Skip to comments.Would You Vote for Someone Just Because They're Mormon?
Posted on 01/12/2011 11:32:22 AM PST by Colofornian
click here to read article
“But what if its Romney versus Obama? RINO vs. Marxist?”
Sorry it should read, marxist vs. Marxist.
Are most Mormons pro-life? Heavily so?
Do Mormons tend to be pro-life in higher percentage than Catholics? It seems Catholics are kind of evenly split on the issue.
Im curious, but dont know. Thanks.
We dont know...
The mormons do not tend to come out against abortion as Christians do...
The Catholics have this issue...
and most other Christians...
But there are no frontrunners against abortion in the mormon ranks...
So Romeny is a lip-service Mormon. Big deal, there are proportionally as many lip-service Mormons as there are lip-service Lutherans or Catholics or Baptists or Jews.
You can ask him anything because he has an answer you would like on any issue. Just tell him what you believe and he's with you.
“So, if Hillary Clinton underwent a tea party conversion...
...encouraged business growth (which she would say she already has)...
...vied to keep our country safe (which she would say she already has)...
...discouraged abortion (which she would say she already has — frankly pro-aborts have talked about “reducing” abortions)
...and then announced her “tea party conversion” will reduce the size of govt...
...and then she adds this P.S. “Oh, BTW, what led to my tea party conversion was a religious conversion...I believe I will become a god when I die...”
...you wouold really think that 98-100% of voters would ignore her “P.S.” comment about becoming a god? “
If it’s Hillary Clinton, you and I would both know that there’s a nefarious prospect to her Tea Party conversion, much like every word that she utters that isn’t an indefinite article, pronoun or word whisker. Let’s not go into strawmen here. Mittens is just Shillary with a smaller wang and thicker helmet hair.
Ah, now you've done it. You've probably by now drawn the attention of the finger-waggers. They will come to lecture you with political correctness, saying, "Hey, you, yeah, you, Stockpirate...if you dare consider the Hare Krishna aspect of this candidate...the Moonie ties of this candidate...the Satanic ties of this candidate...the Wiccan beliefs & practices of this candidate...then we'll accuse you of weakening the very foundation of the constitution!!! 'Vote for the Hare Krishna dude or else!!!"
(By their standards, we couldn't even take into consideration a candidate's expectation of 72 virgins awaiting them post-'martyrdom' death as a glimpse of their broader religious perspectives).
NOW someone will chime in about America’s FIRST 911 terrorist killings...
Oh are you referrinbg to the Mountain Meadows Massacrer...Sept 11, 1857...
When Brigham Young sent his mormons to murder about 140 unarmed men, women. children and babes in arms under a flag of truce and steal their wagons, cattle hurses and the very clothes off the backs of their naked dead bodies and kidnap 17 tiny children and hold them for ransom for 2 years ???
just because the wagon train members were Christians...a different religion to the mormons ???
and then the religious terrorists owned the land the victims died on ...
and destroyed the first memorial...
and controlled the next one ...
and only allow their own “ceremonies” on anniversaries ...(like the mosque thingy...
and blamed the local Indian tribesd...(like the Moslems blamed the Jews) ...
and wont let anyone finally and fully examine the remains ???
That first 9/11 ???
How about a muslim...not a radical muslim...just a “I got born into this religion” muslim...that was a Conservative?
You picked up on that too?
FWIW, I would never vote FOR someone based solely on their (professed) religious affiliation. That goes for Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, or even Mormon. Nor would I vote AGAINST someone for those same reasons. It's clear that, given the real-world examples of politicians like Mitt Romney and Harry Reid, being a Mormon is no guarantee of being a small-government, pro-life, pro-gun, pro-property-rights, anti-welfare-state, low-tax fiscal/social/religious conservative politician. Show me a candidate that advocates and votes for those things more consistently than his political rivals, and he'll have my vote - Mormon or not, Republican or not.
Oh, and I forgot one more thing: IB4PD1
How do you know there's not an underlying connection?
The Mormon god is "shifty," too, is he not?
Did he not...
...Condemn polygamy in the 1830 Book of Mormon,
...Only to have Joseph Smith to start "practicing" it with his 17 yo live-in maid, Fanny, in 1831?
...Only to then change his mind & push polygamy underground in 1890?
...Only to then have his "general authority" Lds servants "solemnize" a couple hundred more plural arrangements between 1890-1910? (See B. Carmon Hardy's book A Solemn Covenant)
...Only to then root it out almost completely by the 1930s?
...Only to then "inspire" Lds apostle Bruce McConkie in his book "Mormon Doctrine" to say that polygamy would be re-instituted when the Mormon jesus returned?
[And don't Lds believe in eternal polygamy -- even if they now eschew earthly polygamy]
Boy, talk about ambivalence!
If the Mormon god can flip-flop and bandy about the institution of marriage as frequently as that over a 180-year period, then Mitt is just a chip off of the old block!
And it doesn't end there.
Several Mormon sacred books have racist comments about skin color, and blacks were kept out of the Mormon priesthood til 1978. At that point, the Mormon god changed his mind about the priesthood, yet only changed his mind about one of those racist verses in their sacred books -- one in the Book of Mormon -- where he had his "servants" rewrite a word supposedly written in a "gold plate" and then interpreted by the "power of God." The Mormon god told Lds leaders to change the phrase "white and delightsome" to "pure and delightsome."
Hmm...what words coming from "gold plates" translated by the "power of God" will next undergo social transformation???
I can go on and on. The point is that "flip-flop" Mitt simply has taken on the character of his god. (Shouldn't he be "commended" for such "Mormon god-liness"???)
It is not right to say doctrine doesn't matter at all. Take Islam, for instance. It would be dangerously naive to assume, as American civil religion does, that all religions are pretty much the same. It's true that most religions share core ethical teachings, but orthodox Islam also teaches unambiguously that there is to be no separation of religion and state, that non-Muslims are to live subservient under law to Muslims, and in some sects that Allah commands a jihad or "holy war" be waged against non-Muslim "infidels". To the extent that a Muslim wishes to preside over our pluralist liberal democracy, he will have had to break radically from his faith's fundamentals.
Liberals who insist that religion has no place at all in American politics have to account for the Christian roots of many social reforms. Consider for example the abolitionism and the civil rights movement. When faced with the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., and other black clergymen explicitly appealing to Christian scripture against Jim Crow, Southern segregationists groused that religion had no business in politics. You can't praise religion's role in political discourse only when it advances causes of which you approve or is practiced by constituencies blacks, say, that vote Democratic.
If God doesn't exist, then by what standard do we decide right from wrong? If a society recognizes no independent, transcendent guardian of the moral order, will it not, over time, lose its self-discipline and decline into barbarism? The eminent sociologist Philip Rieff, who was not a believer, said that man would either live in fear of God or would be condemned to live in fear of the evil in himself.
In the past, prominent Mormons such as Mitt Romney have placed their Mormon faith under scrutiny. In his famous speech on Mormonism during the 2008 Presidential Election, Mitt said that a person should not be rejected . . . because of his faith. His supporters say it is akin to rejecting a Barack Obama because he is black. But Obama was born black; Romney is a Mormon because he accepts the beliefs of the Mormon faith. This permits us, therefore, to make inferences about his judgment and character, good or bad.
Mormons such as Romney and Huntsman have promised to fully obey Mormon teachings without hesitation and without question.
In his February 26, 1980 speech at BYU titled Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet, LDS President Ezra Taft Benson maintained the Mormon Church President spoke with inerrant authority on "any matter, temporal or spiritual " and was "not required to have any particular earthly training or credentials to speak on any subject or act on any matter at any time."Romney and Huntsman either intended to honor their promises to follow another man's instructions, or they lied. In the case of the former, we are entitled to know where these directives lead, and in the alternative, we should be concerned about these men's honesty.
As a Temple Mormon, Mormon Bishop and Stake President, both Romney and Huntsman have sworn among other things, he recognizes the President of the LDS Church as a "prophet, seer and revelator," and will "obey the rules, laws, and commandments of the gospel" as proclaimed by Mormon Prophets.
These men made these solemn vows with the understanding they effect "time and all eternity."
Temple Mormons such as Romney and Huntsman have prayed for the overthrow of the US Government as punishment for 19th century Mormon Persecution. Although the Temple Ceremony has changed since these gentlemen made their solemn oaths, they have never renounced the promises they made before their Mormon god.
For these reasons, among others, I assert beliefs are indeed a legitimate issue for determining qualifications for elected public office, and I find that belief in the teachings of Mormonism is more than enough to disqualify an individual from consideration as a viable candidate.
Would a mormon vote for a jack mormon or an ex-mormon if that were their only choice?
It's an indicator of his judgment. It's an indicator of his values. Whether he promotes his religion at all, the president is still a role model, and needs to be an acceptable role model in all areas of his life, not just public policy decisions.
And Califorian makes some excellent points.
“Romney got about 94% of the vote in Utah.”
Do you have the statistics on what % of Mormons voted for Harry Reid in NV?
Not all Mormons voted for the RINO-Romney in 2008. I don’t give a damn what religion a candidate is, as long as they’re not a Muslim like our current alleged POTUS. I do think we’d be in a hell of a lot better shape if Romney were President instead of the Muslim Marxist we have now.
NO vote for Romney from me unless he is running against 0bama!!
Unless someone is subscripted to LDS Living or on a private forum that they are not invited too says lot!
I don’t care if a candidate is a Christian. If we don’t share the same values I won’t vote for them.
I wouldn’t vote for anyone who is member of a religion that is classified as a cult. Mormonism is a cult, period, end of story.
Temple Mormons such as Romney and Huntsman have prayed for the overthrow of the US Government as punishment for 19th century Mormon Persecution. Although the Temple Ceremony has changed since these gentlemen made their solemn oaths, they have never renounced the promises they made before their Mormon god.
Very good post overall -- except I have a question related to this part above.
I believe, if I'm not mistaken, that the temple oaths to which you are referencing here were removed by the Lds "prophet" around 1926 or 1927. Mitt Romney was born in 1948.
So while George Romney may have been alive when these oaths were taken -- and it is true that those who took them were to pass them down 2 or 3 generations (which would thereby include Mitt & Huntsman's generation), I'm not sure we can say these men made such solemn oaths...only that their grandfathers and great grandfathers did...and that their grandfathers & great grandfathers were under solemn obligation to pass them down to the generations of Mitt Romney and Huntsman.
Thanks Nana. It seems to me that Protestants in general are more heavily pro-life than Catholics.
From my small exposure to Mormons I would think they would be pro-life, but maybe they are content to simply live that way as opposed to being activist about it. They are certainly more insular than typical Christians, though I have some relatives who are fundamentalist Christians and they avoid most social contact with anyone “outside” of their church.
I guess I made that oath in 1960 and therefore hereby renounce it for all of Free Republic and the world to see! I hereby also advise others to do the same.
Did you read “writerbob’s” comment to the article at the link provided?
Are you “writerbob”? ;^)
get back to you
Writerbob is an idiot.
In fact, if he were any dumber we’d have to water him. Even then he would need someone to count cadence so he’d know when to breathe.
Yes, most Mormons are pro-life, even if there are not any Mormon politicians currently taking a strong position on the issue. Although I didn’t find a direct survey of Mormons on this, SurveyUSA did conduct a poll (http://www.surveyusa.com/50state2005/50StateAbortion0805SortedbyProLife.htm) of all the states, and heavily Mormon Utah was highest on the list, with 61% Pro-Life, 33% Pro-Choice. Unsurprisingly, Vermont was last on the list, with 25% Pro-life, 70% Pro-Choice.
Then they wouldn't really be able to complain if some voters didn't vote for Romney because he's Mormon.
Not to worry I’m wearing my flame proof undies.
LOL! He’d need plant food as well. Sheesh!
I just noticed that your comment was “similar” to his, that’s why I was busting on you a little bit. ;^)
Voting FOR someone because of religion or race is just as bad as voting AGAINST someone because of religion or race.
I’m part of the 6% (actually 10%—Romney got 90% in Utah). I’m LDS, can’t stand Romney. I was a Fredhead, but he faded too soon. I wouldn’t vote for Harry Reid if my life depended on it. I never understood why so many Utah Mormons were ga-ga over the Mittster.
Yes, most Mormons are pro-life, even if there are not any Mormon politicians currently taking a strong position on the issue.
You dont know for certain about most Mormons”
Most Mormons voted for Mormon Bishop Williard Mitt Romney, a well known lifetime PRO-ABORTION activist in the 2008 primary...
of the Utah Mormons who voted in the GOP primary, 90% and more voted for the abortion pushing Romney...
and I didnt mention politicians...
Randall Terry is not a politician...
The Catholic lady who started Birthright all over the US and Canada to provide homes to unmarried pregnant girls in the 1970s and 1980s so they would not feel “forced” to have an abortion was not a politician
as far as I know there have not been any mormons actively against abortion...
Mormons are not wallflowers when it comes to social issues...
for whatever reason, they spent $Millions and were verbally outspoken on Prop 8 in 2008...
However when it comes to abortion the mormons are deathly quiet...
But Mormon Bishop Williard Mitt Romney did say in January 2008 that many mormons in leadership were Democrats and FOR abortion...
So after his much repeated declaration, what are we left with ???
As for mormon politicians...both the highest achiever in the US Senate, Harry Reid, awarded Mormon of the Year in Utah,
and the governor of a state, Bishop Williard Mitt Romney
have both been lifetime activists FOR abortion...
and have never acted or voted AGAINST abortion...
Both Harry Reid and Romney have run for office on a platform FOR abortion and supported others who were PRO-abortion in their campaigns...
I dont know about Reid but Romney has written personal checks to Planned Parenthood...
Mormons are PRO-Life ???
Tell me, as a pro-lifer would you vote for some who was not and had never been pro-life just because he was the same religion as you ???
It isn't necessarily bad to vote against someone because of their religion.
I would vote against any Sharia-advocating Muslim for any office in the land on the basis of his religion alone. If you wouldn't, you're either a Sharia-advocating Muslim, a deluded leftist or an idiot.
Difference between me and writerdumd is my values are not changeable he has obviously had an opinionectomy and suffering root rot.
When Mitt Romney appeared on the debates I dont think I had ever heard of him ...
In the 1st or 2nd he was asked about abortion...
With a sob in his voice he told the soul wrenching story of his relative dying from an abortion about 1970 and my heart went out to him...
I thought he was next going to say he was against abortion ...
But no I was stunned and sickened to hear him not only say he had been FOR abortion ever since then..
but to go on and explain that the relatives death was one of the reasons Romney own mother Lenore Romney had run for the US Senate from Michigan in 1970 on a PRO-ABORTION platform, and that he was proud of her for doing so...
None of that made any moral sense to me ...it was a mindblower...and I was motivated to research Mitt’s background...
His awful history of pro-abortion including trying to outdo Teddy Kennedy in which one of them was more pro-abortion in a 1994 debate for the US Senate from MASS
and again in 2002 trying to be the worst pro-abortion candidate in the debate for Gov of MASS...
A guy like that is not interested in the votes of pro-lifers..
and not interested in the lives of innocent unborn babies...
but rather will willing snuff out their tiny lives for his own political expediency...
Williard Mitt Romney is an unrepentant ghoul with the blood of millions of innocent unborn babies on his hands..
Thanks. I thought I had read that if Roe v Wade was taken down, the three places that might vote to outlaw abortion would be Louisiana, Guam and Utah. Other than Guam, it wouldn’t matter, as a fairly short drive would get a woman to an abortion clinic, and they would spring up all around the borders of L and U if the vote in those states went against abortion.
“Tell me, as a pro-lifer would you vote for some who was not and had never been pro-life just because he was the same religion as you ???”
I know you didn’t ask me, but that’s an interesting question. My answer would be no.
I’m pro-life, but I don’t vote for or against politicans depending on their abortion position since I think it is meaningless at this time as no politician can affect the abortion situation, even by nominating pro-life Supreme Court Judges. Almost every state would keep abortion legal if Roe v Wade was taken down.
The only way to end abortion in the USA is to change the hearts and minds of tens of millions of Americans who are pro-abortion. We don’t have the votes (not even close) to end abortion in the USA, and I suspect we are currently headed in the wrong direction as far as voter’s position on the issue. We will win eventually, but it’s likely to be a very long time from now, long after I’m gone.
I’m open to disagreement and ideas on this, as I would be very happy if abortion was extremely restricted.
Here’s my take on this. I don’t want the one who sits in the oval office to be void of right judgment. How then could I possibly vote for a Mormon for president?
Mormons believe in one of the biggest liars and shysters in the history of this country, Joe Smith. In Mormon doctrine, everything from the golden plates, Lamanites, etc. who supposedly inhabited this country - of which there is not a shred of evidence for, God the Father a man from the planet Kolob, and they are in the process of becoming God themselves, and a hundred more lies of which anybody with an ounce of discernment should know is utterly false.
Why on earth would I want something like that in charge of this country’s affairs? Anybody that dense has no business running this country! A president must exercise right judgment all the time, how could it be possible for a follower of the false prophet Joe Smith to excercise judgment? He has failed at the starting block.
One many’s opinion.
I failed to mention, as if I needed to, Romney’s Rino record. That alone is enough for him not to get my vote...besides his belief that he is in the process of becoming a god, etc.
Well, I've asked 5 questions before on another post...and your comment here is relevant to most of them.
In fact, other of your comments was also relevant to the 4th & 5th questions below -- and I inserted you relevant comments right before it!
Question #1 at hand: Is it important to have a POTUS whose God is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob?
Principle #1 that addresses this: THE 'BATPHONE' PRINCIPLE DURING A JACK BAUER-TYPE OF '24' CRISIS [LET'S HAVE A 'COMMISSIONER GORDON' WHO ACTUALLY HAS A 'BATPHONE' DIRECT LINE TO THE GOD OF THIS WORLD IN THE MIDST OF CRISES SITUATIONS!]
Question #2 at hand: Who rejected who?
Principle #2 that addresses this: DID THE BASE LEAVE THE CANDIDATE BECAUSE OF HIS CULT? OR, DID THE BASE FINALLY REALIZE THAT THE CANDIDATE'S CULT WAS LESS-THAN-INSPIRING DUE TO ITS LABELS OF THE BASE AS 'APOSTATES,' 'CORRUPT' AND CREEDALLY ABOMINABLE?
Question series #3 at hand: Don't candidates already inject 'religion' into their campaigns? And so we as voters are supposed to ignore that? Or other sub-blocks of voters? Don't they often favor a candidate because of religious alignment -- yet they are not criticized for it? Why is it seemingly 'OK' to vote for a candidate for primarily or only because of his faith; but the reverse is often frowned upon?
Principle #3 that addresses this: NUMEROUS REASONS EXIST AS TO WHY THE RELIGIOUS BELIEFS OF A CANDIDATE ARE RELEVANT
Mormons believe in one of the biggest liars and shysters in the history of this country, Joe Smith. In Mormon doctrine, everything from the golden plates, Lamanites, etc. who supposedly inhabited this country - of which there is not a shred of evidence for, God the Father a man from the planet Kolob, and they are in the process of becoming God themselves, and a hundred more lies of which anybody with an ounce of discernment should know is utterly false. Why on earth would I want something like that in charge of this countrys affairs? Anybody that dense has no business running this country! A president must exercise right judgment all the time, how could it be possible for a follower of the false prophet Joe Smith to excercise judgment? He has failed at the starting block. [Sasportas]
Excellent way of putting it Sasportas. The way I framed it was similar:
Question #4 at hand: Is there a transcendent-yet practical-issue beyond faith under consideration here?
Principle #4 that addresses this: WE MUST WEIGH A CANDIDATE'S LEVEL OF VULNERABILITY TO DECEPTION - FOR THAT TRANSCENDS RELIGIOUS CONSIDERATIONS (And a candidate's level to deception in the most important area of his life, his faith, is an excellent indicator of potential other gullibilities)
Question #5 at hand: Is true faith and misdirected faith part of our character? And if yes, why wouldn't "character" ever NOT therefore be an issue upon which to seriously evaluate a candidate?
Principle #5 that addresses this: OTHER-WORLDLY COMMITMENTS (FAITH, WHETHER IT'S TRUE FAITH OR MISDIRECTED FAITH) IS A CHARACTER ISSUE!
Principle #1: THE 'BATPHONE' PRINCIPLE DURING A JACK BAUER-TYPE OF '24' CRISIS [LET'S HAVE A 'COMMISSIONER GORDON' WHO ACTUALLY HAS A 'BATPHONE' DIRECT LINE TO THE GOD OF THIS WORLD IN THE MIDST OF CRISES SITUATIONS!]
Say what? Obviously God hears the prayers of all people. But we know from reading the Bible that God seemingly responds more favorably to those He is in an actual relationship with...versus examples like Pharisaical religious legalists whom Jesus said were of their father, the devil (John 8). You mean religionists who might prefer having a POTUS in the White House who actually knows the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in order to call on that Living God during a Jack Bauer-like crisis is NEVER to be preferred over voting for an atheist candidate on faith grounds??? (Otherwise, that "weakens the religious foundation" of our country? How does that make any sense?)
Principle #2 - SOME PEOPLE TURN ON ITS HEAD WHO REJECTED WHOM! [DID THE BASE LEAVE THE CANDIDATE BECAUSE OF HIS CULT? OR, DID THE BASE FINALLY REALIZE THAT THE CANDIDATE'S CULT WAS LESS-THAN-INSPIRING DUE TO ITS LABELS OF THE BASE AS 'APOSTATES,' 'CORRUPT' AND CREEDALLY ABOMINABLE?]
Were we to discuss candidates representing a broad range of alternative religions, I would guestimate that 60-80% of them do not necessarily go out of their way to slam Christianity or badly slander the spiritual reputation of Christian adherents for chunks of 170-180 years at a time. That can't be said about true-believing LDS candidates (in distinction from Jack Mormon candidates).
Simply put, the true-believing Mormon candidate who approaches us historic Christians is saying:
"You are an apostate; I am a restorationist built upon the complete ashes of your faith. Your creeds--all of them--are an 'abomination' before God. Your professing believers are 'corrupt.' Can I count on your vote then?" [See below for chapter & verse]
Conclusion: When a candidate mislabels 75-90% of his voting base's primary faith tenets and claims & reduces them to mere "apostate" status--Note that LDS "Scripture" specifically labels the entire Christian church as "apostate" and Note that 75% of people claim to be "Christians" in the more mainline/Protestant/Catholic sense--& frankly, this % is higher in the Republican party)...
...he not only shows open disdain for his voting base, but betrays his ability to inspire confidence in his ability to accurately define a major world religion.
If he cannot even accurately define a major world religion, what confidence does he inspire re: his ability to handle national security issues, terrorist issues, & negotiation issues pertaining to another world religion like Islam?
Specific citation to above: Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith - History, verses 18-19: I asked the personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right and which I should join. I was answered that I must join NONE of them, for they were ALL wrong, and the personage who addressed me said that ALL their creeds were an abomination in His sight: that those professors were ALL corrupt... " LDS cannot just take or leave for this is authoritative "Scripture"; this verse originated as the supposed description of the very foundation of the Lds church--the First Vision of Joseph Smith. They claim that this is their "god's" judgment of Christians and their church bodies; they have since translated this into over 100 languages and circulated this nonsense world-wide with millions of copies.
(Backdrop to this principle): NUMEROUS REASONS EXIST AS TO WHY THE RELIGIOUS BELIEFS OF A CANDIDATE ARE RELEVANT.
Additional Points of Considerations:
Principle #4 - WE MUST WEIGH A CANDIDATE'S LEVEL OF VULNERABILITY TO DECEPTION - FOR THAT TRANSCENDS RELIGIOUS CONSIDERATIONS (And a candidate's level to deception in the most important area of his life, his faith, is an excellent indicator of potential other gullibilities)
We all have blinders to truth. Nobody has a monopoly on it. (But I would say the Bible has the best snapshot of God & humanity and the interaction between the two). Deception exists in the world, and when compared to trustworthy sources of truth (the Bible), deception exists as a continuum. If we agreed that a candidate belongs to the most deceptive cult in the world, then certainly that candidate's vulnerability to deception in the most important area of his life--his faith--serves as an indicator that he/she might be more easily deceived in public policy issues. "Vulnerability to deception" belongs on a character checklist! Even one 2007 poll indicated that 54% of Americans would not vote for an atheist.
Principle #5: OTHER-WORLDLY COMMITMENTS (FAITH, WHETHER IT'S TRUE FAITH OR MISDIRECTED FAITH) IS A CHARACTER ISSUE!
There's no way around this realization! To try to extract such other-worldly commitments from character is simply not possible. Time & time again folks try to hermetically seal "faith" & "religion" away from the public square as if folks checked their faith at the door or as if folks were neatly cut-up pie pieces. (Just try telling any voter that he should never weigh "character" into his/her voting-decision considerations).
Mitt Romney is such a two-faced (read liar of the political order) slug that it seems unfair to categorize voting for him as voting for a Mormon. The Mormons I know apart from FreeRepublic apologists are honest to their core, except for their blind spot for their religion, which they adhere to almost mindlessly, as if questioning the heresies would damn them to hell instantly with no recourse left to them. So Romney seems to be an anomoly, dishonest, yet professing to be a Mormon whom we perhaps mistakenly believe is devout to the bone. In view of his father, I would say Jon HUntsman is more the jib of a true Mormon. I suspect he is honest beyond anything Romney could muster.
Excellent way of framing Mormon cultural reality.
From my experience with Mormons, yes, they are preferentially "pro-life" -- but a young Mormon lady suddenly pregnant outside of wedlock might easily become preferentially "pro-death"...and the Mormon statements on abortion allow enough manueverability (by referencing abortionists as "competent medical authorities" and by "praying to God" to see if the Mormon god personally approves dismembering the baby).
IOW, Lds are the kind of "pro-life folk" who if the issue was freeing slaves, wouldn't go to the Civil War to liberate blacks.
You're framing it that "they are content to simply live that way as opposed to being activist about it" is a good way to describe the situation. And, BTW, that describes a large % of Protestants, Catholics & Orthodox as well -- so it's not only true in the Lds ghetto.
What is distinct is that the Catholic & many Protestant denomination statements on abortion don't allow for the "wiggle room" on abortion as compared to the statements they've made on abortion. Many mainline Protestant positions are, frankly, pro-abortion.
I would never vote for a Mormon, simple because I have been one and know that they take vows in the temple that places their Church (not God) over everything.
A great book specifically on this topic is Rocky Hulse’s “When Salt Lake City Calls”.
D) None of the above.
I do recognize that the religion plays a role in shaping one’s values and morals.
I was thinking about all the people who voted for bammy just because he was black. Didn’t matter that someone much more qualified was running.
Or the women who voted for Hillary because she was a woman, qualifications notwithstanding.
Islam does fall into its own category. I don’t trust them.
My point was, which I guess I didn’t get across clear enough, is that people are criticized for voting against someone because of their race or religion (with islam aside) with the pejorative of *racist*. But it’s just as much racism to vote based on race (or religion) as voting against.
If that still didn’t get the point across, I’ll just stop digging.
All of the con “reviewers” sound just like some of the protaganists on FR we ex-mo’s contend with from time to time.
Jews, Hindus, Muslims, agnostics, Buddhists.
Muslims have beliefs that are very similar to Mormonism. Both are based on a lying false prophet, both have substituted their false prophets books for the Bible. Oh, and I assure you I will not be voting for Muslims either.
has resigned from the board of Marriott. His spokesman explained: He felt he no longer has the time to devote to the position.
J. Willard Marriott was a friend of George Romney (and the younger Romneys first name, Willard, was given to him in Marriotts honor).
Lopez still shilling for Romney.
Mormons=> Largely own Marriot=> one of nations largest porn distributers=> 80% of in-room profits from porn=> Directors’ paycheck in Mitt$ pocket=> Hypocrite guy who is a mormon
... but he wears the magic underwear!!!
I’d consider it, but a Mormon who would “encourage business growth, keep our country safe, limit political correctness, discourage abortion and reduce the size of government” is one who I could vote for. One who would try to overthrow the government, put LDS before the Constitution, etc. wouldn’t do those things.
A Mormon who established MittCare is RIGHT OUT!
The islam angle is a red herring — we’ve already elected one (or at least an islamist sympathizer, which is just as bad). And no, I didn’t vote for him, but not just because of that. I didn’t vote for him because I — and most of Freeper Nation — knew who he was and what he’d do to this nation. And we we’re unfortunately correct...
I dont see how you can call someone who was a small state gov and now Ambassador to China, so he has no current US presence, any type of threat.
Yes, I have heard the Muslim-Mormon connection made by the antis a number of times...Jews okay with you for President?...magritte
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.