Posted on 06/11/2007 8:06:18 AM PDT by 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.
FOOD FIGHT!!!!
Sorry. My bad.
I too am a former Mormon. I will never vote for Mitt “the flipper” Romney, precisely because I understand Mormonism too well.
I listened to the whole pitch (had the mormons in my home for about 6 weeks, once a week). The bottom line was they promised me a nice funeral in which hundreds of my friends would attend. That’s when I said no thanks.
I am Catholic. Catholics are attacked regularly for answering to the Pope above all else. Also, we have been accused of being cannibals since we “eat the body” of Christ (and drink his blood).
Do I answer to the Pope above all else? Of course not. I disagree with the Pope on certain issues. I assume that Romney is the same way.
This is the same hatred that has resulted in only one Catholic President (Kennedy). And no, I don’t like that overblown slime Teddy.
So, can we focus on what Romney can do rather than hysteria about the cultist nature of the Mormon church?
Economics -- taxes
Foreign Policy -- War on Terror
Morality -- Abortion
I do not generally consider Religion to be a good basis on which to decide my vote. I consider Romney to be an acceptable candidate and if he is nominated, I will vote for him. But I would prefer Hunter or Fred.
I've got no time for anti-Mormon bigotry.
Underlying issue: Regardless of what anyone might think, in a free country, a person ought to be perfectly free to vote for (or against) whoever they want, for whatever reason.
ping
Sorry, I stopped reading when the author made the claim that there are “blood oaths” that we “Temple Mormons” are required to make.
It’s silly lies like this that show some peoples religious bigotry. Sorry folks, but that is a lie, there are no secret “blood oaths”...la
Food fight? as in Bread of Life?...........
I’ve known Mormons and they are some of the nicest people. That being said, I have always wondered why they can take so seriously a movement founded on such a rotten foundation, i.e. Joseph Smith, a liar and fraud. How can any rational person justify his cult?
What about a cut-government-spending Muslim who promises to fight Islamofascism? Or a Buddhist with a good platform?
Discuss the issues all you want, but do NOT make it personal.
Click on my profile page for guidelines.
This is a little too wild-eyed for my taste. When I was a kid, as a Southern Baptist, I was taught that black skin was the mark of Cain. (Good thing no perspective employer ever knew that.) Oh, and the Knights of Columbus were waiting on a signal from the Pope to slay Protestants (which was sure to happen shortly after Kennedy’s inaugural).
I know all about bait and switch. I voted for Bush.
Five minutes for “bigot” to squirt out this time. They’re slacking off.
Mormonism is NOT like Catholicism. This is what Mormons are told regarding following the Prophet. See how this lines up with your ideas of the Pope, then answer the question again.
http://speeches.byu.edu/reader/reader.php?id=6751
Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet
In conclusion, let us summarize this grand key, these “Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet,” for our salvation hangs on them.
First: The prophet is the only man who speaks for the Lord in everything.
Second: The living prophet is more vital to us than the standard works.
Third: The living prophet is more important to us than a dead prophet.
Fourth: The prophet will never lead the Church astray.
Fifth: The prophet is not required to have any particular earthly training or credentials to speak on any subject or act on any matter at any time.
Sixth: The prophet does not have to say “Thus saith the Lord” to give us scripture.
Seventh: The prophet tells us what we need to know, not always what we want to know.
Eighth: The prophet is not limited by men’s reasoning.
Ninth: The prophet can receive revelation on any matter, temporal or spiritual.
Tenth: The prophet may be involved in civic matters.
Eleventh: The two groups who have the greatest difficulty in following the prophet are the proud who are learned and the proud who are rich.
Twelfth: The prophet will not necessarily be popular with the world or the worldly.
Thirteenth: The prophet and his counselors make up the First Presidency—the highest quorum in the Church.
Fourteenth: The prophet and the presidency—the living prophet and the First Presidency—follow them and be blessed; reject them and suffer.
I testify that these fourteen fundamentals in following the living prophet are true. If we want to know how well we stand with the Lord, then let us ask ourselves how well we stand with His mortal captain. How closely do our lives harmonize with the words of the Lord’s anointed—the living prophet, the President of the Church, and with the Quorum of the First Presidency?
~Ezra Taft Benson the thirteenth Prophet and President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (the Mormons)
So is it your opinion that religion doesn’t affect worldview, or that worldview doesn’t affect worldview, or that worldview doesn’t affect behavior?
Good luck with that argument, any way.
The blood oaths were removed from the Temple Covenant in 1990. Mitt took those oaths. You possibly don’t know that. Perhaps you should study up.
The same argument that ZGuy uses not to vote for a non-Christian definitely applies to a Muslim like Barrack Obama. I know very little about Mormonism but if, in the end, the two nominees for the presidency are Romney and Obama, I will pull the lever for the former without doubt.
Discussion of presidential candidate’s worldview, moved to Religion.
A mistake — unless all discussions of political philosophy and its influences should be moved to Religion.
As a Catholic, I will vote for Romney if he is our candidate, but you are welcome to your opinion.
Buddist - of course. Why not? A muslim....not sure yet.
And you think so based on what?
This is a religious fight. Let’s keep politics out so it doesn’t get really messy
LOL, so somehow Mitt is going to be elected, then just turn the country over to the President of the Church? Yeah, did I mention, the sky is falling. There are a lot of things in the history of each religion. Because something was part of the church in 1990, does not make it viable for today.
Sorry, but us Mormon cults are only out to get your dead body converted for our evil Temple practices. Do you walk around with tinfoil on your head?
This will be a theological dispute, it originates from a theological source and therefore it belongs here.
Islam is an exception. ...for me at least. No way, no how would I vote for a Muslim for any public office.
Romney's religion doesn't bother me one bit.
Based on being raised in a Southern Baptist Church. They do not teach that black skin is the mark of Cain. Ham was the first black man.
Nope I took off the tinfoil when I took of my garments. It’s amazing how closely wearing protective underwear ties in with the idea of tinfoil warding off extraterrestrials.
Amazing you don’t see the similarities!
Buddhists are peace loving hippies, that's why not! Just kidding. Sort of.
I'm just asking the question for the sake of conversation to someone who says they wouldn't consider religion.
Personally, having not given it any consideration, I probably wouldn't vote for anyone who wasn't a Christian, maybe.
And somehow wearing garments should keep someone from running for political office? Goes to show how much you know about my religion...la
I answered your question honestly, but I don’t think we are going to pick Romney anyway. So not picking a Christian Candidate won’t be a problem for now...I am sure that I will have to give it a thought if this situation ever seriously happens (especially muslim).
“Oh, and the Knights of Columbus were waiting on a signal from the Pope to slay Protestants..”
The KofC may not slay Protestants, but they will certainly outdrink many of them.
I’m just the poster, not the author. I post articles that are worthy of discussion among conservatives whether or not I agree with them.
As a current, card-carrying “Mormon” Christian, I have to say I’m unenthusiastic about Mitt for two main reasons:
1) He’s not conservative enough
2) He’s not Mormon enough
He’s saying some of the “right” things on some conservative issues, but he’s saying what he thinks we (the base) want to hear.
I don’t know what faithful Latter-day Saint could have been “effectively pro-choice” for so long, when the prophets and general authorities, and the scriptures themselves, have all decried abortion as an abomination.
Mitt’s obviously an intelligent guy, he’s got business smarts that NONE of the other Republican candidates have, and I’ll vote for him if he gets the nomination—because even a squishy LDS conservative is better than Hillary.
You can hold your nose and support Romney. He is pretty conservative now (especially if he is nominee). I agree with you about Guiliani. I won’t vote for him under any circumstances even if I am the vote that makes the difference in the election. Have a good one.
That is a joke, right?
LOL, so people won’t vote for a left leaning Republican, so what? So they can aid in getting an actual Liberal Democrat elected? The logic still floors me. It’s the ole, cut off your nose to spite your face trick...la
...and this is connected to my post how?
As am I. You have a good list of criteria there. Duncan Hunter is, in my opinion, the best wartime candidate out there. We need someone mean enough to win the war on Islamofacist terrorism. Someone who care what the Euroweenies or Amnesty International thinks. Nobody out there matches Hunter here.
Romney might be the best peacetime candidate given his economic track record. He lacks the military skills and background, but just might possibly have the acumen to appoint someone like Duncan Hunter as Secretary of Defense and support him.
Fred Thompson seems to fall somewhere in between. I hope he will get involved in the debates so we can learn more about him.
As to how Mormons would govern politcally, I think we already have a good idea in seeing how conservative states and counties are where they are a voting majority or significant minority.
They may not exactly be heaven on earth, but they certainly are a lot better managed than states where the Religion of Lieberal Godlessness dominate.
That's why I tend to view crap like this as enemedia diversions to sow discord and disagreement among conservatives so they can fight each other while the real enemy continues to consolidate power.
That is why this crap will never go away, but why it needs to be ignored for the diversion which it is.
Did you really need to post that? Grow a thicker skin already. Would you feel better if I had added “ttl”?...la
*sigh* You forgot to mention the idol worship. I remember my reborn Christian cousin telling me that I worshipped idols, too.
I listen to the pope on all matters religious, but the popes have always conceded to “Caesar” authority in most matters of state. With a President who is more or less a new Moses, what the Mormon teach is theocratic government. I don’t think I will be forced to this choice, and I am not sure that the article is necessarily accurate, but voters do need to know that the differences between them and is Mormons IS greater than those between Baptists and Catholics, or even between Christians and Jews, or perhaps even between Christians and Muslims. We are such an untheological people that
we don’t want to think that doctrines matter, that they have practical consequences. The Anti-Mormon Crusade in Illinois was like the Albigensian Crusade in France in the Middle Ages. Whatever Smith was, he was not the mild, Lincolnesque type played by Vincent Price in the movie “Brigham Young.”
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.