Posted on 05/27/2012 9:35:33 AM PDT by greyfoxx39
These folks do NOT run around the WORLD; telling everyone who will give them the time of day, that CHRISTIANITY has been corrupted for a LONG time, and only THEIR men, that listen to gods voices in their heads, have the RESTORED christianity, the way it SHOULD be.
Do YOU really want to vote for someone who believes that?
Why?
Jews, atheists, etc. are not Christian. Are they unqualified for a christian vote? What about Obama and Black Theology? Is THAT Christian?
The US Constitution forbids a religious test. I judge people on their character, not on their nominal religion. Where have I gone wrong
***********************
Jews, atheists, etc. are not Christian. Are they unqualified for a christian vote?
It appears you missed my post Number 174
Speaking for myselfl, if a Jew, atheist, etc. had taken the following oath in a "sacred" religious ceremony consecrating "yourselves, your time, talents, and everything with which the Lord has blessed you, or with which he may bless you," to build up a religious organization, only a fool would ignore that when the oath of office for the POTUS would necessarily have to be a secondary vow.
Reading further at this link might give you a better idea of Romney's beliefs and how they would affect his governance from the WH.
bttt
OK, this is a discussion of ISM - I got that. I don’t believe in it, don’t defend it, never have.
However, there is apparently some feeling that this discussion of the ISM, is in truth, an argument against Romney.
Let me ask this plainly - is there concern from the antiMormonISM crowd here that if Romney is elected president that his belief in MormonISM will have some terrible effect on our country (worse than that of a second Obama presidency)? If so, what is that fear, what is the damage that you perceive Romney will visit upon the US? If not, is there some other connection between these discussions and Romney? What is that connection, if it exists?
Now a couple of questions related to your mention of “your” candidate:
Do you believe Virgil Goode is a viable candidate, in the sense that there is a possiblity that he could win?
If not, do you understand the very real fear many of us have of a second Obama term, that far exceeds our very real concerns (doubts) about Romney?
Do you understand how a vote for Goode (or not voting at all) helps Obama get closer to another term?
If you understand and acknowledge these fears, then you will understand the passion with which your choice of candidate is met - not from “Mittbots” as you so charmingly phrased it in a previous encounter, but from those of us who desperately want Obama defeated. This in not a choice of the lesser of two evils, we see it as a choice between evil, and not as good as we would like.
Do you contend that? Do you believe Romney is as evil a choice as Obama, or worse? If so, why? Is it related to his belief in the LDS teachings??
If you do not understand mormonism, you will not understand that Romney will act very much like Obama...there will only be a change of masters. The policies will be much the same, with the beneficiaries of largesse changing from the present ones to the ones chosen by Romney under the influence of the leaders and power brokers of the mormon church. There is NO morality in either man.
Romney is despicable because of his pro-abortion stance, which is approved by the mormon church. He is unfit for governance because of his lack of discernment in following Joseph Smith.
If you are the least bit interested in my fears of Romney as a mormon POTUS, you can spend some time in following my posting history and reading the articles I have posted regarding the arcane beliefs and take some time to read through this site: Especially the "Law of Consecration"
Be aware that Romney does not just give lip service to this "law", nor to Second Anointing....this ceremony promises that the couple will be guaranteed exaltation (salvation) for eternity for having been a "faithful servant" to the mormon church.
Given your comment to me earlier, "gf - are you an unmitigated fool?" this will be my last comment to you.
Perfectly fine that you will not respond - you answered all of my questions. Nothing more I would want to ask.
A question for you (& others) who wax utilitarianism -- until it's not very convenient to continue doing so, that is.
What do I mean?
Well, as you know, our POTUS election is unlike other elections -- in that we have a state-by-state electoral vote to consider.
What does that practically mean?
It means that if you live on the Left Coast (Washington, Oregon, and CA have the three highest unchurched rates, respectively) -- it won't matter that you cast a vote for loser Romney. So tell us, oh pragmatic one, Do you believe Mitt Romney is a viable candidate in Washington state? In Oregon state? In California? In Washington DC? In Maryland? In NY? In NJ? A viable candidate in those states "in the sense that there is a possiblity that he could win?"
If so, upon what basis do you make such claims?
My opinion is -- NO, Mitt Romney is NOT a viable candidate in those 6 states, DC & other likely states as we move closer to November.
According to YOUR line of thinking then...why should ANYONE who lives in those states/district bother to vote for Romney?
If you cannot address this, then stop the nonsensical inconsistency if you WiLL not apply it to Romney in given states.
I live in MA. In the recent state primary, Romney got 70% of the GOP vote. But anyone who thinks he will carry the state in Nov is crazy. He's not a viable candidate here.
I'll vote for Virgil Goode. I think anyone in MA who is registered as a Republican should do the same. Goode isn't "viable", but he's not as bad as either Obama or Romney. Why wouldn't I vote for the best man?
The US Constitution forbids a religious test. [Jabba the Nutt, post #198]
Ya know, JTN...I once read an Lds news release that said: The framers of our constitution included a provision that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States” (Article VI). That constitutional principle forbids a religious test as a legal requirement...
This release was part of a discussion by Lds "apostle" Dallin Oaks.
I'm afraid you -- Jabba the Nutt -- like Mr. Oaks...misconstrues candidacy eligibility issues.
All the constitution says is that an eligible candidate cannot be kept from running on religious test grounds.
Ya know, even Mr. Oaks recognized how ludicrous some of his rhetoric was sounding and needed to offset it a bit with a qualifier: "...but it of course leaves citizens free to cast their votes on the basis of any preference they choose."
So...here's a Constitutional "primer" for you so that you don't keep exporting confusion to others:
Point 1- RELIGION: Religion IS NOT a qualification or disqualification for public office; but it's certainly one quality of voter discernment among many others...namely, voting record, present position statements & rampant inconsistency of past position statements, social issues' stances, character, viability, scandal-free past, etc. Article VI, section 3 of the Constitution is aimed at the candidate (must be of a certain age and must have resided in our country for a certain number of years) and the government so that religion does not become a disqualification to keep somebody otherwise eligible for running for public office. Article VI, section 3, is not aimed at the voter. Otherwise, voters would have to 100% disregard character, beliefs, other-dimensionly commitments, and spiritual discernment in weighing candidates.
POINT 2 - ELIGIBILITY: Newsflash!! Every person on the ballot, & even most write-in candidates, have proper "qualifications" to not be excluded from office consideration (based upon religious grounds). Of course, millions of us have the "qualifications" to be considered a potential POTUS & shouldn't be excluded outright from a ballot because of the religion we hold! Nobody has a "Religious Ineligibility" tattoo on their forehead!
POINT 3- BOTTOM LINE: You don't, JTN, really want to join Lds "apostles" in their confusion by emphasizing words similar to "qualifications" (language within the Constitution) with words like "qualities." (language that’s NOT in the Constitution)...do you?
I focus on what voters base their votes on in the "real world": Qualities
Otherwise, Article VI says absolutely...
...nothing...
....nada...
...zero...
...about how voters must weigh--or not weigh--the "qualities" of a candidate...
Nowhere does Article VI say that voters MUST 100% disregard character, beliefs, other-dimensionly commitments, and spiritual discernment in weighing candidates!
"Qualifications" have to do with what gets a man on a ballot. "Qualities" has to do with who gets elected.
(Even 94-95% of Mormons -- most voting upon the fellow personal "qualities" of a candidate like Romney -- can tell you that!)
Btw, JTN, why aren't you lecturing Lds voters if anywhere from 88% to 95% of Mormons will only vote for a Mormon?
(For some reason, the "Article 6 Religious Test" lecture tour never seems to hit Utah, Southwest Wyoming or Southern Idaho)
Second - you make a valid point, albeit a bit aggressively - unnecessarily so in my opinion. Third - yes, I believe there is an outside chance that Romney could win Washington, less chance that he will win Oregon - but still a sliver of a chance. Very unlikely that he will win California, maybe possible with some kind of miracle. I see the dissatisfaction with Obama becoming so large that a miracle could happen.
Might I suggest a better way to frame your post:
“I live and vote in state ABC, and there is very little likelihood that Romney will win that state. Therefore, my vote for Goode will neither help Obama, nor hurt Romney in any meaningful way, but it WILL help convey a message to the GOP (much like WV voters did to the dems) that I am very dissatisfied with their business as usual.”
See there? You can make a valid point without making erroneous assumptions about people, or being needlessly abrasive. If, however, you enjoy confrontation and being abrasive, carry on!
Romney would be a "puppet" in the hands of a Mormon "prophet" reigning from Salt Lake City. The REAL power wouldn't be in the White House, but rather SLC!
Past statements from Mormon leaders show their lust for political power...(That's enough for me re: a concern)
| Lds Leader | Chronological 'Prophet' or Fundamental # (or Other Title) | Overlap Areas: Could the President of the U.S. become a 'puppet' to an Lds 'Prophet?' (The Lds Prophets -- in their own words) | |
| John Taylor | Lds 'Prophet' #3 | “The Almighty has established this kingdom with order and laws and every thing pertaining thereto…[so] that when the nations shall be convulsed, we may stand forth as saviours…and finally redeem a ruined world, not only in a religious but in a political point of view.” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 9, p. 342, April 13, 1862) | |
| Orson Hyde | President of the Lds Quorum of the 12 Apostles for 28 years (1847-1875) | “What the world calls ‘Mormonism’ will rule every nation...God has decreed it, and his own right arm will accomplish it. This will make the heathen rage.” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, p. 53) | |
| Heber J. Grant | Lds 'Prophet' #7 | "Elder Marion G. Romney recalled the counsel of President Heber J. Grant: 'My boy, you always keep your eye on the President of the Church, and if he ever tells you to do anything, and it is wrong, and you do it, the Lord will bless you for it.' Then with a twinkle in his eye, he said, 'But you don't need to worry. The Lord will never let his mouthpiece lead the people astray'" (in Conference Report, Oct. 1960, p. 78)." Cited in Official Lds publication Search the Commandments: Melchizedek Priesthood Personal Study Guide, p. 209 (1984) | |
| Harold B. Lee | Lds 'Prophet' #11 | ...President Harold B. Lee said: 'We must learn to give heed to the words and commandments that the Lord shall give through his prophet, '...as if from mine own mouth...(D&C 21:4-5)...You may not like what comes from the authority of the Church. It may contradict your political views. It may contradict your social views. It may interfere with some of your social life. But if you listen to these things, as if from the mouth of the Lord himself..." Cited in official Lds publication Remember Me: Relief Society Personal Study Guide I, p. 27 (1989) | |
| Spencer Kimball | Lds 'Prophet' #12 | "President Spencer W. Kimball said: '...We deal with many things which are thought to be not so spiritual; but all things are spiritual with the Lord, and he expects us to listen, and to obey..." (In Conference Report, Apr. 1977, p. 8; or Ensign, May 1977, p. 7) Cited in official Lds publication Come, Follow Me: Melchizedek Priesthood Personal Study Guide 1983, p.12 (1983) | |
| What about Marion G. Romney, cousin to Mitt's father? | Who was he in Lds hierarchy? (Title: 'President' - Top 3 of church as 2nd counselor to both #11 & #12 Lds 'prophets') | "Elder Neal A. Maxwell has said: 'Following the living prophets is something that must be done in all seasons and circumstances. We must be like President Marion G. Romney, who humbly said, '..I have never hesitated to follow the counsel of the Authorities of the Church even though it crossed my social, professional, and political life' (Conference Report, April 1941, p. 123). There are, or will be moments when prophetic declarations collide with our pride or our seeming personal interests...Do I believe in the living prophet even when he speaks on matters affecting me and my specialty directly? Or do I stop sustaining the prophet when his words fall in my territory? if the latter, the prophet is without honor in our country! (Things As They Really Are, p. 73). Cited in official Lds publication, Search the Commandments: Melchizedek Priesthood Personal Study Guide, pp. 275-276 (1984) | |
| Ezra Taft Benson | Lds 'Prophet' #13 | Benson speech given 2/26/80 @BYU. Summary: “…remember, if there is ever a conflict between earthly knowledge and the words of the prophet, you stand with the prophet…” (See excerpts re: 3 of 14 'fundamentals' below) Source: Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet | |
| Benson (cont'd) | Fundamental #5 | 5. The prophet is not required to have any particular earthly training or credentials to speak on any subject or act on any matter at any time. (My Q: Ya hear that Mitt Romney?) | |
| Benson (cont'd) | Fundamental #9 | 9. The prophet can receive revelation on any matter, temporal or spiritual. (My Q: Still listening, Mitt?) | |
| Benson (cont'd) | Fundamental #10 | 10. The prophet may advise on civic matters. (My Q: What say ye Mitt?) | |
| B.H. Roberts | LDS Historian and Seventy. Note: Roberts was an elected Democratic Congressman from Utah in 1898 -- but was NEVER seated by Congress because of grass roots uproar vs. Roberts, who took a THIRD simultaneous wife in the early 1890s. Grass roots America collected 7 MILLION signatures on 28 banners and presented them to Congress...in pre-mass media 1800s! | “[T]he kingdom of God... is to be a POLITICAL INSTITUTION THAT SHALL HOLD SWAY OVER ALL THE EARTH; TO WHICH ALL OTHER GOVERNMENTS WILL BE SUBORDINATE AND BY WHICH THEY WILL BE DOMINATED.” The Rise and Fall of Nauvoo, 1900, p. 180 | |
| Mitt Romney as POTUS??? | Aside from above prophetic impositions, why would Mitt not only honor what these 'prophets' have spoken, but what a future Lds 'prophet' may tell him to do? | The Law of Consecration Oath Mitt Romney has sworn in the Mormon temple (done before marriage/sealing in temple): "You and each of you covenant and promise before God, angels, and these witnesses at this altar, that you do accept the law of consecration as contained in this, the book of Doctrine and Covenants [he displays the book], in that you do consecrate yourselves, your time, talents, and EVERYTHING with which the Lord has blessed you, or WITH which he MAY bless you, to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, for the building up of the kingdom of God on the earth and for the establishment of Zion." Source: What is an LDS Church/Mormon temple marriage/sealing? [Q: Please define 'Zion': The LDS PR Web site (lds.org) defines its primary meaning: "membership in the [LDS] church."] |
You have a rather poor assumption you project onto me...that I don't want to "hurt Romney"...
Frankly, I'd like ALL liberals to be "hurt."
Frankly, I'd like ALL socialistic healthcare pioneers to be "hurt."
Frankly, I'd like ALL big govt types to be "hurt."
Frankly, I'd like ALL pro-aborts to be "hurt."
#1...Keep in mind that when I speak, I am also addressing those who aggressively question Virgil Goode...it's not always easy on threads to distinguish the aggressive questioners of Virgil Goode from those less/not so.
#2...You concede that Romney can't win in CA or Oregon -- and perhaps other states.
Will you now then withdraw the question you asked about Virgil Goode?
Or, if not, will you, in the interest of consistency, start asking potential Romney voters residing in CA & OR if they he is a viable candidate there?
I was around, although very young, during Kennedy’s campaign. It is startling how much this sounds like some folks back then expressing their fear of the RCC and the Pope.
I disagree with almost everything JFK stood for and did - but I don’t begin to believe that he was directed to do those things by the Vatican.
I do not concede that Oregon is not possible - simply much less likely.
My question about Goode stands - the reason for the question was to determine if the poster actually believed there was a chance - the better to ascertain the reasons for voting for him.
Finally - no, I will not ask the Romney voters the same question. Like it or not, Virgil Goode is an outlier, so I am interested in the reasons people would choose to vote for him.
Be advised - the members of the RF clique are able to denegrate at will, as long as they pose their ad hominum attacks as questions (I was so informed by the moderator). You and I, however, not being members in good standing of the club, will be closely monitored.
The term “bigoted” can fairly be applied to certain statements - BUT honestly recognizing and naming such statements is VERBOTEN! The statement being less offensive than the label, of course!
You have doubtlessly recognized the agenda here. It seems that any reluctance to attack the ISM will be met by a mob-attack denouncing you as a mormon defender or mormon lover, or a “Mittbot” (alhough, remember, they are only attacking the IISM). Take a look at posts #213 and #205 - they express, with clarity, the lay of this particular land.
I don’t know if you noticed another earlier post where one poster called out to the apparent leader of the pack that so-and-so was saying such-and-such and, it was clearly implied, needed a proper, verbal beat-ddown.
While professing a form of open debate, the practice here is far from it.
Like it or not, Romney is an outlier in OR, CA, MD, NY, CT, NJ, WA, DC, and even his home territory -- New England states. Therefore, I am interested in the reasons people living in those states would choose to vote for him.
For you, your curiosity about outlier candidates seems to be intentionally limited...wouldn't have something to do with the reality that you're a Romney supporter, would it? (Iow...a biased perspective)
Find me a Pope during American times who said ANYTHING similar to ANY of the quotes in that chart.
It is startling how much this sounds like some folks back then expressing their fear of the RCC and the Pope.
Fear? (No) Realistic appraisal and concern? (Yes)
Many of the people commenting upon the Vatican had ZERO indicators to base their concerns upon, making them unwarranted.
When we ALREADY have comments that politically overreach from Lds leaders, takes quite a bit of effort to intentionally ignore them as automatically being non-applicable.
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.