Skip to comments.Mormon Bishop Mitt Romney’s Anti-Christian Religion
Posted on 05/01/2012 7:33:08 PM PDT by Mozilla
Many naive Americans believe that Mormonism is merely another branch of protestant Christianity. Well thats not what the founders and leaders of Mormonism believed.
According to its founder, Joseph Smith, and Brigham Young, Smiths successor, Mormons are the only true people of God on the earth. All non-Mormons and their religions are wrong, an abomination, blind, damned, of the devil, whores, not Christians, groveling in darkness, heathens, ignorant, devoid of fact, pagan and hatched in Hell.
When Romney made a speech about his religion in 2008 he refused to distance himself from his faith and fully affirmed his Mormonism. Responding to critics, Romney said,
"They would prefer it if I would simply distance myself from my religion, say that it is more a tradition than my personal conviction, or disavow one or another of its precepts. That I will not do. I believe in my Mormon faith and I endeavor to live by it. My faith is the faith of my fathers - I will be true to them and to my beliefs."
Romney, the father of homosexual marriage in America and abortion funding Romney Care in Massachusetts, flip-flops on virtually every issue, but he is adamant about his anti-Christian Mormonism. Romney needs the vote of Christians to win election, but he refuses to disavow one or another of its precepts.
Nor can anyone think Romney is merely a casual or cultural Mormon who just happened to be born Mormon. He is an active Bishop in the Mormon church hierarchy. He cannot pretend to be ignorant of the teaching of Joseph Smith and the other prophets of Mormonism.
Below is a list of quotes from Mormon leaders and official publications starting with Joseph Smith down to our day. The message is consistent and clear.
(Excerpt) Read more at defendchristians.org ...
Mitt-got-ry: [mitt-guh-tree]No sale.
noun, plural -ries.
1. the belief that acceptance of a candidates commitment to a cult should be imposed on someone else's personal religious freedom of expression and practice
2. or imposed on another's personal values
3. or as a standard imposed on an individual's vote
Apparently, you will be pulling the lever to vote for a candidate who promoted the killing of babies, enshrined that action into law through government mandates, paid for it with taxpayers money, endorsed the destruction of marriage and attacked the 2nd Amendment.
Before you pull the lever, you better wipe it off carefully.
Good luck, even though we do not agree.
You're responding to post #366. In that post, I didn't use the word "conspiracy" or hint at it...And if you want to read the word "conspiracy" into anything I said in that post, then if anything, Mormons -- of all people -- should have a "conspiracy of life."
Well, for the same reason Lds tend to have larger families.
Lds believe they are accommodating spirits from another planetary or star system.
Hence, it's on the exact same grounds -- the grounds that Mormons tend to be "pro-child" in welcoming additional members to their family -- that you would think if there was a "conspiracy" involved here...that it would be a positive cultural one...IOW a "safe landing" from yonderville.
There may be that widely @ the Mormon grassroots level. It's not there with the General Authority policy.
You're not an autotron, are you, Jeff? You do have the ability to critique a negative policy set forth by your leaders, don't you?
I guess it’s the whole Christians are whores of Babylon and abomination that makes Christians know Mormonism is anti/Christian
Youre sitting and whining while everyone else fights the battle
- - —
No, I am voting my conscience. I never said I was going to stay home. I’m working outside the GOP now. I am no longer a republican because of Romney.
YOU are the one allowing evil to flourish by voting for Romney, not me.
You think I am weak because I am standing on my principles and not voting for a liberal with an R after their name? You are crazy. You aren’t fighting a battle, you are caving in to the liberals! YOU, not me, are supporting abortion, gay marriage, gun control by voting for Romney. I’m not. I’m most likely voting for Virgil Goode, the Constitution party candidate - he not only shares my beliefs, I can vote with a clear conscience and he doesn’t believe he will become a god.
Where did I say I was looking for a ‘pure vessel’? You are bearing false witness (a sin btw) against me I supported almost every other GOP candidate - Bachman, Santorum, Newt and Cain. None of them are perfect, but they are at least somewhat conservative - Romney isn’t
Romney isn’t even close to ‘not perfect’ - the guy is a lying scumbag. That isn’t weakness, that is strength of conviction. You are the coward, not me.
Oh, sure, Jeff. And you paying others to slander all Christians is I suppose "kum-ba-yah ecumenicalism," eh?
What do I mean...???
Allow me to give an Lds primer here for thread posters & lurkers: The typical Lds philosophy we hear essentially bottoms out at: "Speak softly and carry a big Pearl of Great Price stick" [I suppose when you include 1 Nephi 14:9-10 & D&C 1:30...it goes beyond the Pearl of Great Price...but I'll leave that for another day to discuss]
Definition of a 'big Pearl of Great Price stick':
"You Christian sects are 100% "wrong";
100% creedally putrid [literal meaning of the Mormon god's description of "abomination"];
100% "corrupt" as believers...
...Signed: Cordially, your "nice" Mormon neighbor
P.S. "Of course, we'll be polite & use Lds missionary doorstep language like 'universal apostasy' instead of pointing our fingers right @ you..."
"...and we'll fund the outer darkness out of hundreds of different Pearl of Great Price translations which mention ALL of the above...so our 'big stick' will seem once-removed..."
"...But make no mistake about it, we've sent out literally over 1 million Lds missionaries who've carried this 'Big Stick' around the world!!!"
Jeff, I'd imagine you could be the nicest guy in the world to me if we property neighbors. Unfortunately, your wallet and bank account have spoken much louder.
Question: Have you stopped tithing to the Lds church? Or have you told SLC HQ to no longer use your tithe or gifts to go for the re-publishing of the Pearl of Great Price?
Jeff, you could add ALL of the Flying Inman comments together...they could never match the output of the negative slander or PR value of what Lds, Inc or even Lds.org has...We don't even come close to their manpower or budget...and you're somehow concerned about a few arrows?
Lds, Inc. slanders Christians 24/7 on the Web site alone -- not including Deseret Publishing, its newspaper, KSL.com, curricula published, General Conference and other spoken messages, BYU-TV, etc. etc.
Let me give you an example: Go here to the Home Page of the Ksl.com religion page and scroll down (right side): MSNBC Religion Headlines: N. Korea detains American missionary Tue, 29 Dec 2009 01:45:40 GMT Police: Pa. pastor shoots son during fight Sun, 27 Dec 2009 07:40:08 GMT
Mormon-church owned KSL.com has left this Christian pastor shooting-his-son-story up now on the Home page of its religion section now since Dec. 27, 2009...That's over 850 days!!!...Are you going to tell us, Jeff, that this is still "newsworthy" per your Mormon leadership to be there???
That's not condescending?
Is that some kind of "olive leaf" extension by the Mormon church? Maybe I missed something in its symbolism?
Jeff, if you're looking for splinters, I have them. Point them out all you want. I speak truth and I also imbed opinions influenced by that truth, and I encourage others to hand it back my way, too.
All I encourage you to do then -- based upon your comment here -- is to be fair about it...don't just point fingers at me if you don't like "negative" stuff...be consistent...call KSL tomorrow and ask them why they're shooting for 1,000 days or more to link that story about a pastor shooting his son on the Home page of its religion section.
KSL has every right to highlight that event til Jesus returns. (I'm not as bothered by truth-telling as you seem to be)...But if YOU don't like what you think is an unnecessary, uncalled for religious negativity, then start with your own religious backyard.
Will you do that? Or is it just easier to verbally shoot @ Christians just 'cause we're Christians and you may not want to dare say anything negative about "the brethren?"
Also be fair...tell us Joseph Smith was off-base...off-kilter when he regularly damned other religionists to hell, even going so far to say "...they cannot escape the damnation of hell":
"But say you, What will become of the world, or the various professors of religion who do not believe in revelation & the oracles of God as continued to His Church in all ages of the world, when He has a people on earth? I tell you, in the name of Jesus Christ, they will be damned; and when you get into the eternal world, you will find it will be so, they cannot escape the damnation of hell." (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 272)
"Compare this principle once with Christendom at the present day, and where are they, with all their boasted religion, piety, and sacredness while at the same time they are crying out against prophets, apostles, angels, revelations, prophesying and visions, etc. Why, they are just ripening for the damnation of hell. They will be damned, for they reject the most glorious principle of the Gospel of Jesus Christ...Yes, I say, such will be damned, with all their professed godliness." (TPJS, pp. 298-299)
You see, by your silence, you tell us that you "Amen!" Joseph on these comments. And if YOU don't like the obvious negativity of your leaders, then it's up to YOU to either distance yourself from them...or stop worrying about my backyard if you can't equally address your own.
Bachman, Santorum, Newt and Cain.
I too probably could have voted for any one of them in Nov
Isnt it odd that the MittTwit claims we’re the ones looking for a “pure vessel”
when for months the abortion king Willie Mitty had attack ads against Newt damning him because he was supposedly less than pure
Now who is it again who was judging for pureness ???
No, but if Romney doesn’t win on the first round, the delegates are free to vote for whom they choose...
And that is our last hope.
Good point, and furthermore all the others recognize themselves as sinners, Mitt thinks he is the ‘pure vesssel’ and sinless and not just politically either.
The Church’s stand against abortion is well documented.
- - - — -
Sorry Jeff, the ALLOWANCES for abortion is well stated. Check out the CoHI.
People assume Mormons are pro-life because they have a lot of kids and generally oppose birth control for that reason.
However, rather than having kids because they believe life begins at conception and being genuinely pro-life, it is because their theology teaches that their job is to provide bodies for God’s spirit children who are waiting to come down and ‘work out their Salvation’. These spirit children cannot progress to godhood if they don’t have bodies and the best of them should be born to Mormon families where they grow up in ‘the Church’ and know the right doctrines rather than risk them not converting.
Officially the LDS have no statement about when the spirit enters the body, but most of my LDS friends believe it is at birth or shortly before, so abortion isn’t THAT big of a deal, because the spirit child will get another chance to get a body.
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 Mothers 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.
AbortionMy own feeling is that when the life of the mother or baby have to be decided upon, then the mother, father, doctor and their religious leader (pastor, priest, bishop, etc.) should make the call, the final decision being that of the mother. Not the government.
Human life is a sacred gift from God. Elective abortion for personal or social convenience is contrary to the will and the commandments of God. Church members who submit to, perform, encourage, pay for, or arrange for such abortions may lose their membership in the Church.
In today's society, abortion has become a common practice, defended by deceptive arguments. Latter-day prophets have denounced abortion, referring to the Lord's declaration, "Thou shalt not . . . kill, nor do anything like unto it" (D&C 59:6). Their counsel on the matter is clear: Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints must not submit to, perform, encourage, pay for, or arrange for an abortion. Church members who encourage an abortion in any way may be subject to Church discipline.
Church leaders have said that some exceptional circumstances may justify an abortion, such as when pregnancy is the result of incest or rape, when the life or health of the mother is judged by competent medical authority to be in serious jeopardy, or when the fetus is known by competent medical authority to have severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth. But even these circumstances do not automatically justify an abortion. Those who face such circumstances should consider abortion only after consulting with their local Church leaders and receiving a confirmation through earnest prayer.
When a child is conceived out of wedlock, the best option is for the mother and father of the child to marry and work toward establishing an eternal family relationship. If a successful marriage is unlikely, they should place the child for adoption, preferably through LDS Family Services (see "Adoption").
I believe that in rape or incest or in "emotional" or "mental" health circumstances abortions should not be performed. The baby should be born and then adopted out.
In 99% of the cases within the church, this is the council. I have been involved in it and know from my own experience.
Thank you all for sharing your reasoning!
And your Church Handbook of Instructions states otherwise.
More double speak from that cult. Not surprised, the members are so spoonfed that they often fail to realize the internal inconsistencies.
And no one ever said the Government should make the call. Strawman fail.
Give me a source for your claim of 99% of the time that is the counsel. You cannot, because the counselor cannot discuss it outside of the family. You are pulling stats out of your...hat.
Here's the link to the official Church site on abortion:
Read it yourself, I copied it in the above post for you to see.
That's the official position. I have a copy of the Handbook and it does not disagree in the least with this.
You can believe some kind of dark conspiracy that we are lieing on the official site and in the handbook I have...or that I am lieing (I am not), if you please. That's your decision. I am simply posting the accurate position of the Church.
Why should I bother? Your mind is already made up, and shut tight....
I did write a little something very recently regarding Obama's Muslim roots. But since it could be perceived as having occurred "in the context of defending Romney," I guess that doesn't count.
Why should I waste my time on that fool, Rev. Wright? I don't have a lot of free time on my hands lately, and haven't for the past year-plus for that matter.
I'd rather argue with atheists and Darwinists than my fellow Christians anyway.
BTW, I was a strong Huckabee admirer in 2008. The fact that he was a Christian pastor was all to the good as far as I was concerned. Had he won the nomination, I would gladly have voted for him.
Homosexulaity (Gays and Lesbians)
People inquire about our position on those who consider themselves so-called gays and lesbians. My response is that we love them as sons and daughters of God. They may have certain inclinations which are powerful and which may be difficult to control. Most people have inclinations of one kind or another at various times. If they do not act upon these inclinations, then they can go forward as do all other members of the Church. If they violate the law of chastity and the moral standards of the Church, then they are subject to the discipline of the Church, just as others are (Gordon B. Hinckley, Ensign , Nov. 1998, 71).
We want to help these people, to strengthen them, to assist them with their problems and to help them with their difficulties. But we cannot stand idle if they indulge in immoral activity, if they try to uphold and defend and live in a so-called same-sex marriage situation. To permit such would be to make light of the very serious and sacred foundation of God-sanctioned marriage and its very purpose, the rearing of families (Gordon B. Hinckley, Ensign , Nov. 1998, 71).
And here's the link to that page:
Hope that helps.
The official policy is to allow abortion if it is ‘prayerfully considered’ that isn’t Pro-life by any means.
In YOUR experience, how many is that? 3? 4? What about all the other Bishops?
The reality is far different, as evidenced by a lot of people I know who work pro-life clinics in Utah and have to deal with Mormon women who think abortion is just fine.
If you knew anything about Christianity or Mormonism you would know that Mormons ARE NOT Christians.
Been there, done that, wore the holy underwear.
And again the so called ‘official policy’ on homosexuality is contradicted by LDS practice (including the leadership).
I fully expect a revelation in the next 10 years or so allowing practicing homosexuals full membership without discipline.
I can also give you articles on their stance on illegal immigration. Mormons aren’t nearly as conservative as they claim.
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).
And wouldn't that be lovely???
IMHO, he absolutely needs to do this.
Did anyone see Greta VanSusteran's show last night? She had Michelle Bachman on, with her full-blown endorsement of Romney. Bachman said she would vouch for Romney on pro-life issues, finding him sincere in the matter of defense of life. She also vouchsafed that he would, in fact, repeal ObamaCare, and ensure that any replacement for it would NOT include any sort of "individual mandate."
If the chair of the Congressional Tea Party Caucus is willing to try to unite the GOP, for the purpose of showing Obama the door, then all I can say is she definitely senses the URGENCY of defeating Obama.
Question: Would Bachman be an acceptable VP candidate with my friends here or has she utterly tarnished herself in their view by coming to Romney's aid, for the purpose of uniting the party, in order to defeat the criminal enterprise now operating out of the White House?
Thank you so very much, dearest sister in Christs, for your valuable insights here.