NEXT ... 
Posted on 05/04/2007 5:46:36 AM PDT by Saundra Duffy
Is there some kind of mantra, JFK=Mitt Romney that we aren't all aware of? I missed class that day, I guess.
Trying to equate the two is a red herring, IMO. AND, you're missing the most important thing...JFK was a dem. We're talking about the Republican nomination with Mitt, and if he gets the nod, Republicans will be shut out of the WH and the dems will gain a large majority in the congress...don't think they aren't counting on it.
That's what the bottom line if for you??? If Romney (as most Mormons) considers himself a Christian and you don't you'd vote against him on that basis???
Actually, I am Catholic and I frequent Catholic bookshops a lot. We must be a very self-interested group of people (LOL!), because I have never, ever seen a book that so much as mentioned Baptists, or any other religion! There are boatloads of books on catechism, apologetics, Mary, the Saints, Holy Communion, the Pope, the rosary, baptism, scapulars, etc., IOW all the bells and whistles pertaining to our faith.
In our library in our parish, we additionally do have a small section containing books (it appeared after 9/11, when people’s curiosity about islam got piqued) such as “world religions for dummies” type books which give a brief overview of what other faiths believe, but I have never even opened one of them, so I have to admit that I have no idea what is presented in them. However, these books are not “Catholic” books, they are secular books that would readily be found (and I have seen them) in a Borders or Barnes and Noble in the Religion section, so if there is anything derogatory in them, it is probably against Catholics anyway!
Haven’t finished the thread, so this already may have been posted, but I googled and found this link, which not only contains a link to an image of a man and a woman wearing the garments, but also a lenghty and thorough description of the Temple and the ceremonies/rituals. Very informative, I think you will find it interesting! (I know I did!)
http://home.teleport.com/~packham/temples.htm
Romans 13:3-5 (King James Version)
3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
5 Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.
Exodus 23
31 “I will fix your boundary from the Red Sea to the sea of the Philistines, and from the wilderness to the River Euphrates; for I will deliver the inhabitants of the land into your hand, and you will drive them out before you. 32 “You shall make no covenant with them or with their gods. 33 “They shall not live in your land, because they will make you sin against Me; for if you serve their gods, it will surely be a snare to you.”
Carvile, Begala, Ickes, Chris Matthews, Keith Olberpoop, all the assorted MSM lackeys of the Clinton campaign will be pushing that message...with the electorate as closely divided as it is, you want to bet that there won't be enough sheeple who swallow it to swing the election? I don't.
I haven't seen that site before. Thanks for posting.
Is there some kind of mantra, JFK=Mitt Romney that we aren't all aware of? I missed class that day, I guess.
Yes, it's like the mantra the gays have comparing their "plight" to that of the civil rights movement in the 60s.
First of all, it's not the only consideration.
Like others in here, I weigh issues like personal character, social issues' stances, voting record, public statements.
Secondly, I've already said that even among the faith issues, the "definition of true Christianity" is not the only issue. The Bible shows that it's important for leaders to be guided by God, and to persistently call upon Him for guidance (the prayer issue we've talked about). Also, as I've mentioned, pinpointing a candidate's discernment skills are very important.
Let me give you a parallel: We don't want to be solo issue voters, right? So we don't want to evaluate a candidate on the solo issue of abortion, right? Well, yes and no. "No" in that many other issues and character and track record and faith issues all also come into play. But "yes" in that a person's commitment or lack thereof toward the most vulnerable in society will tell you a lot about the rest of what I just mentioned without even looking. A pro-abortion candidate will usually have a libertyless voting record. If mayhem in the womb is a non-issue to him/her, or if he's/she's pro-violence in the womb, then what does that say about his/her character?
Also, as I pointed out in my previous post, the definition of true Christianity is not something that occurs in a vacuum. And neither does properly "reading" Islam. Properly reading Islam, and its elements, IS a vital foreign policy/national security issue! If a president doesn't get a proper "read" of the threat posed by some elements of Islam, then where is his/her natural security discernment? (I mean don't we call it a gaff if a candidate makes an off-base comment about some world religion?)
So what? You think discernment skills in the Oval Office is a kindergarten issue? You think it doesn't matter if a president is wildly off-base in his/her understanding of Jihadic Islam, or of other world religions like historic Christianity? These are simple take it or leave it issues?
If you think that, you are naive. We can perhaps "get away with" (to some degree) such outright deception at lower offices, but not in the Oval Office in this juncture of our history.
There seems to be a conflation of a couple of issues in this article. The first issue is whether or not folks would vote for Mr. Romney, taking into account his religious affiliation. The second is the position of the LDS church in relationship to Christianity.
A third issue might be religious bigotry toward LDS folks.
Regarding the first issue, myself, if I thought that Mr. Romney were actually a sincere social conservative, I’d vote for him. I couldn’t care less about his religious affiliation. I won’t refuse to vote for him because he’s a Mormon, but rather because he’s a fraud.
However, as a Catholic, I agree with the Church’s teaching, and with the beliefs of most Christian ecclesial communities, that the LDS church is not a Christian church or ecclesial community, and that it doesn’t hold to a Christian theology. I don’t want to have a big debate over this, I just want to point out that this is the sincere belief of most Christian communities the world over.
Ironically, the LDS church used to be a bit more pronounced in proclaiming its own view that it is the rest of us whose theology is fundamentally false and apostasized. So, I’m not sure that LDS folks have much of a complaint to make that we believe that the LDS church isn’t Christian, as LDS teaching is that our beliefs are apostasy from true Christianity.
The third issue is religious bigotry. I think that folks can be anti-Romney without being anti-LDS. I also think that folks can be anti-LDS without being bigoted toward the LDS and its members. Although I don’t believe a word of LDS teaching that differs from the teaching of the Catholic Church, I don’t view myself as an anti-LDS bigot. I just think that the LDS is wrong. Very wrong.
Nonetheless, I’m cool with Mormons generally as persons.
McCain gives them multiple choices, doesn't he? If we can't get Fred, I hope none of the RudyMcRomney trio make it. I think Hunter looked o.k. to some during the debate.
RUN FRED RUN, RUN FRED RUN!
The question is in my post 260. I know you read it, because it was that post to which you responded you wouldn't 'take the bait'.
Clearly, you are unable to answer the question.
I find it sort of amusing when people can’t (or won’t)answer a question that goes to the very heart of the position they are attempting to argue. It proves they have no basis to their stance, and they know it.
NEXT ...
I think you don't like Mormons and have created an enormous smokescreen to justify why you just won't vote for one.
Love the Mormons.
Hate the Mormonism.
Oh, do you mean this part: "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.
"consecrate yourselves, your time, talents and everything you have or will have" (including the power you gain as POTUS) "to the LDS church for the building up of some mythical "Kingdom" and for the establishment of Zion.
That doesn't give you pause? That doesn't have any escape clause in there that I can see. I suppose there might be a question as to just what the "establishment of Zion" might mean today, but it DIDN'T mean the good ol' USA then, and I'm quite certain it doesn't mean the good ol' USA today. Frankly, in spite of the much used lately mantra of JFK=Romney, this particular oath just might cause a voter or three to hesitate pulling the handle for Mitt.
Three. And you.
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.