Buddhist with a good platform?
So long as he wasn't a pacifist like many Buddhists and had no qualms with using force where necessary to crush our enemies, yes.
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.