Posted on 06/11/2007 8:06:18 AM PDT by ZGuy
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.”
Yes, I really do. You posted something unrelated to my comment. No relation, none.
So if you had someone else in mind, you should repost.
Otherwise, I don’t think it’s an issue of lack of epidermal density on this end, so much as the presence of another kind of density on the other.
Duncan Hunter probably would be the best choice, but he doesn’t seem to be getting as much support outside FR as a lot of the other candidates.
Bush is a Methodist and I don't see a sudden rush by the public at large to join the Methodist Church.
Frankly, as an ex-Mormon I find this article to be over the top. At this point Romney, for me, is not even close to my favorite candidate. But he, unlike Giuliani, is an acceptable candidate whom I would vote for if given the choice between a democrat and Romney.
As an Arminian In Name Only (AIMO), I believe that God is going to choose our leaders for us and that we are going to assent to God's will in that choice by voting appropriately.
In other words, although from a temporal standpoint, my vote will count and I will cast it in accordance with my political and spiritual foundations, I am fully aware that there is no way that Romney or Hillary or anyone can possibly be elected to president if God has not previously ordained that outcome. And he has. We will know what God has ordained for us when we wake up on the day after the election in November of 2008. Either way we can rest assured that God is in control.
I am not at all concerned that Romney may be our next president. I would feel more comfortable with an arguably Conservative Mormon than a "Born-Again Christian" Liberal. The last one of those I voted for was Jimmy Carter.
May God forgive me for that one.
It's amazing to me how anyone will come on this message board and try to deny that there were ever blood oaths and penalties in the history of the Mormon temple endowment ceremony. Yes its true that the church got rid of those parts in 1990. They've gotten rid of many things from the past. But don't try to coverup the truth here at Freerepublic.com. Readers can learn more on this for themselves at http://www.lds-mormon.com/veilworker/penalty.shtml online.
That should be (AINO). Not enough coffee.
To paraphrase Mr T, "I pity the fool who tries to outdrink a KofC."
U.S. senators, however, are bound by the Constitution, which stipulates in Article VI that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." Any senator who votes against Holsinger's confirmation because of his church activity is defying the Constitution (although there is probably no way to hold such a senator to account apart from the ballot box).
I couldn’t disagree more with your post. As for the sources of those articles, I consider them liers and oath-breakers. As for the idea that making a covenant in the temple to consecrate time, energy, and resources to the building up of the church, this is what Jesus taught when he said “Come, follow me”. Maybe those of you condemning the church for following the teachings of Christ should read your Bible more, and listen to anti-Mormons less.
Christ is the head of the Church. I won’t apologize for Joseph Smith. Neither will Mitt Romney. We refuse to break promises we have made. As for the person who wrote this article (former member), maybe if he was willing to keep the promises he made, he wouldn’t be so bitter today.
1) He’s not conservative enough
2) He’s not Mormon enough
Those are, more or less, the reasons I won't vote for him either. As governor of Massachusetts, he's proven himself to be a first-class RINO. And while I wouldn't necc. vote for him if he were "Mormon enough", he's IMO wishy-washy enough with his beliefs that he comes across as having no moral convictions whatsover, and that's enough for me to avoid voting for him.
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.