Posted on 05/04/2007 5:46:36 AM PDT by Saundra Duffy
I prefer Fred Thompson as a candidate for a variety of reasons. If Mitt Romney were nominated, however, he would certainly get my vote.
Mitt Romney has to convince "religious right" voters that he is trustworthy on abortion, marriage and homosexuality.
His own marriage speaks very well for him. He and his wife seem as devoted to one another as one might expect of a Mormon couple. There has never been a hint of scandal about his marriage to the best of my knowledge.
On abortion and homosexuality, there is no doubt as to the Mormon opposition to both but Mitt has waffled a bit years ago in debates with Ted the Driver and John the Traitor on abortion. Ronaldus Maximus signed a very permissive abortion bill as California governor and was forgiven for it. Mitt Romney can be forgiven as well but it takes special effort. I don't know enough about Mitt Romney's positions on "gay" "marriage" or "civil unions" to offer an opinion but he should make special efforts to make sure that we know where he stands.
The only recent negative about Romney that I am aware of is Romney's Massachusetts health care plan.
Where is Romney on guns?
Bigotry against Mormons as Mormons is inconsistent with American traditions. It is shameful. It ought to be unacceptable within the GOP and within the US. As a Catholic, I am not indifferent to the serious doctrinal differences between Mormonism and Catholicism but I also shall not allow those differences to blind me to the many great virtues of Mormons and Mormonism.
In any event, it is good to see you posting as ever. May God bless you and yours.
Sorry, won’t take the bait. The oath speaks for itself.
You are correct. I thought I had pinged her also. Honest! Don’t want to break the rules.
Saundra, ping to my post #253.
Sad but true. . .FR has its share of loons.
I live in Las Vegas, and it's not far from here.
I've visited the massacre site.
I know the history.
There were investigations post-massacre, and people leaked the story afterwards--some of the younger children, who were forcibly adopted into Mormon families, spoke of it, and there was a federal investigation. The history is known. Don't try to throw smoke over bloody history.
For those of you who don't live in the area, I think you might want to know this: The plaques that are replaced there at regular intervals, commemorating the event, are vandalized by Mormons who do not want the rest of us to know what they say. They can't keep a plaque on the Mountain Meadows Massacre site for very long.
Whole families--including women and very young children--were attacked...and wiped out.
I didn't raise this issue, but when I see historical revisionism rear its ugly head, it will not go uncorrected and unchallenged.
There. Truth is out, a small piece at a time.
Sauron
In other words, you can't answer the question. Just what I expected.
I take no issue with believers. I’ve made that statement before on this very forum. Myself, I’m agnostic.
As far as recognizing that it is very important to others, absolutely, and I really have no problem with that. To quote and recast a phrase from a no longer often seen freeper - I’m a non-evangelical agnostic.
I enjoyed your home page.
>>That is a damn lie!
>>I have attended church all my life, the only church who was >>ever disparaged in any service I have ever attended was the >>Baptist church.
>>You are so misinformed its ridiculous.
I have never even heard the word "Mormon" spoken in my church. We talk about Jesus and His way for us, not Mormons.
Well, God is not simply one who can be "found" [I can understand someone saying "I found Christ," but it's a little harder to comprehend when they say it about our Father in heaven]. We lost ones are the ones to be found, illuminated and brought into the light.
He must reveal Himself. He must reveal Himself to people. When God revealed Himself to Moses, He didn't arrive minus a "signature" so to speak. He left Moses His personal Name: "I am that I am" (Yahweh)--the Personal Self-Existent One.
Now, by comparison, study the official "first vision" of Joseph Smith. No such signature. We don't know exactly who these "personages" are that appeared to Smith. No names are given, other than one refers to the other as his son. (Likewise, Muhammad was visited by some personage in a cave. Who was this personage?)
Most importantly, God revealed Himself through a babe in Bethlehem, who in turn revealed Himself post-ascension to a man named Saul, who wrote most of the NT as a revelation.
So you ask which God matches the test?
As I review the Biblical scriptures, I see content consistency, especially when you consider how diverse the folks are who wrote it. (I mean you write getting a shepherd, a king, a tax collector, a doctor, some fishermen--men of all socio-economic stripes--and recruit them for them couple thou yrs--and then ask them to write on the most important spiritual and other topics in life...and then just see how random & disunified that would be). So that tells me that the God of these Biblical characters (versus say the God of the Quran or the God of Doctrine & Covenants or the Alien master beings say of Urantia) is the One to be prayerfully in alignment with.
Dr. Luke, in the Book of Acts, said that the Bereans were more "noble" because they searched the (OT)scriptures to see if what was said was true." (In other words, they searched the newer revelations by the older ones).
So, in this way we can compare newer revelations like the Quran to the older ones. If they don't line up, we need to reject it if we are to be Biblically noble. Same is true of the Book of Mormon and the D&C & the Pearl of Great Price, this latter one, for example, which proclaims that a "council of gods" exist out there. If the Bible doesn't mention a council of true gods, then if we are Biblically noble, we reject it.
Now you also mention various Christian denominations. I don't see them as different faiths; but rather, one faith...a diversity in unity like the God we serve. As for unitarians, they don't believe in a diversity in unity--only the unity. So, again, I compare their view to the older revelation. If a unitarian president would not pray to Christ, for example, then He's leaving out the creator of the universe to call upon (John 1; Colossians 1; Hebrews 1).
I’m pleased to read that. I didn’t necessarily agree with your earlier position... and knowing how logical and intelligent you are, I was concerned if I had missed something that you had found.
I agree that if Romney is the nominee, it will be like handing the keys to the WH to Hillary.
That is the reason why I think he will never be the nominee.
You no goody, you baiting fishhawk. Bwahahaha, nice try, but no soup for you!
Don’t duck, I like to tweak people by pointing out that the Lord is mentioned in the constitution on the Signatory page (Article VII)
you don't sound like, say, a hard-core agnostic, then?
(Defined as someone who believes that "no one" can know if there's a god...vs. one who applies this belief in personal terms only, and doesn't project it beyond themself)
It depends on the reasoning. For example, they might say to themselves, there is all this ignorant intolerance of Mormons out there. If a Mormon were to be elected president, probably a lot of that would disappear. I'm sure many Catholics thought something similar about Kennedy.
I posted this:
Romney made this vow as part of a mormon temple ritual: "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 the Doctrine and Covenants, 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.
Now, just what was the question again?
Well, first of all, I haven't ruled out voting for a Mormon. (You'll note that at least on the prayer issue, and on another thread, the issue of presidential discernment, I DO make a huge distinction between a Mormon candidate for president and a Mormon candidate for other offices)
Secondly, we never vote (or not vote) for someone in a vacuum. In this way, I respect folks who are genuinely wrestling w/who to vote for come Fall of '08. (I have, to be frank, less respect for those who are outright pushing Mitt for the primaries in '08).
Would I vote for a Jew? If he is a practicing Jew, I would assume he prays to the same God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob...a God, by the way, who is Trinitarian even if not perceived that way by such a president.
Prayer in the oval office in a crisis is not the only presidential consideration of a faith nature.
If a president shows he/she is vulnerable to deception in the most important area of his/her life (his/her faith), then what does that say about his/her discernment skills in every other aspect of that person's life?
Also, in terms of foreign policy & national security issues, if a person cannot properly define what true Christianity is, then on what basis do we expect him/her to properly define what is Islam or radical Islam or jihadic Islam or Wahhabi Islam? What implications does that have for dealing properly and realistically with Allah-based terrorists?
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.