Are You Concerned About Mitt Romney's Faith?

There has been much controversy here at Free Republic about a Mormon running for President. Mitt Romney has been questioned about his faith and many people here have posted things here expressing concern about what they consider to be "weird" doctrines. Today and tomorrow, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is holding their 177th Semi-Annual General Conference in which the leaders of the church address the membership around the world directly.

In light of the many misconceptions regarding the LDS (Mormon) church here on FR, I offer the following links for those who have questions and concerns about Mitt and his faith. Conference is a great opportunity for those who know little about the Mormon church to have a few questions answered; to get your answers straight from the horse's mouth, so to speak. Therefore, here is a link to the broadcast website:

There are audio streams available in multiple languages and video from KSL TV in Salt Lake City and KBYU, Brigham Young University's television station. The video links are in the first paragraph at the top of the page.

The next session begins at 4pm Eastern/3pm Central. Tomorrow's sessions will be at 12 noon/11 am Central and 4 pm Eastern/3 pm Central. Sessions are 2 hours long.

Careful there, you haven't read about the Mountain Meadows Massacre. You also are not aware of the Separatist movement that the Mormon Church was at one point, or the burning down of houses and murders committed by Church members historically.

At the Mountain Meadows Massacre, 150 men women and children were slaughtered (every one except for children under 8 years of age, which is considered the age of innocence for kids) by followers of the Mormon church. These were Mormon men who were ordered by their leader to shoot these men women and children point blank in the head after they had surrendered (and the Mormon militia had offered them safe passage). Never forget the massacre!

Did you know that at one time, they sent their own militias to ambush US troops under the leadership of Brigham Young?

That religion also produced the Dannites under the command of Joseph Smith and other "prophets". Beheadings and Blood Atonement was practiced by the religion.

The religion still has doctrinal points regarding Blood Atonement, Plural Marriage, Spiritual Sealings, Speaking in Tongues. Up until 1990 the Church still required temple-going members to perform a symbol of a cut across their throat and abdomen symbolizing there fate for betraying the secrecy of the temple and the solmenization of their temple-work.

Most people underestimate the cult-mind produced by the Mormon church, but when you have people who adhere to such a religion blindly and without critical thought, you start to see people who will do anything for their leaders without question. It is truly a scary proposition when you think about it.

Obviously, the vast majority of Mormons are good people, but even during the early years of the church, there were good people.

That's why any US citizen could possibly be upset with the Mormon religion.

Jeff, thanks for the thought out response.

Your discussion is misleading, however. You are intertwining the idea of "going to Heaven" and the idea of "returning to Heavenly Father", which you and I both know are two different concepts in the Mormon doctrine.

According to Mormon doctrine, almost everyone will go to Heaven, but it is only the ones who fulfill all of the ordinances that will be exalted and return to Heavenly Father on the Celestial Plane of Heaven.

Apostle Talmage is not referring to Exaltation, he is referring to Salvation (i.e. at least making it to the Telestial Plane [lowest level of Heaven]), and he is saying that that Salvation is dependent upon our own compliance to the laws and ordinances of God.

Jesus Christ fulfilled the law so that we would not have to (because we could not). Christ told us not to rely on our own works or attempts to fulfill the law because we are destined to failure in that. But instead rely upon His Grace.

Let me give you a practical example. If a Bishop in the church performs a Baptism and the Bishop has been leading a sin-filled life (for example, let's say that he embezzled some money from his workplace). Then according to Mormon doctrine, the Power of the Priesthood would be removed from him. So, since the Bishop just got through Baptizing a person, and the Power of the Priesthood wasn't with him at the time, what of the person who was Baptized? The Baptism was invalid, yet this person who received the Baptism is not aware of the Bishop's sinful life and subsequent revocation of the Power of the Priesthood.

That example can apply to any person who claims the Priesthood, because we are all sinners, and the Power of the Priesthood cannot be with people in sin. That is why we must rely on God's Grace through Jesus Christ and not through men who claim to wield the power of the priesthood that Jesus Christ held.

My point is that these men who think they hold the Priesthood and are thereby fulfilling the CONDITIONS of salvation as espoused by Apostle Talmage are failing in those CONDITIONS and, at the same time, rejecting the Grace of Christ that says that we don't need to be subject to those conditions.

No misleading at all. We believe that Heaven is to return to the presence of God, in His kingdom for eternity...which is consistant with almost every other Christian faith. We call it the Celestial Kingdom as reference to that terminology by Paul in the New testament.

The church also teaches that families and marriages can be forever and that anyone who so desires, who reaches Heaven can attain that blessing in the hereafter.

But...that is all secondary and basically wound up in interpretation on what our more detailed condiotions will be in the eternities.

The fundamental teaching that Christ is the author of salvation and that salvation and Heaven are a return to God and His Kingdom for eternity based on our acceptance of Jesus Christ is the same and rock solid.

My guess is, that once there, we both will accept whatever details God in Heaven has to offer without any qualms or reservation. I believe, beng of different persuasions in our faith in Christ, that if we focus on that fundamental agreement, that we can most effectively work together to bring souls unto Him...and best influence the direction of our nation as opposed to conflicting with one another when we ought to be working together.

But that is just my own opinion and my main point was to witness Christ Jesus to you, definitively and directly so that you might know that members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are indeed christian.

In the end, it will be between each of us and our Savior...but I believe it is clear that the Church teaches and preaches Christ Jesus and Him crucified and our unflinching dependence on His atonement and redemption for salvation.

The rest is wrapped up in what we should do and how we should live if we are trully converted. Christ himself said that ww would keep His commandments and that is also what the church teaches...but saying that and believing it are only a reflection of what Christ himself taught in the new testament and do not in the least take away from the power of his atonement or its essential qualities.

... Mormon men who were ordered by their leader to shoot these men women and children point blank in the head after they had surrendered (and the Mormon militia had offered them safe passage). Never forget the massacre!

Did you know that at one time, they sent their own militias to ambush US troops under the leadership of Brigham Young?

That religion also produced the Dannites under the command of Joseph Smith and other "prophets". Beheadings and Blood Atonement was practiced by the religion.

Sorry. but you have gone off the deep end now. There was trial regarding Mountain Meadows and justice was done and none of the allegation you now make were proven in a court of law in terms of the Church leadership ordering it or being involved in it in the slightest.

Ther was a trial and the individual responsible was found guilty and executed.

What happened there is that a wagon train full of some of the individuals who had persecuted the relatives of these people and driven them out of Missouri was passing through, bnreathing our threatenings and slander as they passed. Hotheds who were members (and there are bad LDS people like there are bad Baptists, Catholics, Methodists, or any other brand of people), took it upon themselves to hatch this scheme against them and take revenge. They did the horrible deed...but, as I say, were later brought to trial.

As to the other...beheadings and blood sacrifice, there is not one shred of evidence, not one, that the church ever condoned or participated in any such thing. To the contrary, it was those who persecuted their fellow Americans back in that time who murdered scores of innocents Mormons including little children, took their land, and drove them out into the Rocky MOanutains in the 1830s and 1940s.

Anyhow, what you are doing now is simply offensive and not true. To this point we had a reasoned and rational discussion, but your introduction of these falsehoods and rumors and inuendo makes that impossible.

The Lord said, "By hteir fruit ye shall know them."

The fruit of the Church as evidenced by the life and livlihood of the vast majority of its members, and their commitment to family, to morality, and to Christian principle in treating their neighbor as themselves, and loving others, as has been testified to by others not of that faith on this thread. That speaks for itself.

I have given my witness and am content now to let it stand on its own merit.

Jeff, there was no valid reason for the group of Mormon men to kill those 150 or so travelers of men women and children. Period. The perpetrators of that criminal act were a large group of Mormons, at least one of whom was a personal advisor to Brigham Young himself (Lee). Why was only one man, Lee, who happened to be the leader of the Dannites put to death for the crime. Do you think that only one man killed all 150? He was put to death 20 years after the crime because no witnesses would cooperate with the Federal (non mormon) judges during those 20 years.

Again, I encourage you to think critically and you will see the truth.

Anyways, I really do respect your intelligent discussion on this topic, I just think that you are way wrong. We obviously feel strongly opposed here, but I do thank you for discussing and ultimately I want you and others to know that I care very much for the Mormon people.

We are all Americans and we are all brothers and sisters in Christ. I have very close family ties with Mormons and I know what good people they are in general. But I view their religion as potentially dangerous in more ways than one.

God Bless.

I have never indicated that there was a valid reason or any excuse for those murders. I have indicated that there is a perspective and that perspective is that those Missouri/Arkansas immigrants bragged about their own roles in the killing, raping, and driving out of Mromons from Missouri, some of which realtions were in the very country they were traveling through.

That does not make it right...but it does add an important perspective.

In addition, the Federal government was in the process of raising and sending an Army to Utah at the time because the Federal officials there did not feel they were being recognized and because of the ill feeling between the church leadership and those officials. That feeling was understandable given the things that had occurred which had driven the Mormon population out of Missouri and then Illinois at the point of a gun with their land stolen and their members killed.

All of this resulted in tensions being at a fevered pitch throughout the territory precisely at the time this was going on. Many Mormon settlers believed they were about to be in a fight for their land, their way of life, their very lives and religion all over again and they were committed to not being driven out again.

Again, not an excuse for what happened at Mountain Meadows in the least, but still the backdrop for those reprehensible events.

The lack of support for a trial was certainly due in part to the Mromon population not cooperating with the Federal government at the time, but it was also due to the outbreak of the civil war and the era immediately following it.

When the first trial was held, Lee and the others were acquited. The second trial found Lee guilty, who by that time had been excommunicated from the church. He was executed by firing squad

It was the US attorney in the second trial that chose to bring charges only against Lee. Did he feel in the environment that this was the best he could get? Probably. Was he under political pressure from Washington to get some conviction out of the entire affair? Perhaps...maybe even probably. Did he "cut a deal" with Brigham Young at the time to get his "sanction" on this trial at the cost of closing the case as some infer? Knowing what I know of Young, I personally do not think so.

It was a sad affair, from the late 1830s through the 1840s and then with this terrible event, of killing and murder, and persecutuin of a people and then some of them exacting a dispicable revenge against this party which was contrary to the teachings of their own faith.

When I contrast it to that of the good that the many millions of LDS members do who do live their faith, day in and day out their life long, it is clear that the fruit of the faith (as evidenced by those who live it, not by those who violate it) is Christian compassion and service...and a testimony of, commitment to, and faith in Jesus Christ our Savior.

It is that witness that I bear to you now, sincerely and in the integrity of my heart.

Jeff,

I guess I take a more grim view of the whole event.

However, I do agree that 99.999% of Mormons now are good-hearted people as I've said before. My wife and children and brother are members of the LDS Church, so I know from experience.

I just can't forgive what happened at Mountain Meadows by a group of people who put what they felt was their religious duty and justification above their own common sense of decency and humanity, and they happened to call themselves Mormons. I think we all need to learn to discern when someone in a religious position of authority (Lee) tells us it's our duty to do something that is against humanity. Critical thinking.

We agree to disagree on that issue.

*** By the way, I just noticed that you are the author of a couple of books. Kudos for those accomplishments! I have a lot of admiration for people who can achieve such things. Writing a good book is an immense challenge and an incredible achievement. It's an honor to speak with you. ***

>>Yes, I would never vote for a Mormon as President, just as I would never vote for a Muslim or Buddhist, or anyone other than a Christian.

I hate to tell you this, but Mormons are Christians and unless you are here to announce you are Jesus Christ returned, you have no standing to judge us and declare otherwise.

>>I respect people's right to worship as they will, but I support only Christian candidates
>>because I want someone in there who believes what I believe.

Correction, you will only support those who fit your narrow definition of Christianity, who are you to say I do not believe in Christ?

>>If you think about it, you can't realistically separate the man's religion from his
>>political motivations, which means, basing one's vote for president, at least paritally,
>>on the person's religion is very valid. It certainly is not bigotry to do so.

Strange, I agree with you on “embryonic stem cell abortion”, Gay rights, and euthanasia, and I ‘m a Mormon.

Huh, I guess Religion does not dictate that stuff after all. As for me, a Mormon, All I have to say about Mitt Romney is … GO FRED!

IMHO you are a bigot for having religion make a difference for you in what should be a secular office. If your position was based on the candidate’s beliefs about government or his position on political issues, that would be valid, but you choose to make religion your decision point.

A couple more nails for this “Litmus test” coffin, if religion determines political alignment then we can count on all the Catholic politicians to be “pro life”, right? (Do I really need to start a list of catholic liberals?) Bill and Hillary are Baptists… do you agree with their positions politically?

Well, it’s a free country and you are free to vote your conscience, however, I am free to call a spade a spade, and in my opinion anyone advocating a religious litmus test is not attractive to the conservative cause.

I think we all need to learn to discern when someone in a religious position of authority (Lee) tells us it's our duty to do something that is against humanity.

We do not disagree on this point. As I have said...it was a dispicable and reprenhsible act of deceit and murder, irrespective of the fact that the relatives of many of those people committing it had themselves been raped and murdered by others who also called themselves Christians.

That does not make the LDS Church itself reprehnsible or false in its teaching of Jesus Christ, anymore than trying to take what Judas did and reflect it back on Christ himself. Christ taught the truth, He was and is the truth, irrespective of what weak humans chose to do with that truth.

Those who accept Jesus Christ in their hearts, with sincerity and true conversion, become His disciples and are converted and cleansed through Him and then take upon themselves His name and go about doing good, as He did. In His time, he will lead all of those who so conduct themselves to all truth and they will be with Him and their loved ones who do likewise throughout all eternity.

As to forgiveness...Christ himself told us it was left to us to forgive all men...and that we should love those who deceitfully use us and are our enemies. I believe we can do that...each of us who has His countenance in our hearts...but I also believe we can be wise and forgive and love those individuals...and try to help them...without in the least embracing their evil.

When all is said and done, I sincerely thank you for the compliments...and may God bless you and your family.

My two books can be downloaded for free as professional Adobe ebooks, free to all Freepers at the following links:

Jeff Head's eBook download.

Each book, one a fictional techno-thriller about the emergence of Red China and the other non-fiction about actual experiences at Klamath Falls, Oregon, are full of my own efforts to write in good Christian and moral principles into stories that try to warn of the conditions of the day, and do it through embedded stories that emphasize patriotism, constitutionalism, and a way of life in keeping with it all. I hope you get the chance to read them and enjoy them.

That's right, I will only support those that fit my narrow definition of a Christian. That's my right. I do not believe that the office of the President should be secular. It should be held by someone who has a great fear of God and a great faith in Christ.

And you are a hypocrite. You wouldn't for a moment vote for a Wiccan or a Satan worshipper would you? Would you vote for a Shiite or Sunni or Wahhabist muslim? How about a Druid? How about an Atheist? Do you think someones choice in religion speaks about their character? Do you think character matters?

I'm sure there are many other religions that you would draw a line at and not vote for.

A candidate claiming to be a Christian is not all that matters, they should exemplify someone who has tried to live a Christian life. Everyone must make a judgement whether or not that candidate has done so, at least enough so that they can be trusted to follow Christian values. I don't think either Clinton would fall into those categories for me.

Hypocrite. Conservatism needs people to stand on principle. Something that you obviously can't do, otherwise, you would only vote for a Christian for President, as well.

>>They believe in Jesus Christ, but they don't believe in the Trinity.

You mean the dogma introduced under Constantine (A Pagan calling Religious conferences under pain of death?) in AD 325 as he was trying to reform Christianity to help him unify Rome? Yep we don’t believe that.

They believe that Jesus Christ is the brother of Satan.

Which a common knowledge before the Trinity was invented.

They believe in the need to follow ordinances as a means of attaining higher levels of Salvation.

You mean like baptism? Yep, we believe Baptism is required as an outward manifestation of an inward faith.

>>They believe that Jesus Christ only died for the sins of Adam and Eve, not for the sin that people commit today.

There are so many things wrong with this statement I am truly amazed. We believe that Jesus’ Atonement was infinite and paid for Adam’s sin and our sins thus we can be truly clean and return to that God who gave us birth.

>>They believe that people can become what God is now, and that God used to be a mortal man just like the men on Earth are now.

LOL! You have a Gift for sating things in a convoluted manner, and are exercising it fully in this post.

We believe all that God has promised us. God promised the faithful all that he hath. If a king gives you his kingdom what are you? Are you a king? If we are truly God’s children, what will we grow up to be? Angels? Bah, you don’t believe what the Bible says if you disagree with what we believe, you seem to prefer dogma by pagans like Constantine and others like him.

>>They believe that God has a father and his father has a father.

That’s not doctrine, just logic, Grin.

>>The believe in many Gods. (10 Commandments speak of something to the effect: "For I am a jealous God and there are no other Gods, I know not one."

Try the actual scripture, Exodus 20:3 3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me. (http://scriptures.lds.org/en/ex/20)

I find it funny actually how people think God having a father somehow diminishes him. This world was created by God to teach us about Him. Does your Father having a father lessen him in your eyes? I have even heard people questions God’s authority over us with this a a premise, have you ever tried to appeal to your Grandfather to avoid punishment from your father for something you had done wrong? It would not help you, and would actually make your punishment worse. He was before us, he will be after us (Earth exists in time, he does not.) He is eternal, and all powerful, what’s the problem?

>>There's much more to it than that, but to me, that's enough to convince me that they are not a true Christian theology, and a dangerous Church to place one's belief.
Instead people should believe you? No, I will trust in God the Father and in his son Jesus Christ who came and saved me by performing the Atonement on my behalf, and I thank my God for it.

>>Like most any church, there are a lot of wonderful people in the Church, but from my observations, they are not critical thinking people.

LOL!

>>And that makes sense because the LDS Church doesn't want members to be critical thinkers.

You have no knowledge of what you speak here, and you started a sentence with And (speaking of critical thinking…)

>>Then they would want answers to questions like "How much does our leadership receive in monies from the Church?"
ROTFLOL! We have a Lay ministry for all but the General authorities! (Which means we work for the church for free in our spare time after supporting ourselves with “Day Jobs”?)

>>That by the way is a strictly held secret.
The Financial records of the church are PUBLISHED, and I can look up any expenditure (including a GA’s compensation just so you know, it’s pretty modest BTW but they do have a really good health care plan)

Your post is so full of inaccuracies and half truths that I wonder if it is innocently so.

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.