Posted on 10/04/2011 6:06:16 AM PDT by Colofornian
WASHINGTON — As a Mormon who did his missionary work in France, Mitt Romney knows something of uphill battles. Imagine spreading a faith that renounces smoking, coffee and alcohol in the cafes of Paris.
Romney’s current task may seem easy in comparison. But his religious beliefs remain an obstacle. About 20 percent of Republicans and 23 percent of Protestants tell Gallup they would not support a Mormon for president. A portion of conservative Christianity is unhinged in its condemnation, regarding Mormonism as a dangerous, secretive cult. Even without recourse to calumny, it is clear that evangelicals will not be reconciled to Mormon doctrines without ceasing to be evangelicals.
Yet, Romney’s faith should not matter. Presidents are elected for their policy views, leadership skills and character, not their soteriology...
...Damon Linker has warned that Mormon leaders, claiming prophetic authority, might dictate to an American president.
Jacob Weisberg has insisted, “I wouldn’t vote for someone who truly believed in the founding whoppers of Mormonism.”
Twenty-seven percent of Democrats currently say they would not vote for a Mormon—a higher percentage than among Republicans or Protestants.
SNIP
(Excerpt) Read more at gazettextra.com ...
Ah, a bumper sticker quality phrase: I wouldn't vote for someone who truly believed in the founding whoppers of Mormonism.
Look for the MSM to pick up on this -- especially were Romney to win the nomination.
From the column: Yet, Romney’s faith should not matter. Presidents are elected for their policy views, leadership skills and character, not their soteriology...
First of all, if a candidate's soteriology is that he will one day be a full grown-up god and that right now he is a "god-in-embryo," [which is standard Mormon belief], then sorry, soteriology does intersect with "leadership skills and character." This guy is then claiming to be a pied piper to becoming-a-god! (Hardly a leadership quality we would want anybody to emulate, let alone a POTUS candidate!)
As for character,, the Question at hand: Is true faith and misdirected faith part of our character?
And if yes, why wouldn't "character" ever NOT therefore be an issue upon which to seriously evaluate a candidate?
Principle that addresses this: OTHER-WORLDLY COMMITMENTS (FAITH, WHETHER IT'S TRUE FAITH OR MISDIRECTED FAITH) IS A CHARACTER ISSUE!
We all have blinders to truth. Nobody has a monopoly on it. (But I would say the Bible has the best snapshot of God & humanity and the interaction between the two).
Deception exists in the world, and when compared to trustworthy sources of truth (the Bible), deception exists as a continuum. If we agreed that a candidate belongs to the most deceptive cult in the world, then certainly that candidate's vulnerability to deception in the most important area of his life--his faith--serves as an indicator that he/she might be more easily deceived in public policy issues. "Vulnerability to deception" belongs on a character checklist! Even one 2007 poll indicated that 54% of Americans would not vote for an atheist.
I mean, how can posters get around the realization that other-worldly commitments (faith) belong in the character issue category??? To try to extract such other-worldly commitments from character is simply not possible. Time & time again folks try to hermetically seal "faith" & "religion" away from the public square as if folks checked their faith at the door or as if folks were neatly cut-up pie pieces. (ANY of you posters: Just try telling any voter that he should never weigh "character" into his/her voting-decision considerations!).
A POTUS goes beyond administrative duties. Discernment is a very important character trait...and that's not listed as a POTUS duty.
Nuff said.
> Does Romney’s Mormonism Matter?
No, but his liberalism does.
First of all, I am a Christian and I believe that Mormonism is a cult. My gut reaction to voting for a Mormon politician is that I would not want to vote for someone who doesn't have what I consider to be discernment, just like this article states. But, on the other hand, if I had to choose between Romney and Obama, the choice is clear. Obama has far LESS discernment than Romney has when it comes to economics, social issues, etc. I am *not* a Romney supporter by any stretch of the imagination, but I'd vote for him if the choice was between him and Obama.
To me, they BOTH do. Won’t vote for a lib, won’t vote for a Mormon.
(IOW, if the vote was ‘tween Hitler & the anti-Christ, you’d vote for one or the other ‘cause one had “more discernment” than the other)
It works both ways in the primaries. What chance does anyone besides Romney or Huntsman have to win the Utah primary?
I would easily vote for Romney over Obama in 2012. Romney has actually run a successful business. He would appoint business friendly judges to the bench (and by the way, economic conservative judges often get the cultural questions right, too). Romney would not bow to foreign heads of state, like The One has. I am not Mormon (I am a Mississippi Methodist), but I would take a Mormon over a disciple of Reverend Right every day of the week and twice on Sunday.
I am not backing Romney in the primary (Perry or Cain for me)...but if he takes it, I will donate, and work to get him elected in the general. He is light years better than Zero.
So much for discernment on the part of the majority of Protestants who at least in theory subscribe to "Sola Scriptura". In reality, the majority of Protestants are dedicated to "Sola Yourselfa" as I think this info tends to indicate. Macabees is out but The Book of Mormon is OK? Geez
Regards
We’re lucky, Romney is a RINO and a jerk no matter what religion he follows. He’s a liberal wannabe which is why we should not vote for him.
Mormon? Fine.
RINO? Kick his butt outta there.
LOL Rash, I didn’t know you had become so obsessed with me that you were tracking where I was posting, just waiting for a chance to bring up the Catholic vs. Protestant thing again. Get a life, kiddo.
None. Romney received 94% of the primary vote last time, Hunstman of course wasn’t in. My guess between the two the vote will be 95% over the other candidates.
I know for my lds family and friends they will vote lds, regardless what you tell them about Romney’s (or anyother lds)liberalism. Amazing really.
“We have no revelation on abortion”
Didn’t you assume Mormons were pro-life? That’s certainly the image their church attempts to broadcast, and most Mormons, in fact, mistakenly believe their church opposes abortion and regards it as an objective evil. But not so.
Indeed, the Mormon church accepts abortion for a number of reasons. The Church Handbook of Instructions, approved in September, 1998, states that abortion may be performed in the following circumstances: pregnancy resulting from rape or incest; a competent physician says the life or health of the mother is in serious jeopardy; or a competent physician says that the “fetus” has severe defects that will not allow the “baby” to survive beyond birth. In any case, the persons responsible must first consult with their church leader and receive God’s approval in prayer (156).
This same Handbook, the official policies of the Mormon church to be followed by all local church leaders throughout the world, also claims: “It is a fact that a child has life before birth. However, there is no direct revelation on when the spirit enters the body” (156). Previous teachings by former Mormon prophets referred to the unborn child as “a child,” “a baby,” a “human being,” and decried abortion as “killing,” “a grievous sin,” “a damnable practice.” Spencer W. Kimball, the prophet who died in 1985, taught, “We have repeatedly affirmed the position of the church in unalterably opposing all abortions” (Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, 189).
It appears that this “unalterable” position, constantly “affirmed,” is just another in a series of doctrinal and moral teachings that Mormons have reworded, reworked, rescinded, or reneged—though never officially renounced. Such is the quality of the Mormon belief in “continuing revelation.” Don’t expect dogmatic or ethical consistency. Rather, look for expediency and conformity with “the times.”
A further statement in the Handbook says: “The church has not favored or opposed legislative proposals or public demonstrations concerning abortion (156).” While the Mormon prophet claims to speak the mind and will of God, he can neither figure out when the unborn child becomes human or if it is God’s desire that we protect the unborn unconditionally.
Your Mormon friend will offer the excuse that his church leaves many decisions to the free agency (free will) of its people, and that abortion is one such concern. You might point out the irony in the fact that the Mormon church has no hesitation or uncertainty in making the following declarations:
1. “The church opposes gambling in any form” (including lotteries). Members are also urged to oppose legislation and government sponsorship of any form of gambling (Handbook, 150).
2. The church also opposes [correctly, of course] pornography in any form (158).
3. Church members are to reject all efforts to legally authorize or support same-sex unions (158).
There is no need for a member to pray for divine guidance or seek church approval for such activities, for there will be no divine or ecclesiastical finessing of morality to permit even an occasional bingo game. A prayerful game of poker, unrepented, will bar the member from the temple and ultimate salvation; a prayerful, by-the-book abortion, unrepented, won’t.
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/mormon-stumpers
Sorry to make you paranoid and I have a fine life, thank you. Maybe you shouldn't post shocking statistics about Protestants if you don't like comments. It's funny you think I even noticed it was you.
Regards
I could vote for a Mormon. But that doesn’t mean they aren’t wrong, theologically.
I could vote for a Mormon. Just not this Mormon.
I could vote for a Mormon. But I won’t. Not this year or next. Not unless we get a real conservative Mormon, and that Mormon is not Mitt Romney.
But I ain’t prejudiced. There’s quite a few Baptists I won’t vote for, either.
What I have to disagree with Mormons on is the issue of having an “extra book”, the Book of Mormon added when towards the end of the NT Book of Revelation the Lord WARNS “not to either add or subtract” from HIs word.
I agree about Romney in particular. I don’t know why his religion even comes up because he’s obviously just Barry in a different package. I mean, Romney Care vs. Obamacare is no choice at all, they’re both socialist bunk. I also think the guy wouldn’t fight abortion a bit no matter how he characterizes his opinion at the moment.
People obviously don’t put their theology first when dealing with politics, though, something that surprises me since so many people talk like that’s the primary thing in all their decisions. Reality vs theory strikes again it’s just in this case it surprised me.
Regards
No! He is a bad candidate no matter what his religion is.
I don’t care that Mitt is a Morman.
Were he say a hare krishna nut I would care.
I do care that Mitt is a RINO and not a conservative
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.