FOOD FIGHT!!!!
Sorry. My bad.
I too am a former Mormon. I will never vote for Mitt “the flipper” Romney, precisely because I understand Mormonism too well.
I listened to the whole pitch (had the mormons in my home for about 6 weeks, once a week). The bottom line was they promised me a nice funeral in which hundreds of my friends would attend. That’s when I said no thanks.
I am Catholic. Catholics are attacked regularly for answering to the Pope above all else. Also, we have been accused of being cannibals since we “eat the body” of Christ (and drink his blood).
Do I answer to the Pope above all else? Of course not. I disagree with the Pope on certain issues. I assume that Romney is the same way.
This is the same hatred that has resulted in only one Catholic President (Kennedy). And no, I don’t like that overblown slime Teddy.
So, can we focus on what Romney can do rather than hysteria about the cultist nature of the Mormon church?
Economics -- taxes
Foreign Policy -- War on Terror
Morality -- Abortion
I do not generally consider Religion to be a good basis on which to decide my vote. I consider Romney to be an acceptable candidate and if he is nominated, I will vote for him. But I would prefer Hunter or Fred.
I've got no time for anti-Mormon bigotry.
Underlying issue: Regardless of what anyone might think, in a free country, a person ought to be perfectly free to vote for (or against) whoever they want, for whatever reason.
ping
Sorry, I stopped reading when the author made the claim that there are “blood oaths” that we “Temple Mormons” are required to make.
It’s silly lies like this that show some peoples religious bigotry. Sorry folks, but that is a lie, there are no secret “blood oaths”...la
I’ve known Mormons and they are some of the nicest people. That being said, I have always wondered why they can take so seriously a movement founded on such a rotten foundation, i.e. Joseph Smith, a liar and fraud. How can any rational person justify his cult?
Discuss the issues all you want, but do NOT make it personal.
Click on my profile page for guidelines.
This is a little too wild-eyed for my taste. When I was a kid, as a Southern Baptist, I was taught that black skin was the mark of Cain. (Good thing no perspective employer ever knew that.) Oh, and the Knights of Columbus were waiting on a signal from the Pope to slay Protestants (which was sure to happen shortly after Kennedy’s inaugural).
I know all about bait and switch. I voted for Bush.
The same argument that ZGuy uses not to vote for a non-Christian definitely applies to a Muslim like Barrack Obama. I know very little about Mormonism but if, in the end, the two nominees for the presidency are Romney and Obama, I will pull the lever for the former without doubt.
As a Catholic, I will vote for Romney if he is our candidate, but you are welcome to your opinion.
As a current, card-carrying “Mormon” Christian, I have to say I’m unenthusiastic about Mitt for two main reasons:
1) He’s not conservative enough
2) He’s not Mormon enough
He’s saying some of the “right” things on some conservative issues, but he’s saying what he thinks we (the base) want to hear.
I don’t know what faithful Latter-day Saint could have been “effectively pro-choice” for so long, when the prophets and general authorities, and the scriptures themselves, have all decried abortion as an abomination.
Mitt’s obviously an intelligent guy, he’s got business smarts that NONE of the other Republican candidates have, and I’ll vote for him if he gets the nomination—because even a squishy LDS conservative is better than Hillary.
Bush is a Methodist and I don't see a sudden rush by the public at large to join the Methodist Church.
Frankly, as an ex-Mormon I find this article to be over the top. At this point Romney, for me, is not even close to my favorite candidate. But he, unlike Giuliani, is an acceptable candidate whom I would vote for if given the choice between a democrat and Romney.
As an Arminian In Name Only (AIMO), I believe that God is going to choose our leaders for us and that we are going to assent to God's will in that choice by voting appropriately.
In other words, although from a temporal standpoint, my vote will count and I will cast it in accordance with my political and spiritual foundations, I am fully aware that there is no way that Romney or Hillary or anyone can possibly be elected to president if God has not previously ordained that outcome. And he has. We will know what God has ordained for us when we wake up on the day after the election in November of 2008. Either way we can rest assured that God is in control.
I am not at all concerned that Romney may be our next president. I would feel more comfortable with an arguably Conservative Mormon than a "Born-Again Christian" Liberal. The last one of those I voted for was Jimmy Carter.
May God forgive me for that one.
U.S. senators, however, are bound by the Constitution, which stipulates in Article VI that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." Any senator who votes against Holsinger's confirmation because of his church activity is defying the Constitution (although there is probably no way to hold such a senator to account apart from the ballot box).
I couldn’t disagree more with your post. As for the sources of those articles, I consider them liers and oath-breakers. As for the idea that making a covenant in the temple to consecrate time, energy, and resources to the building up of the church, this is what Jesus taught when he said “Come, follow me”. Maybe those of you condemning the church for following the teachings of Christ should read your Bible more, and listen to anti-Mormons less.
Christ is the head of the Church. I won’t apologize for Joseph Smith. Neither will Mitt Romney. We refuse to break promises we have made. As for the person who wrote this article (former member), maybe if he was willing to keep the promises he made, he wouldn’t be so bitter today.
What merits?
I disagree very strongly with Mormon theology. But this article is a bit over the top. If elected Romney will take an oath to uphold the Constitution. Unless proven otherwise I will believe he would not run for office if he could not honestly keep that oath.
I also thought that the blood oaths of the temple endowment ended in the 60’s. I invite any LDS tell me if this is true.
And comparing the attacks of 2001 by Muslim fanatics to the Mountain Meadow Massacre is very low. I am not defending the massacre it was horrid. But since no such attacks ever occurred again I think we can safely conclude that it was an isolated incident condemned by LDS. Besides the real motive was most likely not religious but larcenous. The train contained extremely valuable thorougbred horses which certain LDS members coveted.
I’m an ex-Mormon too, and sorry, this guy is full of crap. I’d vote for Romney in a heartbeat over Hillary or any other Democrat, thanks.