Mitt Romney's Mormonism: A TNR online debate

I appreciate your moderate and respectful reply to my objections. It is often hard for non-Mormons to understand how Mormons believe all we do. You at least see how Mormon beliefs and our way of life could be satisfying to educated, reasonable people, among whom you presumably would include Mitt Romney.

What troubles you is the implication of belief in prophetic revelation: Would Mormons perform any dire deed for their prophet no matter how contrary to conscience? And what about the belief that the United States and the Church might combine to dominate the world some day? Would Mitt Romney serve as the tool of Church leaders in facilitating a plan for world domination? His belief in revelation seems to require that he should.

These seem like perfectly legitimate questions, but they have a point only if you assume potentially dark motives on the part of Church leaders. You object that you do not use the word "fanatic" in your article, but the questions evoke the very image of fanaticism I was talking about: evil-minded religious leaders employing their spiritual authority over blindly loyal followers to magnify their own power. That is exactly the picture painted by the nineteenth-century polemicists who labeled Mormons fanatics. And they reached their conclusion in the same way as you do--by "teasing out" implications. The protestations of innocence by Mormons themselves mean nothing. Nor do their actions calm the fears. All that matters is that the reasoning from premise to conclusion--revelation to vicious action--is impregnable. Doubtless without meaning to, you are following the reasoning of the anti-fanatics to its fearful conclusion.

In evaluating the political implications of Mormon beliefs, you should use real facts about real events, not theoretical possibilities. Have Mormon leaders actually used their influence to manipulate politicians in the interest of world domination? What reason is there to think they have this on their minds? The reason Mormons are likely to find your analysis a phantasm is that we rarely, if ever, speculate about the world when the millennium comes. This is simply not on the agenda of active Mormon concerns, and it is certainly not a "core" belief. If anything, Mormons draw on the tradition that holds that many religions will flourish after the coming of Christ--a kind of American-style tolerance of all faiths. Mormons conscientiously carry the gospel to the world, but I have never heard a Mormon forecast political domination, much less collaboration with the United States government. Are you aware of Church leaders discussing such plans? No.

From your reply, I would judge that you are most concerned about loyalty to prophetic authority. Would Mitt Romney as president give way to immoral and illegal directives from Salt Lake? You make the subtle and interesting point that Mormons have no natural law tradition to constrain a Mormon president--either a president of the Church or the country. Since revelation trumps everything, where are the limits?

Your concern might be alleviated by considering how revelation actually works--in Mormonism and in biblical history. The scriptures themselves place heavy restraints on prophets. It makes a big difference that the moral law is enunciated endlessly in Mormon scriptures. The Ten Commandments were rehearsed in an early revelation, reinstalling them as fundamentals of the Church. Later, the Saints were told "no power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned." Could all this be overthrown by a new revelation? You think that revelation wipes the slate clean, negating everything that went before. But that is not the way prophetic revelation works, now or ever.

The proper analogy is to the courts and the Constitution. The law is what the courts say it is, we assert hyperbolically. Theoretically nine justices can overturn any previous interpretation of the Constitution on a whim. But, in fact, they don't--and we know they can't. Their authority depends on reasoning outward from the Constitution and all previous decisions.

The same is true for prophets. They work outward from the words of previous prophets, reinterpreting past prophecy for the present. That was certainly true for Joseph Smith, whose most extreme revelation--plural marriage--was based on plural marriage in the Bible. Prophets do not write on a blank slate. They carry forward everything that went before, adapting it to present circumstances. Like Supreme Court justices, they would put their own authority in jeopardy if they disregarded the past. The moral law, embedded in this revelatory tradition, exercises far greater influence on Mormon thought than the abstractions of natural law could possibly effect.

I am asking you not to focus so narrowly on what you take to be the logical implications of revelation. That is what critics of fanaticism have been doing for centuries. Look at the historical record of the past century as Mormons have entered national politics. Is there evidence of manipulation? Consider the Church's own renunciation of control over the consciences of Mormon politicians--a stand Catholics have not taken. Are you saying this is a false front? Keeping in mind the injunction in Mormon scripture to submit to lawful government, is there any real basis for concern?

I was delighted when I learned that you would be responding to my article on Mitt Romney. I admire your work on Joseph Smith and the beginnings of Mormonism, so I hoped for a critical engagement with the substance of my essay.

I must admit, however, to being disappointed with your response. Instead of answering the questions I pose, you dismiss them as a product of my overheated and paranoid liberal imagination. Unwilling to concede the validity of anything I argued in my piece, you claim that what I wrote "makes no sense" to Mormons--all the while failing to point to a single factual inaccuracy in my article. Rather than engaging with the theological concerns I raise, you say that they all flow from my belief that Mormons are religious "fanatics." Indeed, you consider this last point so decisive that you use variations on the word "fanatic" 14 times in your 1,000-word response--despite the fact that I never used it or any similarly harsh or dismissive adjective to describe Mormon beliefs in my article.

For the record, I don't consider Mormons to be fanatics. I consider them to be very seriously religious, and I think that their faith deserves respect--certainly far more respect than it has typically been accorded in the press and by evangelical Protestants. I am deeply impressed by the audaciousness of Joseph Smith's revelations. In addition to bringing forth a new 500-page book of scripture and setting out to correct ("retranslate") the canonical Old and New Testaments, Smith denied the creation of the universe ex nihilo, proposed that God has a body, and suggested that human beings can evolve into Gods themselves. More remarkable still, he persuaded large numbers of people to accept these heterodox beliefs and to risk (and, in many cases, to lose) their lives defending their right to affirm them. However odd Mormon beliefs may sound to orthodox Christians and doctrinaire secularists, these critics need to recognize that the LDS Church proclaims a vision of the world and God that speaks to something noble in the souls of millions of Mormons and the thousands of people who convert to the Church every year. (This is, in part, what Harold Bloom meant in The American Religion when he accurately described Joseph Smith as one of history's great religious geniuses.)

It is precisely my respect for Mormonism--my desire to take it and its religious claims seriously--that leads to my disappointment at your response to my article. You say that arguments like mine "baffle" Mormons. But why? I made three interrelated assertions in my essay--that Mormons believe Jesus Christ will return sooner rather than later; that, when he returns, he is likely to rule the world from the territory of the United States; and that the president of the Church is considered to be a prophet of God. Then I teased out various possible political implications of these theological commitments. In your response, you do not take issue with my three assertions, presumably because they are accurate statements of core LDS beliefs. Where my article becomes baffling is thus apparently in its discussion of implications. Mormons, you imply, would never follow a morally questionable or politically perilous pronouncement by the prophet in Salt Lake City.

I do not doubt that you and many other Mormons believe this. But can you tell me (and other non-Mormons) why--on what basis--you believe it? A devout Roman Catholic, for example, would have plenty of theological resources to grapple with an analogous question about following a papal edict. She might begin by pointing out that the Pope is not considered a prophet and is only rarely presumed to speak infallibly. She might then appeal to natural law, which an authentic papal pronouncement could never contradict. Then there is the closed canon of scripture. And a series of binding councils stretching back to the early days of the church. And a nearly 2,000-year tradition of relatively settled dogma and doctrine on faith and morals.

As I explained in my article, Mormonism has none of these moderating safeguards. It considers its leader to be the "mouthpiece of God on Earth." Mormon cosmology is arguably incompatible with natural law theory. It rejects the authority of every church council accepted by historic Christianity. And its scriptural and doctrinal traditions are fluid and radically open to revision in light of new prophetic revelations.

On the other side of the ledger, I also suggested that the hierarchical structure of the LDS Church has tended to have a moderating influence on its leadership and that it might very well continue to do so in the coming years. To this you have added individual conscience, which you believe would keep Mormons from following a questionable prophetic commandment unthinkingly. This is a promising start, but it is only a start. Conscience, after all, is a notoriously unreliable guide to right action--one that is most effective when it supplements firmer sources of morality and belief.

Does Mormonism contain such sources? If so, what are they? I taught at Brigham Young University for two years and count several Mormons among my closest friends, and yet the answer to these questions remains a mystery to me. And LDS culture today is shot through with so many unsettling contradictions that I find it hard to see how this mystery could be dispelled anytime soon. The Church is profoundly conservative, but its theological and historical foundations are incredibly radical (involving not only multiple acts of prophesy and revelation but also the establishment of a polygamous theocracy in the intermountain west). I know many intellectually curious and skeptical Mormons, but their curiosity and skepticism nearly always remains cordoned off from their religious beliefs. At the level of the ward (or parish), LDS church life is highly egalitarian, but individual Mormons tend to be extraordinarily deferential to ecclesiastical and political authority. I could go on.

As Mitt Romney prepares to become the most serious Mormon candidate for president in American history, members of the LDS Church (and especially its leading scholars and intellectuals) owe it to themselves and to their country to think deeply and publicly about these issues. The alternative--striking a purely defensive stance and hoping the questions and concerns will go away--is simply not a serious response.

Your anxiety about a Mormon politician knuckling under to a Mormon Church president replays the debate in 1904 over the seating of Apostle Reed Smoot in the United States Senate. Senators kept questioning church president Joseph F. Smith about his control of Mormon politics. Over and over, he assured the committee that he had no intention of dictating Smoot's votes in the Senate, but the questioning went on.

Now, a century later, we can judge the actual dangers of the Mormon Church to national politics from the historical record. Have any of the church presidents tried to manage Smoot, Ezra Taft Benson, Harry Reid, or Gordon Smith? The record is innocuous to say the least. There is no evidence that the church has used its influence in Washington to set up a millennial kingdom where Mormons will govern the world or even to exercise much sway on lesser matters. It's a long way from actual history to the conclusion that "under a President Romney, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints would truly be in charge of the country--with its leadership having final say on matters of right and wrong."

Mitt Romney's insistence that he will follow his own conscience rather than church dictates is not only a personal view; it is church policy. The church website makes this explicit: Elected officials who are Latter-Day Saints make their own decisions and may not necessarily be in agreement with one another or even with a publicly stated church position. While the church may communicate its views to them, as it may to any other elected official, it recognizes that these officials still must make their own choices based on their best judgment and with consideration of the constituencies whom they were elected to represent. You are going against all the evidence of history and stated church policy in contriving the purely theoretical possibility of Mormon domination. Is that not the stuff from which all paranoid projections on world history have been manufactured?

Liberals must be particularly cautious in speculating about the political intentions of religious groups because of their fascination with fanaticism. Fanaticism is one of the most firmly entrenched stereotypes in the liberal mind. The fanatic is the polar opposite of all that the liberal stands for and thus constitutes a particularly delicious enemy.

Joseph Smith ran up against the fear of fanaticism almost from the beginning. It was the chief underlying cause of the recurrent expulsions the Mormons suffered. When non-Mormons could find no specific infractions to warrant prosecution in the courts, they resorted to vigilante action to drive the Mormons out. The Mormon presence was unbearable because they were so obviously fanatics. Quite typically, the fear of fanaticism led democrats into undemocratic extremes. Mormons were deprived of their property and the right to live and vote in a supposedly open society. In 1846, after a decade and a half of recurring attacks in Missouri and Illinois, a body of armed citizens forced out the pitiful remains of the Mormon population in Nauvoo by training six cannons on the town.

The stereotype of fanaticism is essentially a logical construction. The seemingly airtight logic is that anyone who claims to speak for God must believe he possesses absolute truth with an implied commission to impose that truth on everyone else. Mohammed, to whom Joseph Smith was frequently compared, used violence. Joseph Smith, lacking the means, tyrannized his own followers and refused to acknowledge the truth of any other doctrines but his own. You assume that Mormon leaders, by the same token, will want to commandeer the United States government to advance their cause.

Nothing Mormons can do will ever alleviate these fears. It did not help that the right of individual conscience in religious matters was made an article of faith, or that the Nauvoo city council passed a toleration act for every conceivable religious group including Catholics, Jews, and "Muhammadans." Whatever they said, their neighbors could not believe that the Mormons' ultimate goal was not to compel everyone to believe as they did.

Your essay chooses not to look at the historical record, because specific facts are irrelevant in explicating fanaticism. It is the logic of revelation that counts. The Mormons have to be interested in world domination because their doctrine requires it of them. Furthermore, they are all dupes of the chief fanatic and will willingly do anything he requires. You cite as proof of this extravagant claim "more than one" undergraduate who said he would kill if commanded. No mention was made of students who said they would have refused. That method is in keeping with the management of the fanatic stereotype. There is no effort to give a balanced picture. Certain key facts or incidents are made archetypal. In unguarded moments or exceptional instances the true nature of the fanatic mind reveals itself.

The unquestioned belief in the potency of fanaticism makes facts unnecessary. Readers know in advance what to expect just as they foresee the ending of a romantic movie far in advance. The art of writing in this mode is to mobilize all of the foreknown elements and arrange them to reach an expected conclusion.

Damon, I thought you moved along judiciously through most of the essay, but you blew your cover in the paragraph of questions to Mitt Romney. There, you try to nail him on his beliefs about the church president being a prophet. It follows necessarily, you think, that, if Romney believes in current prophecy, the church will run the country under his presidency. That leap from assumption to conclusion in one bound is only possible if you are steeped in the logic of fanaticism. For Mormons themselves, it makes no sense.

You are caught in the dilemma that ensnares everyone preoccupied with fanaticism. You describe Mormonism in a way that makes perfect sense to non-Mormons and no sense to Mormons themselves. This means, to me, that you are describing the inside of your own mind as much as the reality of Mormonism. Mormons will hear a lot of this so long as Romney is in the race, and it will baffle them every time.

Mormons stayed home in droves and did NOT vote for McCain, who is a self-declared Baptist, because “some Mormons will ONLY (or Primarily) tolerate candidates of their own Mormon cloth.” Evidence?

There were all kinds of comments by online readers @ Utah newspapers in '08 who said they wouldn't vote for Christian candidates. Obviously, I was speaking especially when a Mormon is running vs. a non-Mormon...

And here's the evidence on that:

Portion One: (Courtesy of Szonian having just posted this June 6...http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2730183/posts?q=1&;page=101 -- post #140)

Utah Republican primary, 2008
Official Results
Candidate-—————Votes—————Percentage

Mitt Romney————264,956—————89.49%
John McCain-————15,931-—————5.38%
Ron Paul-——————8,846-—————2.99%
Mike Huckabee-———4,252-—————1.44%
Rudy Giuliani-—————988-—————0.33%
Fred Thompson-————613-—————0.21%
Alan Keyes——————261-—————0.09%
Duncan Hunter—————211-—————0.07%
Tom Tancredo——————3-—————0.00%
Total———————296,061-—————100%

First Obvious Conclusion: Romney got 89.5% of the vote; McCain, 5.4%

Second Portion

"While the former Massachusetts governor’s faith has been a flashpoint in his campaign, it was perhaps one of his strongest assets in Utah, where more than 60% of the state’s residents share his faith. Exit poll data shows Romney swept voters across the board, handily winning every social, economic, and generational demographic in the state, as well as 94% of all Mormon voters." (Susan Davis, Wall Street Journal, Feb. 5, 2008, Romney Wins Utah With Help From Friends [Note: The Wall Street Journal was citing MSNBC.msn.com...those exit polls; poster colorcountry was citing the same % late first week Feb. '08 (either Feb. 7 or Feb. 8) from CNN-reported exit polls re: weekly non-Catholic church attenders in Utah]

Conclusion: I think this blogger makes my point well:

To be sure, I am frustrated with Evangelicals that are voting for Governor Huckabee solely based on the fact that he used to be a pastor (and even more frustrated that Huckabee is running on nothing but that). But I have to laugh when Romney supporters claim that there is religious bigotry among Evangelicals. The reason I have to laugh is that Mitt Romney got 92% of the Republican vote in Utah. 92%!!!! That’s ridiculous for any candidate. If Mormons want to throw stones at Evangelical voters for voting on the wrong thing, they first need to step out of their glass house. A voting block that large in Utah seems to be just as clearly drawn down religious lines as voting trends in the Bible Belt (if not more so). If it’s wrong to vote against Romney because he’s a Mormon, it’s equally wrong to vote for him because he’s Mormon.
Source: Politically speaking: Lds & Evangelical Conversations

You know & I know that the 60% of Utah citizens who are Mormon voters may often -- like they did with Romney in '08 -- vote for a Mormon primarily or solely because he's Mormon.

You and most of the others who replied to my original post here misunderstood it -- or saw only half of the point. (Unfortunately, lack of comprehension on internet forums is rampant because we're communicating through a flat, one-dimensional means. It lacks all the other cues we take for granted in the three-dimensional world: body language and gestures, tone of voice, inflection, emphasis, etc.)

In my original post, I said:

Bigotry against any political candidate based on his religion has no place in our Constitutional Republic.

Now I'll break this down so it hopefully is more clear:

1. Voters are free to use whatever criteria they choose when making their decisions in the voting booth, but...

2. If a voter's SOLE -- ONLY -- criteria is a person's religion, then that's bigotry. That's true if the voter is making a choice because the candidate is a member of the voter's religion, or the candidate is a member of a different religion.

3. In earlier posts on this thread I was challenged on the notion of voting for a Muslim. ejonesie22 asked...

"So if there was a man running for office who said and agreed with every single political point you have ever stood for yet was a Muslim and firmly held to what the Koran said, his religion would play no role what so ever in your decision to support him."

MY ANSWER: The scenario makes little sense, because if a Muslim took every word in the Koran literally to the point of being an Islamofacist, s/he could not also support the principles in the United States Constitution. The two are antithetical to each other. Nevertheless, I try always to look at the totality of a candidate's record, position on issues and personal character when making my own voting decisions. Always have, always will. If an American Muslim ever rose to the point of being a serious candidate for president during my lifetime, I would have to take a very serious look at what that person stood for, but only if she was a Republican. If s/he was a Democrat, I'd dismiss the candidate immediately.

To close, bigotry does exist in this world. We can pretend it doesn't. We can close our eyes to it, but it does exist. The way I look at it, individuals are free to be bigoted or not. It's part of the human condition. I'm bigoted against Democrats and the political Left. :)

I oppose it only when bigotry rises beyond the individual level to impinge on our constitutional rights. Also earlier on this thread, Godzilla said that "my application of the 'religious test' is flawed." He/she missed the point as well. There are two aspects of the Constitution -- the strictly legal one and the broader principles enshrined in it. Godzilla looked only to the former, while I was considering the broader principles.

Are you saying that in a Primary, Mormon voters tend to vote for Mormons over non-Mormons (which I agree with), but in the general they will vote anyway, even if there is not a Mormon running? If they were true “Mormon-only” voters, wouldn’t they have all written in Romney on the Presidential ticket or not voted at all?

Shall I recount for you the MANY FReepers who have said they will vote for almost anybody vs. Obama? Isn't that a similar "general" statement re: FReepers?

There were some Lds voters who didn't vote for the McCain-Palin ticket, right? There will be some FREEPERS who won't vote for Romney if he is the nominee, right? Where's the lack of a parallel?

I’m unclear on why you continue to focus just on Utah

It's the best example we have, being 60% Lds. But there's four other Western states with significant Lds populations: Wyoming, Idaho, Nevada, AZ. (And CO also has a fairly high total).

* Wyoming & Nevada both went caucus style. Who did they select? (Romney) [Nevada is 8% Lds & I would say at least 1 out of 6 or 1 out of 7 GOP voters in Nevada is Lds]

* Colorado also has a significant Mormon population due to its proximity to Utah. It too, went Romney.

* The reason why AZ (8% Lds) went McCain was because that was McCain's home state. Even then, McCain couldn't even get half of his home state because Romney got 35% of the AZ vote as again I believe Lds voters were probably 1 in 6 of the GOP total. Also, AZ was the one state that I saw FREEPERS have specific exit poll data in '08 showing that 95% of AZ Mormons voted for Romney.

* Idaho also went McCain, but that was because Romney by then had dropped out.

You know wolfie - it is common on fr to ping someone you are talking about directly.

Also earlier on this thread, Godzilla said that "my application of the 'religious test' is flawed." He/she missed the point as well. There are two aspects of the Constitution -- the strictly legal one and the broader principles enshrined in it. Godzilla looked only to the former, while I was considering the broader principles.

Unless you can come up with a law, court decision or the like that forbids individuals evaluating a candidate's religion as a component of their qualification for office, then you are just blowing smoke. It further displays a gross ignorance of the constitution wolfie. Sounds more like a liberal interpretation of the constitution than what its intended use was for. It DEALS with LEGAL points - the LAW wolfie, that was it's intent. To force people to ignore religion for their own evaluation of a candidate as you are interpreting it to mean (your "broader principles") is to place thought control on an individual's freedom. Gov't tells you what to think and how to think. Very liberal thinking to me wolfie.

How we make our choices are our RIGHT, and only smearologists are the ones running around calling others bigots wolfie.

BTW, since mutt's supporters are using his mormonism as a QUALIFICATION lately - then it is no longer bigotry for others to look at that religion as a criteria for supporting mitt.

Your "broader principles" are liberalism wolfie. The constitution is not some changable document you can wave around to your whim.

I can sympathize with your “concerns” about having a puppet master from Salt Lake pulling Romney’s strings. There are lots of puppet masters pulling the strings of politicians, most of them equally as dangerous as Mormonism, if not more so, and many of them are principalities and powers beyond degenerate humans.

"Danger" has a sliding scale according to distinct spheres. Certainly, the political arena is capable of much danger from a physical, economic, warfare (foreign policy), freedom/oppression/persecution/bondage and spiritual perspective.

I think a worthy question in all this is: "Which entities? Which regimes in the world? Which U.S. administrations and organizational operations are ones which open the door wide open to hell?" Well, suggestions offered up on that would be a debateable topic with difficult tangible proofs to claim. Certainly, I think the cults qualify among many other sources.

In terms of spiritual bondage -- and what legalism does -- the Mormon door to hell is pretty wide open. I'd say Jesus made it a high priority to engage spiritual legalism (instead of simply taking on the Caesars of the world), wouldn't you?

Examples:

* Matt. 16:12: ...guard against the yeast...against the TEACHING of the Pharisees and Sadducees.
* Luke 11:52: ... you have taken away the key to knowledge.
* John 8:44,47: You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies…The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God.
* Matthew 23:2-4, 13: 2 “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3 So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. 4 They tie up heavy, cumbersome loads and put them on other people’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them...“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the door of the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to."

Btw, I wonder if you'll seek to rebuke Jesus' half-brother, Jude, when you get to heaven for using the word "fear" in this verse(?)...in light of your earlier statement: 22 Be merciful to those who doubt; 23 save others by snatching them from the fire; to others show mercy, mixed with fear—hating even the clothing stained by corrupted flesh. (Jude 22-23)

Do you think Obama is a free agent? Likewise, any progressive Republican is a puppet, and the puppet masters I see tugging Romney’s strings are already well on their way to rebuilding the dominion of Babylon. I don’t see the cult of Mormonism playing much of a part in that scheme.

No. Obama's not a "free agent" -- and that goes for more than just political & party handlers. The apostle John, in John 5, said "We know that we are children of God, and that the whole world is under the control of the evil one" (1 John 5:19).

You know, you'd rarely find me commenting on "end times" stuff on FR (or elsewhere). And on any of these threads I've yet to connect the anti-christ to Mormonism -- unlike Mormon leaders thru the years who've endlessly connected the Christian church to "Babylon." I don't who the anti-christ is or will be; I don't know what kind of religious connections -- and possibly political ones, too -- he will have. But the apostle Paul not only describes a religious tie to the anti-christ, but enough power for him to be able to seem to wield it beyond that:

3 Don’t let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction. 4 He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God’s temple, proclaiming himself to be God. 5 Don’t you remember that when I was with you I used to tell you these things? 6 And now you know what is holding him back, so that he may be revealed at the proper time. 7 For the secret power of lawlessness is already at work; but the one who now holds it back will continue to do so till he is taken out of the way. 8 And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will overthrow with the breath of his mouth and destroy by the splendor of his coming. 9 The coming of the lawless one will be in accordance with how Satan works. He will use all sorts of displays of power through signs and wonders that serve the lie, 10 and all the ways that wickedness deceives those who are perishing. (2 Thess. 2:3-10)

Do Mormons have temples? (Yup)

Do Mormons exalt themselves as gods? (Yup)

Since the apostle John talked about "anti-christs" in the plural (1 John 2:18-19...see below)
...it seems that when it comes to opposing Christ,
...a given cult wouldn't even need to be directly tied into the source of THE anti-christ.

What do I mean? As far as I'm concerned, temple Mormons [NOT all Mormons] already resemble him based upon exalting themselves as gods!

1 John 2:18-19: 18 Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour. 19 They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us.

[Sounds to me that John was saying many left the Christian faith by opposing the true Christ...and as the apostle Paul said, "many live as enemies of the cross of Christ" (Phil 3:18)...Certainly Mormons, who yank weak Christians out of their faith by the thousands worldwide, generally eschew the cross and its church leadership has treated it as a pagan symbol.]

My whole point in going this direction was simply this: You seem to suggest that we shouldn't be concerned, worried or have any fears that a religious source is going to become a "puppet-master" with political reaches. I'd say that while we need to be cautious in not giving the enemies of our souls more of an overreach than what he has or will have, that long-term, your assurances seem to run counter to 2 Thess. 2. Whatever the scheme source of THE anti-christ to be, he's actually going to have some religious tie-in. That tells me that people of the earth need to be more vigilant whenever an "I am a god-in-embryo" power figure comes forth; not less.

I also forgot to add this, too in my last post about Nevada caucus Mormons in 2008 election:

Per the Mormon Church, Mormons make up about 7.5% of Nevada's population. But according to the entrance polls so far, a whopping 25% of those who participated in the state's GOP caucuses are Mormons. And 94% of those people went with Romney.

Source: Nevada Mormons turn out for Romney [Mark Murray, MSNBC, Jan. 19, 2008]

So there ya go:
* 94% of Mormons in Utah voted for Romney.
* 94% of Mormon caucus voters in Nevada voted for Romney.

If Mormon voters are so conservative, why were they voting 94-6% for such a waffling RINO liberal?

And why did they vote for Romney so en masse?

Salt Lake Tribune, Feb. 7, 2008: Exit poll data from Tuesday's primary elections showed Utah Republican voters cared more about presidential candidates' personal qualities than their positions on issues, the opposite of the national trend in Super Tuesday voting. Source headline: "Romney's exit disappoints strong Utah following"

Yeah, well, "personal qualities" was Mormon voter exit "talk" to convey, "He's a fellow Mormon."

And if Wolfstar and you have teamed up to play the "bigot" blame game because some voters use religion as the launching pad for their vote, ya better get busy in your finger-pointing!

Because Western states' Mormon voters have done more to push identity politics to degrees seen rarely elsewhere.

Just imagine the media hue & cry & the FREEPER hue & cry (at least among non-Evangelical FREEPERS) had a Southern Evangelical-oriented state voted 94-6% in the '08 primaries for Huckabee!

Evangelical voters, had they done that in a Southern state, would have been castigated and excoriated by many. (Perhaps both of you?)

But when the Mormon voters do that, the bigotry patrol gives them a free pass. Religious identity politics can run amok by Mormons.

Why the rampant hypocrisy, Magritte and Wolfstar?

“You seem to suggest that we shouldn’t be concerned, worried or have any fears that a religious source is going to become a “puppet-master” with political reaches.”

Nope, that’s not what I am trying to say. What I am trying to say is that there are a lot of powers pulling the strings of our politicians, and the ones I see pulling Romney’s strings aren’t concerned with Mormon aspirations. Satan has a lot of games going on besides the cults. It would be foolish and unscriptural of me to tell you not to be concerned about the cults, or to suggest you don’t offer a defense of the gospel. ...I think Romney’s puppet masters come from a different direction. No, you shouldn’t have fears or be worried. ...Worry is sin. All things work together for the good for those who love the Lord.

I’m not suggesting you don’t have concerns about Romney’s Mormon affiliations any more than I would tell you not to have concerns about someone’s Masonic affiliations or Islamic affiliations, add whatever you want in the sequence. It’s all legitimate debate in the world of spiritual warfare and politics. I am concerned about Christians who wants to be a political leaders, not because I fear them being influenced by Christianity, but because I wonder about the influences driving them into politics.

I understand that Jesus showed little or no concern for the political powers of His time. His concern was the Kingdom of Heaven, and it still is. Caesar was nothing compared to Him. I also understand that Mormonism is a pagan doctrine pretending to be Christian, and Christians have a duty to expose it. ...Getting back to those powers and principalities though, in regards to Romney, and other presidential contenders, I think the greater danger lies in a different direction.

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.