Skip to comments.Author: LDS is 'dangerous religion' [Romney article]
Posted on 06/01/2011 10:06:48 AM PDT by Colofornian
Bill Keller infamously announced in 2007, "If you vote for Mitt Romney, you are voting for Satan!"
While expressing less vitriol in his delivery, evangelical author Warren Cole Smith said something similar in his recent article, "A Vote for Romney Is a Vote for the LDS Church."
Smith wrote, "I believe a candidate who either by intent or effect promotes a false and dangerous religion is unfit to serve. A Romney presidency would have the effect of actively promoting a false religion in the world. If you have any regard for the Gospel of Christ, you should care. A false religion should not prosper with the support of Christians. The salvation of souls is at stake."
Mormon scholar and author Joanna Brooks spoke with Smith about his views regarding Mormonism. In the interview posted on religiondispatches.org, Brooks said: "I can understand from an evangelical perspective why you view our religion as 'false.' But why do you think we are 'dangerous?'"
Smith replied, "Let me ask you: is anything that is false not dangerous? Anything false is dangerous. Falsehood leads to danger."
Brooks countered by asking if other faiths he considered theologically "false" like Judaism and Catholicism are also dangerous. Smith said that those faiths are both different from Mormonism.
(Excerpt) Read more at deseretnews.com ...
From the article: A Romney presidency would have the effect of actively promoting a false religion in the world.
Well, let's address this Q from a parallel angle: Would a Scientologist president have the effect of actively promoting a false religion in the world?...And would Scientologists use that to their advantage?
Pretty easy conclusion on that one: Yup.
Oh, and you think Scientology is a "ways" away from Mormonism? Then you probably haven't seen this thread: Similarities between Mormonism and Scientology [see also posts 1 & 10]
I don’t like Romney, but good grief this is a ridiculous article. I would rather have 1 good Mormon on my side than 100 bad Christians.
I see my comment was deleted.
Jesus asked somebody who called him "good teacher," "why do you call me good."
Jesus wasn't questioning his own goodness; he was questioning this assumption about men coming from the person he interacted with.
Same question goes to you: "Why do you call ANY man 'good'?" What is your standard or presumption that qualifies someone to be "good?"
Who’s a Scientologist?
Romney’s background helps explain his terrible and thorough embracing of liberalism his entire life, and his being a pathological liar, with no true center or self.
He is a thoroughly misguided man assembled from a kit.
I am an Episcopalian but I would probably rather a President take spiritual advice from the head of the LDS church than the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church.
The logical counter to your statment would be: But would you not rather have 1 good Christian than Romney ?
Mind that his POLICIES are more than enough to keep him from the nomination, his belief that he will become a god and father an entire race to worship him as such is not needed for me to vote against him in the primary.
The closest cult POTUS candidate we had to Romney in '08 was Democratic candidate Dennis Kucinich, a New Ager.
The prob is drawing a parallel there is that the New Agers aren't as formally "wound up" and organized as either the Mormons or Scientologists.
So the Scientologists makes for the "best" hypothetical parallel "work thru" for a voter: If a voter says, I could vote for a Scientologist POTUS candidate, then they are being consistent.
Poorly thought out ‘either or’ assertions seem to be the norm for these types of threads.
I’d rather have a Mormon for President than the “so-called” Christian we have now.
Could be an interesting point. Do you know what the advice and teachings of mormonISM is?
I would like to know what you think the differences of what they believe? They are not that far apart.
I would probably rather a President take spiritual advice from the head of the LDS church than the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church.
No you wouldnt
The Episcopal would put the country first
The Mormon MUST put his church and what his mormon “president/prophet” says first
There was a time that the mormons were at war against the United States and celebrated when any POTUS died (ala Islam)
The Episcopal Church has never declared war on the US or mocked a presidents death
None of whom would know the Holy Spirit.
Let's apply that: You'd rather have Romney or Huntsman as POTUS?
What’s the difference between Romney and the current president?
I was listening to Rush last week (Friday, May 27th), he had a Romney supporter call in trying to urge Rush to endorse romney. among the qualifications the romney supporter cited was that he (romney) understood oppressed people because he was a member of an oppressed people himself, specifically stating mormons.
So, many will post here wanting to separate romney from his mormonism. Perhaps these same should look to the romney supporters out there - they are the ones who are now touting romney’s mormonism as a QUALIFICATION for the position of president.
And make no doubt about it - inspite of romney being a RINO, you can safely bet that 90+ of the mormons across the country (these staunch conservatives I keep hearing about) will vote in bloc for romney.
You cannot separate romney (or huntsman for that matter) from their mormonism no more than you can separate the yolk from the egg white in scrambled eggs.
A dangerous religion is one that excuses the killing of Jewish children.
A dangerous religion requires women to be covered from head to toe in public.
A dangerous religion complains that a terrorist mastermind was disrespected by burial at sea....
I’d rather have ANYBODY than the current, lying, cheating, hypocritical President.
Then you may get what you want - another lying, cheating hypocritical president who believes he is a god in the making
I’d rather have anyone from the LDS as president than a ‘christian’ from the Jeremy Wright wing of Christianity.
FWIW I am not a Mormon.
Are you serious?
Romney has built a successful business.
Romney has paid a payroll.
As far as I know, Romney has supplied his real birth certificate (not a facsimile), and we can look up his school, business, and personal records, as well as other flotsem and jetsem from his c.v.
That’s just a start.
Is that what you REALLY think, or are you just intent on bashing Mormons? I’m not Mormon, BTW, but I grew up with a lot of Mormon neighbors and classmates in California. They were all fine people and I was proud to count them as my friends. I was truly shocked when I moved to other states and detected the amount of anti-Mormon prejudice floating around.
Better that you should worry about what’s really threatening this country, rather than law abiding Mormons.
Well, given that nobody from that wing is a GOP candidate. And given that you're on this Web site makes it unlikely you'd vote for a non-GOP candidate [excepting a third party stance should Romney win the GOP], you'd both be "pro-Romney" then in an instant if Romney wins the GOP?
Romney or Huntsman? I wouldn't vote for them in the primary...if either of those gets the nomination, we'll all have some serious pondering to do.....
I consider myself Independent, but I’ll vote for the GOP candidate, unless he’s a real pig.
“The Mormon MUST put his church and what his mormon president/prophet says first”
I have to respectfully disagree on this, there is no ‘MUST,’ he simply does not have to.
“There was a time that the mormons were at war against the United States”
This is a fair point, but you’re reaching back pretty far to the mid to late 1800s when Mormons were living in a sparsely settled U.S. Territory in what they called Deseret at the time. In modern times, Mormons tend to be pretty well integrated into American society both culturally and politically.
I've got Mormon relatives whom I dearly love.
They were all fine people and I was proud to count them as my friends. I was truly shocked when I moved to other states and detected the amount of anti-Mormon prejudice floating around.
A few of my another-generation Mormon relatives suffered some severe oppression in the South. (They at least emerged unscathed; can't say as much for the Arkansas folks who ventured into southern Utah Territory -- what they call 'Dixie' -- in 1857).
I oppose Islam for MANY reasons. Unlike many FREEPERS, those reasons are not all physical -- perceived physical threat. There are many spiritual concerns about Islam as well...and people who forget that or don't realize it are the ultimate reductionists.
For example, Islam slanders the Lord's church by referencing all Christians as "infidels." Similarly, the LDS church slanders all Christians as "apostates." [Somehow, that "anti-Christian" spirit by Mormon leaders escapes posters like you.
Better that you should worry about whats really threatening this country, rather than law abiding Mormons.
It's way too ironic:
* Too many FREEPERS want to reduce some threats only to the economic (& leave out social concerns like what's physically happening to the pre-born)
* When it does come to the physical, many of those same FREEPERS who really couldn't give a rip (or at least a vote) about the risks of living in the womb are concerned about Islam. [Which is it? The physical matters if you're a Trade Towers employee, but not if you're a resident in the womb?]
Bottom line: Jesus said "But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear him who, after your body has been killed, has authority to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him.' (Luke 12:5)
I'll take Jesus' cue about where our concerns are to be -- those who land in hell when we could have prevented some of them from being there -- over your "see no spiritual evil" approach.
Good Q, Turtlepower.
Pro-abortion healthcare imposed upon the Bay state citizens vs. pro-abortion healthcare imposed upon all of U.S. citizens.
Looks to me like we have too many FREEPERS who'd vote for a pro-abortion, pro-imposed healthcare imposer in a nanosecond should Romney win the GOP.
Tell us, afraidfortherepublic,elli1...if the Anti-Christ was the Democratic candidate...and you had a mini-bin Laden or mini-Hitler type running vs. the anti-Christ, would you vote for one of them just 'cause they were the "lesser of two evils" than the Anti-Christ?
I guess because I have never experienced it. On the other hand, I HAVE experienced antiCatholic prejudice and have been called "apostate" by Protestants on this board. My daughter graduated from a Baptist University in TX where the only thing most of the other kids knew about Catholics was that you weren't allowed to date them.
Oh, and I'll add to my litany of plusses about Romney -- at least he isn't in favor of killing innocent babies, unlike the present occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
Is this REALLY what you think, or haven't you interacted with your mormon neighbors and classmates enough to know the fundamental teachings of mormonism?
Historical fact - from its inception, mormonism was hardly lawabiding. From polygamy, to creating a bogus bank swindling money from their members, to open rebellion against state and federal gov'ts - mormonism has been at odds with the government.
Doctrinal fact - mormon males worthy enough to have a temple recommend card are taught DOCTRINALLY that they are in line to become a god. Look up the history 'afraid'.
Those same temple mormons swear an oath of allegance to the current prophet/seer/president of the mormon church above all other oaths (even the oath of the presidency). Until 1927, every temple mormon also took a blood oath to seek vengence against the US Gov't for 'persecuting' it in the past. This is the mormon heritage romney/huntsman is drawing upon.
And if you have paid attention to the news, with the coming of 0bama and the mess the demonrats have made, mormon apocolyptic fever regarding the so-called "white horse" prophecy has had a significant up tic. The crux of that prophecy is that the US constitution will hang by a thread and that a mormon and the mormon church will ride to the rescue and save it by taking over power and establishing a theocratic government. And because of his oath to the mormon prophet - you can bet that a president romney will be receiving calls from him on how to accomplish this.
Each and every one of my statement can be backed up from history (secular and mormon-origined) or mormon doctrine. I've only scratched the surface of the information 'afraid'. So is it bashing to point out how his religion colors his views and does not really serve the interests of the country - but rather the interest of mormons?
Seriously - considering that his temple underware is considered sacred and endowed with power, as well as believing in a conman (joeseph smith) with his testimony - I would say that his overall judgement as president would be impared.
Finally - it is romney supports themselves that have recently touted his mormonism as a qualification. When they do that it is only fair to examine that religion and see what potential impacts it would have to the country.
Something to further think about.
Re: lesser of two evils.
Given a binary choice, greater or lesser evil, which would YOU choose?
Vote for the lesser evil.
Vote for the greater evil.
Don’t vote and have no influence on the outcome. I’m really curious.
I hope you remember that Obama’s election was at least partially due to conservatives on this forum posting about how they’d never vote for McCain because he was insufficiently conservative. If enough people refuse to vote for the lesser evil it is the functional equivalent of voting for the greater evil. Is that somehow an improvement?
I posted the following in a January '11 thread to Zakeet:
Zakeet had mentioned: 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.
Anyway, I'm pointing out that the Mormon 'tude toward the U.S. extended well past the 19th century. Revenge oaths were still part of the Mormon church for over a quarter of the 20th century...about 85 years ago.
And these oaths were sworn by people who swore they would teach them 2-3 generations down the pike.
I guess then it depends upon how well you think Mormon parents alive in the mid-1920s were able to keep their sworn promises made before their god.
You are mixing TODAY’s practice with HISTORY which most Mormons denounced when they became citizens of the US. And, yes, I do know a little bit about Mormon practices and teachings. I know that there is much to admire about their family life, even if I do not believe their religion.
I would rather live next door to a Mormon family than to some FReepers who comment regularly here. I’m not going to comment further because I really do not like the ugly tone of this thread.
We should not belong to different churches except the Church of Finding the Truth...whenever two or more are gathered in my name...he did not say two or more Baptists, or two or more methodists...or Christian Scientist...Two decent people...
This is why we are in the state we are...
Both the head of the LDS and Mitt have taken this solemn vow in the mormon temple: " You and each of you covenant and promise before God, angels, and these witnesses at this altar, that you do accept the Law of Consecration as contained in the Doctrine and Covenants, in that you do consecrate yourselves, your time, talents, and everything with which the Lord has blessed you, or with which he may bless you, to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, for the building up of the Kingdom of God on the earth and for the establishment of Zion.
Now, do you really want the dictatorship of the mormon church being the final word on the business of the nation? Remember, Romney asked permission of the mormon leadership to run for president.
First of all there's never only a "binary" choice. (There's ALWAYS a third-party vote if the GOP slits its own throat...or aren't you aware that the Whigs are no longer around & a new party called the GOP arose in the mid-1850s?)
We need peripheral vision...elsewise, if we're only beholden to the current campaign, people would vote for a Hitler type in a nanosecond if a worst evil candidate was running vs. him.
Take the biggest "loser" of a GOP candidate...say a pro-abort, pro-national healthcare, pro-homosexual candidate. Guess what? If you vote for such a candidate, you've wasted your vote. He will lose. Voting for a losing candidate -- even by people who think in your terms -- is indeed a wasted vote...which I thought was anathema to you.
So why would you waste your vote on a candidate you know will lose -- and taint your convictions & conscience in the process? And stab the GOP party in the back at the same time?
Vote for the lesser evil. Vote for the greater evil. Dont vote and have no influence on the outcome. Im really curious.
No. I wouldn't vote for Hitler in the 1930s Germany even if he were running vs. the anti-Christ.
Let me repeat what I wrote last Friday:
...there's a clear line in the sand. When the wife of a 40-yo marriage no longer sits in the middle portion of the seat of a pick-up truck, who moved?
We're not pushing the exit button; if the GOP decides to do that by electing Romney, they've exited and are threatening the entire party with Whigism.
At that point, should it occur, the GOP needs to clearly understand the true meaning of a "wasted vote." Too many GOPers in that circumstance would be tempted to think voting Third Party is a "wasted vote."
Allow me to be clear: Voting for Romney or a RINO is not only a wasted vote, but it's a vote for implosion of the GOP. It would be like planting extinction yeast in its very midst!
The GOP's already been guilty of tolerating too much moral erosion under the guise of "Big Tentism"; it's on a perilous course of implosion if it thinks its base will tolerate this.
We're not going to stand idly by when the RINOs attempts its GOP coups.
I’ll add to my litany of plusses about Romney — at least he isn’t in favor of killing innocent babies
Rombney has been ultra pro-abortiuon for more than 40 years
When ghe ran against Teddy Kennedy in 1994 for US Senate of MASS he claimed to be morte pro-aborion than Teddy
When he ran for MASS Gov in 2002 he claimed to be pro-abortion unlike his pro-life opponent who he slurred foir her pro-life record
In 2005 he was proud of his record of saying “I will protect a womans right to choose”
There have been many posts and videos about Romneys gruesome record on abortion
including his RomneyCare provisionb for $50 abortions in MASS
I missed your comment. I was freepmailed that another forum claims i had it deleted- I didn’t. I’m not one to hit abuse, more of a forum anarchist myself. :)
At least Catholics believe in an Eternal Jesus and they do not believe that God was once a man.
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.