Why I, as a former Mormon, would not vote for Mitt Romney for President [PLEASE KEEP IT CIVIL!]

Christian Worldview Network ^ | 6/11/7 | Rauni Higley with Andrew Longman

[ZGuy]

I would not vote for Mitt Romney under any circumstances. This is not because I think he is a bad person, or that Mormons in general are evil people - quite the contrary. Most are very “nice” people. In fact, I do not think we could find a more outwardly decent person for president in this country than Mr. Romney.

So what is the problem?

The problem is that Mitt Romney is a Mormon, more, he is a Temple Mormon, and Mormonism is a very aggressive cult, a deceptive religion that leads people to eternal separation from Jesus Christ of the Bible. I ought to know. I used to be a Mormon.

In terms of the secular effects upon government, the public should also be aware that Mormomism’s blood-oaths bind Mitt Romney to obey the Mormon Church in Salt Lake City above the Constitution, above US law, and, yes, above the Christian and Jewish understanding of God. We’ve heard Romney argue that this is all the same bum wrap they laid on Jack Kennedy in the sixties. But it’s not. It’s not the same at all. Here’s why.

A US president with no definite religious beliefs, or a membership in some mainstream Christian denomination, may not have influence that could effect the eternity of individuals, but a man with deep-rooted cultic beliefs would persuade millions of the credibility of Mormonism, especially when taking into consideration that the LDS Church has a nearly sixty thousand strong missionary force. They could and would use President Romney as ”bait” for an introduction into Mormonism, not only in the United States, but around the world.

That’s point number one: does the “In God We Trust” Republic want Mormon missionaries to be the new face of America? Our ambassadors to the world? Picture:

Knock, Knock! “The President thinks Jesus is the brother of Satan – have you heard? Yes, until 1978 the President thought all black people were cursed of God, and could not hold the Mormon priesthood, but no, now he doesn’t believe that any more. Why? Oh, because pressure was put on the Mormon Church to change their teachings on that matter. And their “prophet” got a new “revelation” from his god. It allowed blacks into the priesthood – but nothing else changed. Yes, according to Mormon scriptures, black skin is still a curse from god! That’s the eternal word, don’t you know? But don’t worry. It won’t interfere with the Justice Department…”

The majority of people in this country, as well as elsewhere, are not familiar enough with Mormonism to be able to separate it from traditional Christianity – after all, the buzzwords sound the same. But are they? All Black skin a sign of a curse from God?

The Mormon Church does not believe in the same Christ as biblical Christianity. But even though Mormon President Gordon B. Hinckley, the head guy in Salt Lake City, has said publicly that he does not believe in the Christ of Christianity, Mitt Romney claims Mormonism does. I saw this over and over again while I was a Mormon – there is a systematic deception of the public about what the cult actually believes.

Al Sharpton and the rest of the American public may not know that Mormonism uses all the Christian terms…but that it has given to all of them a totally different meaning. Sharpton probably also may have gotten some vague answers that seemed to speak of the same beliefs, but in reality those compared beliefs are not even close. And Mormon belief, far from being just the private business of a person’s own conscience, has very public consequences for all of us if they reside in the highest office in the land.

Had Sharpton been told the truth, he would have learned that the God of the Mormon Church is not Eternal God of the Bible. He is a creation of Joseph Smith, made after his image.

“God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man…I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea…you have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves…the same as all Gods have done before you… until you attain to the resurrection of the dead and are able to dwell in everlasting burnings…” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 345-347.)

The Christ I know has always been God, will always be God, and his goal for me is to avoid everlasting burnings, not learn to live in them.

When I was a member of the Mormon Church, they taught me that Jesus Christ was the brother of Lucifer, the devil of Hell, and they still teach that. The Jesus of Mormonism was not begotten by the Holy Ghost, but was the natural physical offspring of an exalted former human being; a ‘god’ who had physical sexual intercourse with Mary.

That’s about as far as you can get from the Virgin Birth.

Are evangelical Christians going to support Mitt Romney’s candidacy if they know more about his beliefs? I sincerely hope not.

Mormonism comes to American Christians preaching “another Jesus”. This is a “Christ” that wasn’t born of a virgin, isn’t the eternally pre-existent Creator, has no inherent supremacy above any average Joe except for what “god” supposedly “earned”, and is allegedly equal in origin to Satan.

My fellow Americans, there could not possibly be a more anti-Christ theology in existence.

I can say with emphasis, as a former Mormon, and as a Christian today, it is without conscience for a Christian to vote for Mitt Romney for President of the United States.

To those more concerned with secular matters, I wish to point out that Mitt Romney’s religion is important if things like consistency, character, duplicity, the rule of law, and constitutional authority…are important.

Consider. Romney knows he’s not a Christian; the President of the Mormon church said so. Yet Romney consistently deceives people about this fact on the campaign trail. He says he believes in Jesus Christ! Jesus Christ who? If your religious beliefs are sincerely your own private business, then here we have someone’s private business causing them to be deceptive in public life. That’s just not OK for the President of the United States. If it was his mutual-funds that were causing him to lie in public about his private affairs, you could see it perhaps more clearly. But it makes no difference. If he’s lying, he’s lying.

But worse, for those who do believe in God, and Romney is supposed to, Romney is playing around with eternal matters…all to get votes.

And that’s supposed to be OK too?

Mitt Romney and Mormons in general maybe nice people as people go, but electing him President would influence millions positively for the Mormon Church - millions who do not know what Mormonism teaches about God, Jesus and salvation. The identity of America since our founding has been Judeo-Christian with all denominations of Christianity and Judaism being present from the earliest stages. The Christian faith is 2000 years old and has formative history in the USA since Jamestown. The Jewish faith is many thousands of years older and the influence of the Jewish Scriptures and people on the USA are also foundational. But Mormonism is a cult founded by polygamists who died in a gun fight, one of which was wanted as a con man in New England, less than two centuries ago. Is that the new ideological face “we the people” wish to represent us to the world? Does religion really “not matter” that much? There is a difference between tolerating your Mormon neighbor and electing him the President…with his finger on the nuclear button.

Only the most faithful of Mormons are eligible to enter a Mormon temple. Mitt Romney is in that elite group - he is a temple-card holding Mormon. I can tell you that not only is he planning on his own godhood after this life, but he has also taken oaths in a Mormon temple to put the LDS church above all else. His oath in the temple was to “consecrate himself, his time, talents, and everything he now has, or will have in the future, for the building up of the Kingdom of God here upon the earth, and for the establishment of Zion”.

It is important to know and understand that the ‘Kingdom of God’ to a Mormon, is not at all the same as the Kingdom of God to a Christian. To a Christian, the phrase means throwing the goodness and love of God into the world wherever you go and sharing the truth with others. But to a Mormon, building the ‘Kingdom of God’ means advancing the physical earthly organization of the Mormon Church in Salt Lake City, Utah. That multi-billion-dollar business entity is part of the conglomerate Mitt Romney was referring to when he took that oath. And he cannot talk about that oath, or what goes on in a temple, because of the pact of absolute secrecy.

People who haven’t been under the pressure of the cult don’t understand. They think it all sounds like being afraid of Kennedy responding to the Pope in Rome. No my friends. It’s just not like that. JFK was not even an active, practicing Roman Catholic, nor was he under oaths to protect and promote Vatican City above all else. But Mitt Romney is a temple-Mormon, a former LDS bishop. Nominal believer in a real religion versus all out devotee to a cult…makes a difference.

Governor, we saw Jack Kennedy: We knew Jack Kennedy’s religion; Governor, you're no Jack Kennedy.

Romney’s oath to consecrate himself means that he would have to do all that his church leaders ordered him to do, even if the US Government and her interests were in opposition to the wants and desires of the Mormon Church. And while the Roman Catholic Church or the varieties of Protestant Christianity do not have political theocracy built into their doctrine, Mormonism absolutely does.

And this political aspiration is dangerous. The LDS scriptures show all other churches and their professors (believers) are abomination to God. While Christians may assume that Mormons would deal with “abominations” in the same way that Christians do (i.e. preach the truth and leave the rest up to God) Mormons definitely don’t do that. Please remember September 11th.

On September 11th 1857, the Mormon leadership ordered the massacre of 120 California-bound settlers from Arkansas. After a first attack failed, the Mormons brokered a cease-fire with the settlers, persuading them to lay down their guns. Then the Mormons fell on them and murdered every man, woman, and child over 8-years of age. The leader of the massacred was none other than Brigham Young’s adopted son, a Mormon bishop, John D. Lee. He personally authorized and carried out the mass-murder along with other Mormon leaders from the area. The justification? The men, women, and children massacred were abominations, infidels.

That sounds too much like Osama bin Laden’s religion for my taste, thank you.

Romney, as a temple-card holding Mormon, accepts and believes non-Mormons are “abominations”, whether he admits it or not to his voters. But consider these politics: Joseph Smith was, in a secret ceremony of his council of fifty, “ordained as the King to rule and reign over the House of Israel forever.” Joseph Smith was also a candidate for presidency. And Smith made a prophecy concerning the elders of the Mormon church, saying they must save this country’s government and the world.

September 11th, 1857 is not too long ago.

Here is a last disturbing thought. It’s hardly the absolute last – you could fill books with the alarming oaths and political pacts of Mormons. But think about this:

Mitt Romney’s grandfather swore an oath against the United States of America. The oath said, “You and each of you do covenant and promise that you will pray and never cease to pray to Almighty God to avenge the blood of the prophets upon this nation, that you will teach the same to your children and to your children’s children unto the third and fourth generation.”

So Mitt Romney was taught what?

I don’t know about you, but I expect most American grandfathers were working to build this nation, not making blood-oaths of vengeance on behalf of their pastors against the stars and stripes.

This oath was discontinued 80 years ago – like so many of the objectionable Mormon doctrines when they come out into the light of day. But Mitt Romney’s grandfather, great grandfather and great-great grandfather have all sworn that oath. Is that American?

Generations of Romney’s forefathers swearing blood-vengeance against the United States of America? And family oaths to avenge blood against the nation have no meaning when selecting a man to put his finger on the launch-button? We forget: hundreds of millions of lives will be at the mercy of this man, this President of the United States. Who are we picking here?

Let me ask you one last thing. If Satan were a good looking man, running for office, and he said that anyone who was against his religion was just, you know, a religious bigot, would that argument hold water with you?

It’s perfectly OK to ask what’s in the religion.

And it’s perfectly OK to vote for someone else if that religion is deeply wrong.

[P-Marlowe]

My opinions concerning faith, grace and free will are derived from Thomas Aquinas and not the Torah, so we're not even arguing in the same context.

If the musings of Thomas Aquinas are in contradiction to the Torah, then Thomas Aquinas is/was a heretic.

[MEGoody]

The blood oaths were removed from the Temple Covenant in 1990. Mitt took those oaths.

Then it would seem that any 'blood oath' that was taken would now be void.

[colorcountry]

Not so.

[Mr. Know It All]

To me (and St. Thomas Aquinas) what Jews call Torah I call the five books of Moses in the Old Testament. It is not law for the Jews and Gentiles living under Christ's law. Jesus, as the anointed Messiah, fulfilled all of the messianic prophecies (over 300) of the Torah (law) and Prophets (Luke 24:44). Jesus also fulfilled the demand of the Torah for perfect obedience through His sinless life (Galatians 3:10; John 8:29, 46; 1 Peter 2:22) and He fulfilled the purpose of the Torah, being the very object of its glorious, preparatory design, The Word of God Incarnate (Galatians 3:24-25). And when Jesus stated "...But it is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away, than for one yod written in the law to fall away” he was speaking before his crucifixion and resurrection (Luke 16:17). This was prior to the "complete fulfillment" of the Law and the Prophets.

Christ became our Pesach such that we (Christians) did not have to be subject to the works and precepts of the Law. (Paul went on and on and on about this one...) This is also why Christians did not have to convert to Judaism before becoming Christians (I Corinthians 5:7, Colossians 2:11-12)

The former covenant was replaced with a “better covenant” (Hebrews 8:6ff). From Colossians:

13 And even when you were dead (in) transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, he brought you to life along with him, having forgiven us all our transgressions;

14 obliterating the bond against us, with its legal claims, which was opposed to us, he also removed it from our midst, nailing it to the cross;

15 despoiling the principalities and the powers, he made a public spectacle of them, leading them away in triumph by it.

16 Let no one, then, pass judgment on you in matters of food and drink or with regard to a festival or new moon or sabbath.

17 These are shadows of things to come; the reality belongs to Christ."

Because Christians follow Jesus, the Messiah who is the fulfillment of the Torah, we do not read the Torah like the Jews who are still waiting for its fulfillment in the Messianic age to come. We have the same books, but different Hermeneutics. Again, if anyone doesn't understand this, I'd be happy to discuss it over a bacon cheeseburger — just not on Friday.

[Mr. Know It All]

I can say with certainty that there are Mormons who believe nutty and disturbing things — I know this because any large group of people will have members who believe nutty and disturbing things (except Freepers, of course ). It's a sad fact of humanity.

I'm content to let Mitt Romney explain what he believes, what the Mormon faith means to him, and whether or not he is subject to any anti-American oaths (I find it very hard to believe that he thinks he is).

Right here in this thread, I have people telling me that I'm not a Catholic because I'm not Jewish enough or something (my mother was Jewish, so I'm plenty Jewish, thankyouverymuch). Mitt Romney is responsible for what he believes and I'd like to hear those beliefs from him. As I said earlier, there's nothing I know of his beliefs, or the beliefs of mainstream Mormons, that bothers me, although I disagree on a variety of religious specifics.

Instead of telling other Freepers about what Mitt Romney believes, maybe you should let Mitt Romney speak for himself.

[MEGoody]

Not so.

Is so.

[colorcountry]

So if my parents were sealed in the Temple in 1948 and my dad died in 1986 and my mom returned in 1991, the oath she took with my dad is void, cuz there’s a new one now??

I don’t think so.

[MEGoody]

So if my parents were sealed in the Temple in 1948 and my dad died in 1986 and my mom returned in 1991, the oath she took with my dad is void, cuz there’s a new one now??

You didn't say there was a new one, you said they were removed. So which is it?

[colorcountry]

The language of the Oath was changed, but that doesn’t negate the old one, now does it?

Lets say you took a vow with your husband/wife to love honor and cherish....but in 10 years you renew your vow. This time you say you’ll love, honor and obey. Does changing the wording of the new vow negate the vow you took previously to cherish?

Not in my opinion, but apologists will say just about anything to remove the penalty of death from the oath that Mitt and I took back in the 70’s.

To be perfectly truthful with you, I no longer view the oath I took in the LDS Temple as binding. I only submitted under false pretenses. If Mitt wishes to say the same....that the previous oath he took was under false pretenses, then I suggest he do so. But he really can’t have it both ways now can he?

[MEGoody]

The language of the Oath was changed

So I guess you were in error in your post 21 when you said the blood oaths were removed.

[colorcountry]

Look it up on the internet, it is what Mitt suggests.

You can believe whatever you wish about whether or not I am in error. You also seem to believe the secret ceremony of the LDS Temple to be changeable. But I challenge you that isn’t true. The Temple oath and covenant is an “everlasting” covenant.

Google “everlasting covenant” and see for yourself.

[Utah Girl]

From 2005 Expert: Mormon women less depressed:

A Brigham Young University sociologist says data from national surveys show Mormon women are less likely to be depressed than American women in general and show no major differences in overall life satisfaction compared to women nationwide but do score lower on measures of self-esteem. . . .

Johnson's study used two national surveys of Mormon women. One focused on 1,519 returned missionaries and the other on 617 women who had not served missions. She compared those findings to a 1992-94 national study of 3,075 non-Mormon women in the National Survey of Families and Households. She said all three studies included similar measures of depression and self-esteem.

Johnson's conclusions upheld findings of some earlier studies that Mormons have no more depression than does the nation's population as a whole. Others have concluded, largely based on above-average anti-depressant consumption or on conflicting suicide statistics, that Mormons must have more depression.

Traditional women's roles involved with marriage and homemaking have long been cited as part of the reason for the purported depression, but national women were three to four times as dissatisfied with their work as Mormon women, Johnson said. . . .

Other studies have found less depression among people with above-average church attendance, and have suggested that it may derive from the support they get from others in their churches.

In terms of life satisfaction, including place of residence, work, friendship, health, family life and financial situation, there were no statistically significant differences in response, she said.

Almost twice as many Mormon women answered they were "very happy" compared to others, she said, with three times as many national women reporting they were "unhappy."

More of the Mormon women were married at the time of the survey than those nationally, and the latter group had experienced divorce at a rate four times higher than their Mormon counterparts, she said.

In measuring self-esteem, Mormon women scored roughly 10% below their national counterparts in rating their ability to "do things as well as other people."

She said the findings "could be a reflection of the higher standards that are espoused" by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Some researchers contend that measures used in self-esteem research are biased against orthodox respondents because their language is contrary to religious ideals like humility.

And

Andrea Radke

Speaking to the topic of "Women in the LDS Church," Andrea Radke countered a widely publicized 1994 study that claimed Utah had the highest per capita female use of Prozac in the nation. "Although the study itself was admittedly problematic, critics of the Church are quick to cite the study's sensationalized conclusions as proof that Mormon women must suffer under the strains of patriarchy, early marriages, constant child bearing and voiceless acceptance of male dominance," she observed.

A visiting professor at BYU, Dr. Radke said the study failed to show "complex factors that might affect the use of Prozac and other anti-depressants." These include socio-economic status, level of education, number of children, genetic factors, level of religiosity, counseling services that accompany medication and the numbers of men who might also require medicating and counseling.

Further, she said, Mormons' abstinence from addictive substances might prompt depression sufferers to seek more legitimate forms of help. She cited one woman's observation: "LDS women experience depression more acutely because they don't go out and get drunk to mask their pain. Another example is they don't drink coffee in the morning to minimize the fatigue that often accompanies depression."

[Utah Girl]

I thought your mother was still alive?

[red irish]

Hey what about the people who are into Scientology? Greta Van Susteren from Fox is a lawyer and seems normal and intelligent and she belongs to Scientology.

[colorcountry]

She is alive, why do you ask? Did I imply she isn’t alive? She is now married to a man who is not temple worthy.

She was married to a temple worthy, wonderful man for eleven years between my dad and THIS loser.

[Utah Girl]

I misunderstood your comment. My apologies. You said your dad died in 1984 and your mom returned in 1991. I took that to mean that she had died. Sorry about the misunderstanding. I assume that she returned to the temple in 1991?

[SeaHawkFan]

And in answer to your prior post, YES God did choose Clinton for us and his purpose was done in that choice. It will all become clear to us some time in the next eternity.

I don't believe that for a minute. I believe that Clinton or any other person can thwart God's ultimate plan for the world, but do not believe God ordained Clinton's preseidency. Sure, God can turn the sins of individual and collective sins for good, but to say God ordained the election of Clinton is a real stretch.

Why did God force the nation of Israel to remain in the wilderness for another generation? Was it to pumish their disobedience and lack of faith, or that God planned it all along? I strongly believe it was the former.

[P-Marlowe]

I believe that Clinton or any other person can thwart God's ultimate plan for the world

I do believe that you left out a logical operator that returns a false value if the operand is true and a true value if the operand is false.

but do not believe God ordained Clinton's preseidency

Is Paul a liar? Or was the Clinton Presidency ordained by God?

(Romans 13:1 KJV) Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.

[P-Marlowe]

Why did God force the nation of Israel to remain in the wilderness for another generation? Was it to pumish their disobedience and lack of faith, or that God planned it all along? I strongly believe it was the former.

Why can't it be both?

[SeaHawkFan]

That should have been I DO NOT believe Clinton...