Skip to comments.Romney's Mormon Problem - Is a candidate's philosophy of life and world view important?
Posted on 01/14/2012 11:58:07 AM PST by mitchell001
Should American voters ask Romney and the other candidates what their philosophy of life is and what in their beliefs shapes their worldview? Also, should American voters ask the candidates about the degradation of the American culture especially among young people? I know we all have past sins, ie. Newt. However, Newt Gingrich has openly talked about his conversion to Catholicism and his reconciliation with God for his past sins. Rick Santorum openly talks about his devout Catholicism. Rick Perry is very open about his strong Christian beliefs. However, we do not hear much from Mitt Romney about his Mormon beliefs and how his Mormon beliefs shape his philosophy of life and his worldview. Should we ask Mitt Romney more questions about how the Mormon faith shapes his life?
Damn right he should be asked, and by the right person. I can think of a few on FR who would be excellant to pose questions to him.
Romney is not going to talk about his beliefs because he is either ashamed of them OR he has been instructed not to do so.
He speaks in a postion of authority and what he says will be taken at face value thereby causing problems for LDS inc..
It is like the irrationality of Postmodernism which Ayn Rand decried-—that idea that there is no Objective Truth-—no right and wrong—other than what a Hilter or Stalin forces onto a people.
For people to believe in anything which can be proven false by historical anthropologists and scientists—and claim something that can be proven over and over again as a lie—is an irrational way of thinking, which is extremely dangerous.
Objective Truth—the idea in Natural Law Theory—is the closest we will get to Just Laws as proven since Cicero-—irrational thinking leads to bizarre unequal laws—like “homosexual marriage” and forcing little five year olds (to pervert their natures and innocence) to learn about anal sex.
Romney believes it is ok to force the unnatural ideas into little children and destroy parental rights to religions worldviews that differ from irrational thinkers...he is very evil.
YES!! The question itself is stupid. Any one, any one at all, philosophy of life and world view is at the very core of who they are, to ignore it is moronic.
Ask the Hairy Reed who already runs the Senate......
His religion is neither a problem nor of interest to me.
Worldview matters especially if that worldview includes lying to get what you want, lying about your church’s beliefs, believing you will become a god, believing you are fulfilling Mormon prophecy, believing you are above the law...
I don’t like Romney because of his record, I don’t TRUST him because of his Mormonism.
I cannot believe we still have these threads. Romney is far more dangerous because he is a Liberal. I cannot get past his governing record to even get to his personal beliefs. No Romney, No Way! See the red FR comments on the home page. GOP,you are on notice.. do not even consider uber Lib Romney for nomination.
Mormons believe they can become a God by virtue of their resume on Earth. I’d have to bet that Mitt figures the presidency would be quite a feather in his cap.
Richard Land recently wrote an article indicating part of Romney’s problem is he “isn’t Mormon enough” meaning his views and/or positions he took while a politician in Mass. don’t match up with conservative views of many Mormons, ie soft on abortion, gay marriage, etc.
This is the primary reason I opposed him in the 2008 primaries and is also part of the reason why I oppose him in 2012. He and Huntsman both have this problem as far as I’m concerned.
I’ve always thought Mormons had ultraconservative views which has perplexed me as to how high level politicians within the mormon church like Romney, Huntsman, and especially leftwing liberal Harry Reid could take the views they either have or do and not be in trouble with church leadership.
If I was in their shoes and took some of those positions, I would definitely be in trouble with the leadership within the particular faith organization I identify with. You can take that to the bank, FDIC insured!
20% minimum of them do anyway. Mormons are not THAT big of a voting block and certainly NOT enough to consider having one of them as POTUS.
Ive always thought Mormons had ultraconservative views
- - - - -
The LDS aren’t nearly as conservative as the PR would lead you to believe. Reid and Romney are mainstream LDS, not fringe.
The LDS church is much softer on abortion, gay rights and illegal aliens than most think.
I can document this if you would like.
re: I can document this if you would like.
I would like you to document it.
Romney is a temple mormon. He IS the top of the top. Only 15% of mormons make it to the level of temple mormon.
The are not as conservative as they portray themselves to be.
Romney has held nearly all positions of power within the lds structure that one can have and not be called “prophet”.
These are JUST FOR STARTERS....
Abortion...according to their ‘handbook of instructions’ abortion is ok in several cases, the usual health of the mother, rape or incest, but also in cases of emotional health of mother (too much stress). Basically it states it is ok as long as approached with prayer. Many people think the LDS have a lot of kids because they are pro-life, rather they do so out of duty to bring God and Heavenly Mother’s ‘spirit children’ to earth to ‘progress’ and earn their ‘exaltation’ (godhood). There is no statement from the LDS church that life begins at conception and many LDS believe that an aborted child will be given another chance to get a body.
It is also allowed if “The fetus has severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth.”
We have no revelation on abortion”
Didnt you assume Mormons were pro-life? Thats certainly the image their church attempts to broadcast, and most Mormons, in fact, mistakenly believe their church opposes abortion and regards it as an objective evil. But not so.
Indeed, the Mormon church accepts abortion for a number of reasons. The Church Handbook of Instructions, approved in September, 1998, states that abortion may be performed in the following circumstances: pregnancy resulting from rape or incest; a competent physician says the life or health of the mother is in serious jeopardy; or a competent physician says that the “fetus” has severe defects that will not allow the “baby” to survive beyond birth. In any case, the persons responsible must first consult with their church leader and receive Gods approval in prayer (156).
This same Handbook, the official policies of the Mormon church to be followed by all local church leaders throughout the world, also claims: “It is a fact that a child has life before birth. However, there is no direct revelation on when the spirit enters the body” (156). Previous teachings by former Mormon prophets referred to the unborn child as “a child,” “a baby,” a “human being,” and decried abortion as “killing,” “a grievous sin,” “a damnable practice.” Spencer W. Kimball, the prophet who died in 1985, taught, “We have repeatedly affirmed the position of the church in unalterably opposing all abortions” (Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, 189).
It appears that this “unalterable” position, constantly “affirmed,” is just another in a series of doctrinal and moral teachings that Mormons have reworded, reworked, rescinded, or renegedthough never officially renounced. Such is the quality of the Mormon belief in “continuing revelation.” Dont expect dogmatic or ethical consistency. Rather, look for expediency and conformity with “the times.”
A further statement in the Handbook says: “The church has not favored or opposed legislative proposals or public demonstrations concerning abortion (156).” While the Mormon prophet claims to speak the mind and will of God, he can neither figure out when the unborn child becomes human or if it is Gods desire that we protect the unborn unconditionally.
Your Mormon friend will offer the excuse that his church leaves many decisions to the free agency (free will) of its people, and that abortion is one such concern. You might point out the irony in the fact that the Mormon church has no hesitation or uncertainty in making the following declarations:
1. “The church opposes gambling in any form” (including lotteries). Members are also urged to oppose legislation and government sponsorship of any form of gambling (Handbook, 150).
2. The church also opposes [correctly, of course] pornography in any form (158).
3. Church members are to reject all efforts to legally authorize or support same-sex unions (158).
There is no need for a member to pray for divine guidance or seek church approval for such activities, for there will be no divine or ecclesiastical finessing of morality to permit even an occasional bingo game. A prayerful game of poker, unrepented, will bar the member from the temple and ultimate salvation; a prayerful, by-the-book abortion, unrepented [abortion], wont.
Again just for starters...
There are also cases of the LDS aiding and abetting illegal aliens which I can also provide documentation for.
This site is run by an active LDS man...
Officially, the LDS Churchs stated position on illegal immigration is that it has no position on illegal immigration.
In 2004, the LDS Church officially took no position on a bill that would have ended the issuance of Utah drivers licenses to illegal aliens.34
A 2006 press release emphasized that the Church had taken no position on illegal immigration. It read: The Church, in fact, has made no comment so far on the immigration debate, recognizing that this complex question is now before Congress and is already being thoroughly aired in the public square.35
On February 14, 2008, during an interfaith dialogue on illegal immigration, Elder Marlin K. Jensen of the Seventy of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints said the LDS church has taken no position on any particular measure on the federal or state level.36
On April 29, 2009, Michael Prudy, a spokesman for the LDS Church, once again told reporters that The church does not have an official position on immigration policy .37
In 2010, in an article on the doctrinal divide within the LDS Church over immigration, Salt Lake Tribune reporter Jeremiah Stettler wrote: Utahs dominant religion hasnt taken a definitive position on the question. Instead, church leaders have called for compassion and encouraged careful reflection and civil discourse when debating immigration reform. LDS Church leaders would not elaborate for this story.38
In 2011, the Church continued to assert that it had no position on illegal immigration legislation while at the same time supporting the development and passage of an omnibus immigration bill that included a Utah-specific guest worker/amnesty provision for illegal aliens living and working in the state. The Church found it difficult to maintain its assertions of no position when the Tea Party and 9/12 groups that were present for the first time on Capitol Hill became aware of its activities.
And THIS is coming from people who “claim” to be “constitutional conservatives”.
Just like the Left, some are apparently willing to ignore the Constitution when it doesn’t conform to their own beliefs about what “should” happen.
The First Amendment provides that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ....” and Article VI specifies that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”
Article 6 of the Constitution
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall Ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
During his 2008 bid for the presidency former Governor Mitt Romney was incessantly questioned about his Mormon faith. It was so bad he had to give a famed Faith in America speech specifically declaring that electing him was not the same as putting the LDS church in charge of the nation
October 19, 2011 9:44AM
GOP Presidential Contenders Face Religious Test Questions at Debate
The question of faith and its influence for determining a presidential candidate came up Tuesday night in a GOP debate that was marked by heated verbal battles.
Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who are both Roman Catholic, argued that faith says a lot about a candidate.
It’s a legitimate thing to look at as to what the tenets and teachings of that faith are with respect to how you live your life and how you would govern this country, Santorum said. With respect to what is the road to salvation, that’s a whole different story. That’s not applicable to what the role is of being the president or a senator or any other job.
Gingrich offered a similar view. None of us should rush in judgment of others in the way in which they approach God, Gingrich said. But I think all of us would also agree that there’s a very central part of your faith in how you approach public life. And I, frankly, would be really worried if somebody assured me that nothing in their faith would affect their judgments, because then I’d wonder, where’s your judgment — how can you have judgment if you have no faith? And how can I trust you with power if you don’t pray?
Texas Gov. Rick Perry simply said his faith is ingrained. “I can no more remove my faith than I can that I’m the son of a tenant farmer,” he said.
Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, as a Mormon, faced public resistance to his religion during his 2008 run for the nomination. The issue has only recently haunted his candidacy this cycle, highlighted again with comments made by a Southern Baptist pastor—and Perry supporter—Robert Jeffress that ignited a controversy at a summit hosted by the Family Research Council.
Romney argued for tolerance of religion.
I don’t suggest you distance yourself from your faith any more than I would, Romney told Perry. [But] the founders of this country went to great length to make sure — and even put it in the Constitution — that we would not choose people who represent us in government based upon their religion, that this would be a nation that recognized and respected other faiths, where there’s a plurality of faiths, where there was tolerance for other people and faiths.
Romney took advantage of the topic to criticize the concept that we select people based on the church or the synagogue they go to, which he called very dangerous and an enormous departure from the principles of our Constitution.
Romney added, With regards to the disparaging comments about my faith, I’ve heard worse, so I’m not going to lose sleep over that. ....
PRUDEN: A religious test for a president
By Wesley Pruden
The Washington Times
Friday, September 2, 2011
We’re getting close to the beginning of the new presidential election cycle, so we must get back to Sunday school. The pundits are parsing religion again. Somebody has to pose the liberals’ religious test for public office.
Bill Keller, executive editor of the New York Times, thinks the nation is in peril because several Republican candidates - and the incumbent president as well - are men and women of religious faith.
Mr. Keller likens religious faith to claims “that space aliens dwell among us” and says presidential candidates should be put to a faith test to determine whether they’re fit to hold public office. A belief that extraterrestrial creatures have visited Earth doesn’t necessarily disqualify a candidate “out of hand,” he says, but a careful voter “would certainly want to ask a few questions.”
It’s not easy for liberals like Mr. Keller to live in a corrupt, rotten society like ours, where every four years right-thinking citizens who read the New York Times, vacation on Martha’s Vineyard and eat their organic peas have to take a primer on what the crazy church folk, with whom they’re doomed to share the planet, believe is important.
This year it’s Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry who populate the worst nightmares of good and worthy folk. Four years ago it was President Obama and whether he shared the kooky racist beliefs of his Chicago pastor. He said he didn’t, and he gave a Christian testimony that would satisfy a fundamentalist test of faith.
Eight years ago, Joe Lieberman had to demonstrate that his Orthodox Judaism wouldn’t prevent his getting the lights turned on at the White House on a Saturday. Before that it was Jimmy Carter’s born-again faith, a straightforward description of spiritual conversion that the chattering class never could quite get straight (though it did sympathize with the lust Mr. Jimmy said he held in his heart).
Religion just doesn’t frighten Americans who live south and west of the Upper East Side of Manhattan. Three of 4 Americans tell pollsters they pray, a majority attend religious services at least occasionally, and many are there every time the church doors swing open.
We’ve got two dozen kinds of Baptists, millions of Roman Catholics, nine kinds of Methodists and Presbyterians, seven brands of Mennonites, five flavors of Quakers, a dozen denominations of Orthodox Christians from the East (some not necessarily very orthodox), 10 Lutheran bodies, four organized varieties of Jews, enough Muslims, an assortment of two dozen kinds of Pentecostals, and there’s even Bill Keller Ministries Inc., which advertises itself as “the world’s Online Church.” You can find it on the Internet. There’s no indication whether this is another Bill Keller or whether Bill the Pundit is moonlighting from his day job at the newspaper. That’s just the list of flavors from the World Almanac; there are others. God talk doesn’t frighten most folks because it’s the basis of the moral codes that still guide most of us.
Americans have a right to ask a presidential candidate about anything, and there are no dumb questions. Only dumb answers. A lot of ex-candidates who gave dumb answers could tell you that through scalding tears of bitter remembrance. Mr. Keller thinks he sets traps for Messrs. Perry and Romney and Mzz Bachman with devilishly clever questions, such as: Do you think America is a “Christian nation” or a “Judeo-Christian” nation? Would you appoint a Muslim to the federal bench? Should the theory of evolution be taught in the public schools? Is it fair to hold offensive remarks by a candidate’s pastor against the candidate?
These are perfectly legitimate political questions, easily answered by legitimate political candidates. The culture, the zeitgeist of America, is obviously Christian, both Judeo and otherwise.
That’s exactly what infuriates Mr. Keller and his like-minded unbelievers. A Muslim is as qualified as a Methodist to be a federal judge if he is qualified in the law and holds only to the Constitution and shuns Islamic law. Evolution should of course be taught in the schools as a scientific theory, but not as a quasi-religious doctrine. We’re all responsible for the reputations we make, and if we hang out with crackpot pastors and unrepentant killers, we have to take the consequences.
But some of the people who imagine they’re honest skeptics only pretend their questions are about politics, when they’re really about mocking religious belief. John F. Kennedy put such questions to rest, and the rest is history. Rick Perry, Mitt Romney and Michele Bachmann have a solid precedent.
Wesley Pruden is editor emeritus of The Washington Times.
Gay rights....Most people assume mormons are not for gay rights because of Prop 8, however there has been a huge (for them) change in the last few years.
They have given an openly gay man a position of leadership (Stake secretary equiv to assistant to a Catholic Bishop), have advocated for gay rights in SLC and changed their offical policy on Homosexual thoughts being a sin in their handbook of instructions. These are rapid and new developments but expect to see more changes soon. Also, you are no longer automatically excommunicated for being gay (which was not the case 15 years ago).
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof .... and Article VI specifies that no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
- - - -
It says CONGRESS. It doesn’t say anything about individuals not having a religious test. There cannot be laws stating that a certain faith cannot run. HUGE difference there, buddy.
Some would phrase that as, "It doesnt say anything about BIGOTS not having a religious test."
Of course, I'd never phrase it that way.
Brother, I’ve known MANY LDS (not to be referred to as Mormons) over the past 33 years since I first moved for a job to Sugarhouse in SLC, and since then. Romney and Reid are no way mainstream in many of the views you are speaking of. The LDS populace is VERY conservative.
So I respectfully call on you to document your assertions also, because they do not match in any way, shape or form my experience.
Being a Mormon doesn’t hurt Harry Ried.
Romney is a Temple Mormon. as such he is a CULT LEADER. He believes with all his heart that he is going to become “god” of his own planet and that his wife is going to pump out “spirit children” like the queen alien from the movie ALIENS. He so believes the purpose of these “spirit children” is to WORSHIP and SERVE “god Romney” for all of eternity! This is exactly what Romney the cultist believes. This alone disqualifies him from becoming President because anyone who believes this is nuts and this deception will color his judgment and all of the decisions he makes... Talk about having a “god complex”!
It is not bigotry to expect a candidate to share your worldview.
It is not bigotry to base worldview upon experience.
It is never bigotry to expose false teachings.
It is not bigotry to point out inconsistencies in a religion using the religions own sources.
And frankly, I am sick of bigots expecting people to avoid the consideration of religion and worldview in voting.
And I am sick of bigots who think it is ok for 52,000 Mormon missionaries to go out and tell others that their churches are apostate and of the devil but not ok for Christians to expose such things.
It appears you are saying it is ok for you to be a bigot but if I point out problems with Mormonism than I’m a bigot as well.
Or are you going to vote for Mitt just to prove to yourself you aren’t a bigot?
“Is a candidate’s philosophy of life and world view important?”
What a stupid concept! That is like assuming Charles the First’s belief in divine right monarchy, or Lenin’s belief in Marxism, or Hitler’s belief in Aryan supremacy amounted to a hill of beans in their governance. Ridiculous.
Party first! You will vote for the Party candidate and you will like it. Just like the other Party does it. If you do not vote for leprosy then automatically you are voting for ebola, and we just can’t afford more ebola. So get behind leprosy AND PUSH LEPROSY TO THE WIN!!!!!111!!!
Most of the “Flying Inmans” are used to being asked to back up our sources. I usually don’t put them in without someone asking because I have also been accused of ‘spamming’ sources.
They like to appear conservative, but they aren’t, some are, some are not. I thought they were conservative also, until I got in the middle of them (being LDS and living in Utah).
I posted sources above.
Reid and Romney are both “active” temple Mormons, true believers, not MINOs.
Mormons = LDS and even most LDS I know use the term.
“Jack”? Is that you?
I guess we can see you defending Romney on every thread.
Different versions of support depending on the thread subject, but always supporting him.
People are always surprised to find out that Utah is almost at the bottom for military service and enlistments.
Most people only know the carefully cultivated image of being Mormon.
You wrote: “...It appears you are saying it is ok for you to be a bigot but if I point out problems with Mormonism than Im a bigot as well.”
Pointing out your religious beliefs, and voting based on them isn’t the issue.
The issue is the non-bigots who wrote Article 6 of the Constitution -—ie: what I posted here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2833027/posts?page=22#22
The fact is, you would not have put that in the Constution because you don’t agee with it.
How is that any different that Leftists who ignore the parts of it they don’t like?
You wrote: “Or are you going to vote for Mitt just to prove to yourself you arent a bigot?”
Very well said...
Unfortunately the majority of Americans do not even understand the idea of world view or philosophy of life...so they may not understand the answer.
I never said I didn’t agree with the constitution. I firmly believe that the GOVERNMENT should not limit religious beliefs or that the GOVERNMENT should require a religious test for office.
That does not change the fact that INDIVIDUAL VOTERS CAN have a religious test for office.
You seem to think that the constitution doesn’t allow for that and yet there is no prohibition against VOTERS having a religious test.
“Mormons are not THAT big of a voting block...”
I would think that Catholics would be a much larger voting block...or are most of them voting democratic as well...
Can you point to a single call among any sane Freepers who say that the law should be changed?
You say much to prove that you do not understand what you are talking about.
There IS no -state- test for religion. Anyone of any faith is -elibible- to run for the office. That has no bearing on what -voters- may weigh in casting their votes.
If you are serious you get an F for reading comprehension.
If you are a propaganda agent you get a D+ for only hauling in really stupid people.
Should add any faith or no faith.
As a side note I may use ANY criteria I choose to pick a candidate, that is constitutional.
All Americans have the guaranteed right to consider their personal faith, and a candidates religion, when voting, it is protected by our constitution.
Don’t try to challenge that.
“I firmly believe that the GOVERNMENT should not limit religious beliefs or that the GOVERNMENT should require a religious test for office.”
And the constitution limits the Federal Government from having a religious test. If you look up several of the state constitutions from 1776-1800 you will find that several of them had just such a religious test at the state level...remember that most of these constitutions were written be the same men that wrote the Federal constitution.
Listen you want to support Romney be my guest.
Do not try and teach people on FR about the Constitution, we know the Constitution.
You want to vote for him because he is lds, go ahead.
Do not try and tell people here on FR, that we can not choose the issues we want to choose.
Romney is a stink’n liberal BASED on his political record.
Romney’s world view is important to how he governs.
Romney’s belief system is important because it is the core of who he is. Romney believes by his own involvement in mormonISM by his own rise to power in the organization
What his belief system and world view is, it is who he is at his very essence.
Romney’s belief system as well as his governance is important.
Why you do not see that is curious.
Are you are supporter as the other 94% are, or do you actually find him a decent candidate?
You think if Republican voters dislike the anti-conservative Romney or even the Mormon cult, that people of the Mormon religion will vote Democrat?
You think the left will support them better, more represent their views, be more tolerant of them?
Well, you must just luuuuuv me to follow me all around that way!
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.