“They would rather see a Democrat win than give legitimacy to a false religion. For us, the higher and more important issue is an eternal one.”
Elect the democrats and you will have them cutting into your freedom to worship, restricting you from living your faith, erasing America’s Christian culture, and indoctrinating every man, woman, and child they can in secularism and homosexuality. You don’t think that will have eternal consequences on anyone? It will, and they won’t have a whole lot of choice about it.
A faithful LDS POTUS on the other hand would defend your religious liberty, including your right to go out and attach the church he belongs to.
It really is insulting of Americans to suggest that just because the POTUS is a Mormon that they will jump to the conclusion that Mormonism is true, give up smoking, refuse alcohol, go to church for 3 hours every Sunday, pay tithes to the church, dress modestly, reject abortion, and refuse to engage in sexual relations outside of a traditional marriage.
How does an LDS POTUS give any more legitimacy to the church than other successfully Mormons like Orson Scott Card, Steve Young, Gladys Knight? What about people who live beside or work with faithful Mormons, they get to see up close and personal how legitimate our faith is.
If you really want to keep people from finding out what we are like, you are going to have to round us all up in camps and put guards around us so you can demonize us without people having a real life Mormon around to compare to the image you want to sell.
When you’ve done that with us, will you be going after Jews next? Don’t they keep people from finding Christ too?
First of all, I am not “electing a Democrat”. I have never, and would not vote for a liberal. Liberalism is just as dangerous as Mormonism. I said (for the umpteenth time) that I would vote for a third party. You can throw the “a vote for a third party is a vote for the Dems” if you’d like, but it is simply untrue. My vote for a third party is just that - a vote for a third party. I must stand before God and give account for my actions, including my vote. I don’t think He’ll accept the excuse of not wanting Republicans to lose the election of 2008.
I know this has been a very long thread, so you may have missed the numerous times I’ve explained myself, but I will say it **one more time**. An election in 2008 is of far less importance than where someone will spend eternity.
One can not compare Gladys Knight and the President of the U.S. The president is the most powerful and important man in the world.
Your assertion that Christians would like to round up all Mormons and put them in camps is just (sorry) silly and not really worth the benefit of a reply. No one has ever made such a hysterical suggestion.
Jews do not accept Christ, but they do not claim Christianity, either. My main problem with Mormonism is that they claim to be Christian, yet they do not teach or accept the Gospel according to Scripture. So, when someone who might be seeking after the truth hears that Mormons are “Christian”, they might be more inclined to believe it if it’s promoted by the president. They might accept its teachings, believe that they are Christian (as evidenced by many in this thread), die deceived, and end up in Hell. That’s why I would never vote for Romney.
It’s obvious that this upsets you, but there you have it. This is not an opinion that is only accepted by me. I’ve heard many other Evangelicals say the same thing.
All this is moot anyway, IMO. I do not believe that Romney will will the Republican primary. He’s too inconsistent on important issues. He will not bring out the vote among Christians, IMO.
I can agree with this.
But THESE folks were sure worried about having THEIR church attached!
at the cost of the confiscation and loss of all the Temples, and the stopping of all the ordinances therein, both for the living and the dead, and the imprisonment of the First Presidency and Twelve and the heads of families in the Church, and the confiscation of personal property of the people (all of which of themselves would stop the practice); or, after doing and suffering what we have through our adherence to this principle to cease the practice and submit to the law, and through doing so leave the Prophets, Apostles and fathers at home, so that they can instruct the people and attend to the duties of the Church, and also leave the Temples in the hands of the Saints, so that they can attend to the ordinances of the Gospel, both for the living and the dead?
The Lord showed me by vision and revelation exactly what would take place if we did not stop this practice. If we had not stopped it, you would have had no use for . . . any of the men in this temple at Logan; for all ordinances would be stopped throughout the land of Zion. Confusion would reign throughout Israel, and many men would be made prisoners. This trouble would have come upon the whole Church, and we should have been compelled to stop the practice. Now, the question is, whether it should be stopped in this manner, or in the way the Lord has manifested to us, and leave our Prophets and Apostles and fathers free men, and the temples in the hands of the people,
Based on my experience with the LDS on a local and state level, I don't believe a "faithful LDS POTUS" would do this.
I lived in a LDS dominated area. Pioneer Day was a bigger deal than the 4th of July, the non-LDS were expected to conform to LDS standards, and the non-LDS were discriminated against on a regular basis. If a non-LDS person brought up something like Constitutional Rights or spoke against the LDS church, they were attacked by the LDS faithful.