Posted on 06/01/2011 10:06:48 AM PDT by Colofornian
Bill Keller infamously announced in 2007, "If you vote for Mitt Romney, you are voting for Satan!"
While expressing less vitriol in his delivery, evangelical author Warren Cole Smith said something similar in his recent article, "A Vote for Romney Is a Vote for the LDS Church."
Smith wrote, "I believe a candidate who either by intent or effect promotes a false and dangerous religion is unfit to serve. … A Romney presidency would have the effect of actively promoting a false religion in the world. If you have any regard for the Gospel of Christ, you should care. A false religion should not prosper with the support of Christians. The salvation of souls is at stake."
Mormon scholar and author Joanna Brooks spoke with Smith about his views regarding Mormonism. In the interview posted on religiondispatches.org, Brooks said: "I can understand from an evangelical perspective why you view our religion as 'false.' But why do you think we are 'dangerous?'"
Smith replied, "Let me ask you: is anything that is false not dangerous? Anything false is dangerous. Falsehood leads to danger."
Brooks countered by asking if other faiths he considered theologically "false" like Judaism and Catholicism are also dangerous. Smith said that those faiths are both different from Mormonism.
(Excerpt) Read more at deseretnews.com ...
I was listening to Rush last week (Friday, May 27th), he had a Romney supporter call in trying to urge Rush to endorse romney. among the qualifications the romney supporter cited was that he (romney) understood oppressed people because he was a member of an oppressed people himself, specifically stating mormons.
So, many will post here wanting to separate romney from his mormonism. Perhaps these same should look to the romney supporters out there - they are the ones who are now touting romney’s mormonism as a QUALIFICATION for the position of president.
And make no doubt about it - inspite of romney being a RINO, you can safely bet that 90+ of the mormons across the country (these staunch conservatives I keep hearing about) will vote in bloc for romney.
You cannot separate romney (or huntsman for that matter) from their mormonism no more than you can separate the yolk from the egg white in scrambled eggs.
A dangerous religion is one that excuses the killing of Jewish children.
A dangerous religion requires women to be covered from head to toe in public.
A dangerous religion complains that a terrorist mastermind was disrespected by burial at sea....
I’d rather have ANYBODY than the current, lying, cheating, hypocritical President.
Yes, indeed!
Then you may get what you want - another lying, cheating hypocritical president who believes he is a god in the making
I’d rather have anyone from the LDS as president than a ‘christian’ from the Jeremy Wright wing of Christianity.
FWIW I am not a Mormon.
Are you serious?
Romney has built a successful business.
Romney has paid a payroll.
As far as I know, Romney has supplied his real birth certificate (not a facsimile), and we can look up his school, business, and personal records, as well as other flotsem and jetsem from his c.v.
That’s just a start.
Is that what you REALLY think, or are you just intent on bashing Mormons? I’m not Mormon, BTW, but I grew up with a lot of Mormon neighbors and classmates in California. They were all fine people and I was proud to count them as my friends. I was truly shocked when I moved to other states and detected the amount of anti-Mormon prejudice floating around.
Better that you should worry about what’s really threatening this country, rather than law abiding Mormons.
Well, given that nobody from that wing is a GOP candidate. And given that you're on this Web site makes it unlikely you'd vote for a non-GOP candidate [excepting a third party stance should Romney win the GOP], you'd both be "pro-Romney" then in an instant if Romney wins the GOP?
Romney or Huntsman? I wouldn't vote for them in the primary...if either of those gets the nomination, we'll all have some serious pondering to do.....
I consider myself Independent, but I’ll vote for the GOP candidate, unless he’s a real pig.
“The Mormon MUST put his church and what his mormon “president/prophet” says first”
I have to respectfully disagree on this, there is no ‘MUST,’ he simply does not have to.
“There was a time that the mormons were at war against the United States”
This is a fair point, but you’re reaching back pretty far to the mid to late 1800s when Mormons were living in a sparsely settled U.S. Territory in what they called Deseret at the time. In modern times, Mormons tend to be pretty well integrated into American society both culturally and politically.
I've got Mormon relatives whom I dearly love.
They were all fine people and I was proud to count them as my friends. I was truly shocked when I moved to other states and detected the amount of anti-Mormon prejudice floating around.
A few of my another-generation Mormon relatives suffered some severe oppression in the South. (They at least emerged unscathed; can't say as much for the Arkansas folks who ventured into southern Utah Territory -- what they call 'Dixie' -- in 1857).
I oppose Islam for MANY reasons. Unlike many FREEPERS, those reasons are not all physical -- perceived physical threat. There are many spiritual concerns about Islam as well...and people who forget that or don't realize it are the ultimate reductionists.
For example, Islam slanders the Lord's church by referencing all Christians as "infidels." Similarly, the LDS church slanders all Christians as "apostates." [Somehow, that "anti-Christian" spirit by Mormon leaders escapes posters like you.
Better that you should worry about what’s really threatening this country, rather than law abiding Mormons.
It's way too ironic:
* Too many FREEPERS want to reduce some threats only to the economic (& leave out social concerns like what's physically happening to the pre-born)
* When it does come to the physical, many of those same FREEPERS who really couldn't give a rip (or at least a vote) about the risks of living in the womb are concerned about Islam. [Which is it? The physical matters if you're a Trade Towers employee, but not if you're a resident in the womb?]
Bottom line: Jesus said "But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear him who, after your body has been killed, has authority to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him.' (Luke 12:5)
I'll take Jesus' cue about where our concerns are to be -- those who land in hell when we could have prevented some of them from being there -- over your "see no spiritual evil" approach.
Good Q, Turtlepower.
Pro-abortion healthcare imposed upon the Bay state citizens vs. pro-abortion healthcare imposed upon all of U.S. citizens.
Looks to me like we have too many FREEPERS who'd vote for a pro-abortion, pro-imposed healthcare imposer in a nanosecond should Romney win the GOP.
Tell us, afraidfortherepublic,elli1...if the Anti-Christ was the Democratic candidate...and you had a mini-bin Laden or mini-Hitler type running vs. the anti-Christ, would you vote for one of them just 'cause they were the "lesser of two evils" than the Anti-Christ?
LOL
I guess because I have never experienced it. On the other hand, I HAVE experienced antiCatholic prejudice and have been called "apostate" by Protestants on this board. My daughter graduated from a Baptist University in TX where the only thing most of the other kids knew about Catholics was that you weren't allowed to date them.
Oh, and I'll add to my litany of plusses about Romney -- at least he isn't in favor of killing innocent babies, unlike the present occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
Is this REALLY what you think, or haven't you interacted with your mormon neighbors and classmates enough to know the fundamental teachings of mormonism?
Historical fact - from its inception, mormonism was hardly lawabiding. From polygamy, to creating a bogus bank swindling money from their members, to open rebellion against state and federal gov'ts - mormonism has been at odds with the government.
Doctrinal fact - mormon males worthy enough to have a temple recommend card are taught DOCTRINALLY that they are in line to become a god. Look up the history 'afraid'.
Those same temple mormons swear an oath of allegance to the current prophet/seer/president of the mormon church above all other oaths (even the oath of the presidency). Until 1927, every temple mormon also took a blood oath to seek vengence against the US Gov't for 'persecuting' it in the past. This is the mormon heritage romney/huntsman is drawing upon.
And if you have paid attention to the news, with the coming of 0bama and the mess the demonrats have made, mormon apocolyptic fever regarding the so-called "white horse" prophecy has had a significant up tic. The crux of that prophecy is that the US constitution will hang by a thread and that a mormon and the mormon church will ride to the rescue and save it by taking over power and establishing a theocratic government. And because of his oath to the mormon prophet - you can bet that a president romney will be receiving calls from him on how to accomplish this.
Each and every one of my statement can be backed up from history (secular and mormon-origined) or mormon doctrine. I've only scratched the surface of the information 'afraid'. So is it bashing to point out how his religion colors his views and does not really serve the interests of the country - but rather the interest of mormons?
Seriously - considering that his temple underware is considered sacred and endowed with power, as well as believing in a conman (joeseph smith) with his testimony - I would say that his overall judgement as president would be impared.
Finally - it is romney supports themselves that have recently touted his mormonism as a qualification. When they do that it is only fair to examine that religion and see what potential impacts it would have to the country.
Something to further think about.
Re: lesser of two evils.
Given a binary choice, greater or lesser evil, which would YOU choose?
Vote for the lesser evil.
Vote for the greater evil.
Don’t vote and have no influence on the outcome. I’m really curious.
I hope you remember that Obama’s election was at least partially due to conservatives on this forum posting about how they’d never vote for McCain because he was insufficiently conservative. If enough people refuse to vote for the lesser evil it is the functional equivalent of voting for the greater evil. Is that somehow an improvement?
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.