Skip to comments.The First Mormon President? Does Faith Matter? [Yes, indeed!!! Lest we have a false god leading USA]
Posted on 08/11/2012 10:06:41 AM PDT by Colofornian
...Romney keeps his focus simple: fix the economy. But others are fixated on something else: his faith.
Some call it a cult...
Yet Mormons call themselves Christians, which raises eyebrows, especially within evangelical circles.
Shawn McCraney is a former Mormon who now hosts a show called, 'Heart of the Matter," where he witnesses to Mormons in Salt Lake City.
"...I didn't know the Lord and that led me to an internal angst."
"What happened was I came to realize that there was nothing I could do to get myself right before God -- where with Mormonism...it's you have to do it," he explained. "He gives you the opportunity, but it's up to you to perform, and I couldn't perform."
...any controversy over a Mormon president may...center on...whether Romney would put loyalty to the Mormon Church ahead of anything else.
Former Mormon and author Michael Moody has written the book, Mitt, Set Our People Free...
"When I was a little boy, the Mormon prophet was a more important man than the president of the United States," Moody told CBN News.
"Mitt Romney has knelt in the Mormon temples," he noted. "He has taken an oath of consecration. He has taken an oath of sacrifice. He has said that he will sacrifice everything that he is, and give all of his talents, and everything that he has and is to the Mormon Church."
...Moody said a Romney victory would be a big deal for the Mormon Church.
"If Mitt Romney gets in the White House, it's going to be a sign to all of the Mormon people that they're on the right path, that this is the truth, and it's going to help perpetuate their missionary program. It's going to put the Mormon Church in a more powerful position..."
(Excerpt) Read more at cbn.com ...
2012 has seen more headlines -- based upon Ross Douthat's book, "Bad Religion: How We Became a Nation of Heretics" -- that we have indeed become exactly that!
There seems to have been an even more rapid departure from what Americans were saying in late 2006:
If you click here: Election 2008: 43% Would Never Vote for Mormon Candidate (Rasmussen Poll)
Per excerpt found there: The Rasmussen Reports survey found that 35% say that a candidate's faith and religious beliefs are very important in their voting decision. Another 27% say faith and religious beliefs are somewhat important. Ninety-two percent (92%) of Evangelical Christian voters consider a candidate's faith and beliefs important. On the partisan front, 78% of Republicans say that a candidate's faith is an important consideration, a view shared by 55% of Democrats. However, there is also a significant divide on this topic within the Democratic Party. Among minority Democrats, 71% consider faith and religious beliefs an important consideration for voting. Just 44% of white Democrats agree.
what % of the following groups found that a candidates faith and religious beliefs are an important consideration for voting?
(1) Americans: 62%
(2) Evangelical Christians: 92%
(3) Republicans: 78%
(4) Democrats: 55% [still a majority]
If they didn't think a candidate's other-worldly worldviews mattered, we wouldn't have seen these kind of numbers.
Now, who are the "heavyweights of authority" to a Mormon president:
(a) The Mormon "prophet" -- whoever that might be 'tween 2012-2020...
(b) The Mormon "god" as one of who knows how many "gods"?
Nevermind, for a few posts, the Mormon "prophet." What tends to get neglected in these discussions is...
A few previous articles have cracked a window on this:
In the first linked article above, Mormon Neal Chandler highlights how in the 19th century...
* Mormons forced communism upon its people -- and then not (United Order)
* Adhered to theocracies under its first two "prophets" -- and then slowly drew back
* Encourage its Utah Territory voters to be Democrats -- and then told whole groups of people wholesale to "balance it out" as Republicans as statehood approached
* Excluded blacks -- and then late in the 20th century not
* Said polygamy was a condition of the highest degree of glory -- and then not (and that was after polygamy was condemned as an "abomination" in the 1830 Book of Mormon and monogamy fully embraced in the 1831 and 1832 Lds "scripture" Doctrine & Covenants...all as Joseph Smith supposedly had polygamy "secretly" revealed to him to start it up in 1831!
We can see from these historical examples how the Mormon "god" loves to change his mind on a whim!
From the second article linked above: What makes Mitt the kind of person he is ruthlessly opportunistic, dishonest, insincere, willing to say anything for advantage, lacking in conscience, preoccupied with appearance, etc., on the one hand, yet squeaky clean, family-oriented, disciplined, boring, and predictable, on the other? My new e-book, A Mormon Story, sheds light on the culture that produced Mitt Romney.
Good question. (It's one I've raised -- and answered numerous times on various FR threads)
The answer, says this ex-Mormon in the book referenced above is: (From the article): The book reveals a value system that ultimately has no absolutes, other than the need to conform to deep-seated, highly-controlling authoritarianism that pervades LDS culture. That culture emphasizes a Mormon tradition known as "eternal progression" undoctrinal spiritual evolution in which even God is changing. It also emphasizes the notion that the latest words of governing church leaders trump the Word of God found in the scriptures (including LDS scripture).
IOW, EVERYTHING in Mormonism -- from its theology to its social practices -- is up for potential change at the whim of the Mormon god. Bottom-line: There is no bottom-line in Mormonism! There is no bedrock doctrine that cannot be replaced!
There isn't even an Ultimate god in Mormonism...Nobody knows who the gods are that were part of the council which appointed the god of this world -- a former man, say Mormons.
So there's not even any Ultimate Authority in Mormonism!
Indeed. If Romney became POTUS, it would = giving the Mormon church more unprecedented PR proselytizing power even if Romney did zero to promote that.
This would open the door wide open for the massive LDS public relations propaganda campaign. (This especially applies to POTUS and may or may not apply to all political races)
Think about Bill Clinton for a moment as a supposed "presidential role-model" disaster for our young generation re: the scandal. Any president the voting block elevates to the highest role model position in our land accords the highest vote of respectability to the public aspects of what that person stands for. If that person, for example, is a neatly tucked-away communist who's adopted a mask of "family values," & we elect him president, we are telling our kids that communism is OK to emulate. Furthermore, we are handing proselytizing fuel to communists everywhere. It would fuel their door-to-door boldness and other aggressive campaigns to be able to say, "See. Our respectable Communist leader holds the highest office in the land. Come study what helped make the man he is today!"
Mitt? The cousin of Mitt's father (Marion Romney) was one of the three highest-ranking Mormons in the Lds Hierarchy. So what did Mitt's father's cousin teach who Mitt (& other true-believing Mormons) are:
The truth is man is a child of God a God in embryo." (Marion G. Romney, in Conference Report, April 1973, p. 136; or Ensign, July 1973, p. 14).
Yes, most people may be able to discern that Mormonism is a cult to stay away from...but not children...not the spiritually vulnerable.
Look at that thru their eternal eyes.
Well, this is exactly what I've been saying for MONTHS with this chart below: (1) That the Lds "prophet" is acknowledged by Mormons to have greater power and authority than any given president (hence, it's why Lds thumbed their noses at laws re: bigamy and polygamy clamp-downs for about 80 years!! (1831-1910...when they finally stopped their secret solemnizing of plural marriages...1890 didn't do the trick...otherwise, their "prophet" wouldn't have needed "Manifesto II" on the subject in 1903...and they wouldn't have needed to dethrown two Lds "apostles" in 1907 who were secretly solemnizing additional plural marriages)
And that consecration vow Moody references? (You'll find that in the chart below at the far right)
|Lds Leader||Chronological 'Prophet' or Fundamental # (or Other Title)||Overlap Areas: Could the President of the U.S. become a 'puppet' to an Lds 'Prophet?' (The Lds Prophets -- in their own words)|
|John Taylor||Lds 'Prophet' #3||The Almighty has established this kingdom with order and laws and every thing pertaining thereto [so] that when the nations shall be convulsed, we may stand forth as saviours and finally redeem a ruined world, not only in a religious but in a political point of view. (Journal of Discourses, vol. 9, p. 342, April 13, 1862)|
|John Taylor||Lds 'Prophet' #3||The LDS Church -- in 2001 -- thought it well to pull this quote from John Taylor to emphasize it: "The Lord...is desirous to show us how to save ourselves, how to bless ourselves temporally and spiritually, intellectually, morally, physically, POLITICALLY..." (Lds Church owned Deseret News, Nov. 19, 1865, p. 2, as quoted in Teachings of Presidents of the Church: John Taylor (2001, p. 178). Also from p. 178: "The idea of strictly religious feelings with us, and nothing else, is out of the question...Our religion is more comprehensive than that of the world...it embraces all the interests of humanity in every conceivable phrase..." (Original source: The Gospel Kingdom, 1943, p. 168)|
|Orson Hyde||President of the Lds Quorum of the 12 Apostles for 28 years (1847-1875)||What the world calls Mormonism will rule every nation...God has decreed it, and his own right arm will accomplish it. This will make the heathen rage. (Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, p. 53)|
|Heber J. Grant||Lds 'Prophet' #7||"Elder Marion G. Romney recalled the counsel of President Heber J. Grant: 'My boy, you always keep your eye on the President of the Church, and if he ever tells you to do anything, and it is wrong, and you do it, the Lord will bless you for it.' Then with a twinkle in his eye, he said, 'But you don't need to worry. The Lord will never let his mouthpiece lead the people astray'" (in Conference Report, Oct. 1960, p. 78)." Cited in Official Lds publication Search the Commandments: Melchizedek Priesthood Personal Study Guide, p. 209 (1984)|
|Harold B. Lee||Lds 'Prophet' #11||...President Harold B. Lee said: 'We must learn to give heed to the words and commandments that the Lord shall give through his prophet, '...as if from mine own mouth...(D&C 21:4-5)...You may not like what comes from the authority of the Church. It may contradict your political views. It may contradict your social views. It may interfere with some of your social life. But if you listen to these things, as if from the mouth of the Lord himself..." Cited in official Lds publication Remember Me: Relief Society Personal Study Guide I, p. 27 (1989)|
|Spencer Kimball||Lds 'Prophet' #12||"President Spencer W. Kimball said: '...We deal with many things which are thought to be not so spiritual; but all things are spiritual with the Lord, and he expects us to listen, and to obey..." (In Conference Report, Apr. 1977, p. 8; or Ensign, May 1977, p. 7) Cited in official Lds publication Come, Follow Me: Melchizedek Priesthood Personal Study Guide 1983, p.12 (1983)|
|What about Marion G. Romney, cousin to Mitt's father?||Who was he in Lds hierarchy? (Title: 'President' - Top 3 of church as 2nd counselor to both #11 & #12 Lds 'prophets')||"Elder Neal A. Maxwell has said: 'Following the living prophets is something that must be done in all seasons and circumstances. We must be like President Marion G. Romney, who humbly said, '..I have never hesitated to follow the counsel of the Authorities of the Church even though it crossed my social, professional, and political life' (Conference Report, April 1941, p. 123). There are, or will be moments when prophetic declarations collide with our pride or our seeming personal interests...Do I believe in the living prophet even when he speaks on matters affecting me and my specialty directly? Or do I stop sustaining the prophet when his words fall in my territory? if the latter, the prophet is without honor in our country! (Things As They Really Are, p. 73). Cited in official Lds publication, Search the Commandments: Melchizedek Priesthood Personal Study Guide, pp. 275-276 (1984)|
|Ezra Taft Benson||Lds 'Prophet' #13||Benson speech given 2/26/80 @BYU. Summary: remember, if there is ever a conflict between earthly knowledge and the words of the prophet, you stand with the prophet (See excerpts re: 3 of 14 'fundamentals' below) Source: Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet|
|Benson (cont'd)||Fundamental #5||5. 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. (My Q: Ya hear that Mitt Romney?)|
|Benson (cont'd)||Fundamental #9||9. The prophet can receive revelation on any matter, temporal or spiritual. (My Q: Still listening, Mitt?)|
|Benson (cont'd)||Fundamental #10||10. The prophet may advise on civic matters. (My Q: What say ye Mitt?)|
|B.H. Roberts||LDS Historian and Seventy. Note: Roberts was an elected Democratic Congressman from Utah in 1898 -- but was NEVER seated by Congress because of grass roots uproar vs. Roberts, who took a THIRD simultaneous wife in the early 1890s. Grass roots America collected 7 MILLION signatures on 28 banners and presented them to Congress...in pre-mass media 1800s!||[T]he kingdom of God... is to be a POLITICAL INSTITUTION THAT SHALL HOLD SWAY OVER ALL THE EARTH; TO WHICH ALL OTHER GOVERNMENTS WILL BE SUBORDINATE AND BY WHICH THEY WILL BE DOMINATED. The Rise and Fall of Nauvoo, 1900, p. 180|
|Mitt Romney as POTUS???||Aside from above prophetic impositions, why would Mitt not only honor what these 'prophets' have spoken, but what a future Lds 'prophet' may tell him to do?||The Law of Consecration Oath Mitt Romney has sworn in the Mormon temple (done before marriage/sealing in 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 this, the book of Doctrine and Covenants [he displays the book], 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." Source: What is an LDS Church/Mormon temple marriage/sealing? [Q: Please define 'Zion': The LDS PR Web site (lds.org) defines its primary meaning: "membership in the [LDS] church."]|
Addendum: Salt Lake Tribune, June 4, 2007: Romney candidacy has resurrected last days prophecy of Mormon saving the Constitution
Note especially the bold face portion below:
WASHINGTON - It's Mormon lore, a story passed along by some old-timers about the importance of their faith and their country. In the latter days, the story goes, the U.S. Constitution will hang by a thread and a Mormon will ride in on a metaphorical white horse to save it. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints says it does not accept the legend - commonly referred to as the "White Horse Prophecy" - as doctrine. The issue, however, has been raised on those occasions when Mormons have sought the Oval Office: George Romney was asked about it during his bid in 1968, Sen. Orrin Hatch discussed it when he ran in 2000, and now Mitt Romney. "It is being raised," says Phil Barlow, a professor of Mormon history and culture at Utah State University. "I've heard it a bit lately." Romney says he doesn't believe in the supposed prophecy, nor did his father when he ran. "I haven't heard my name associated with it or anything of that nature," Mitt Romney told The Salt Lake Tribune during an interview earlier this year. "That's not official church doctrine. There are a lot of things that are speculation and discussion by church members and even church leaders that aren't official church doctrine. I don't put that at the heart of my religious belief." The disputed prophecy was recorded in a diary entry of a Mormon who had heard the tale from two men who were with Joseph Smith in Nauvoo, Ill. when he supposedly declared the prophecy. "You will see the Constitution of the United States almost destroyed," the diary entry quotes Smith as saying. "It will hang like a thread as fine as a silk fiber." Not only will the Mormons save the Constitution, under the prediction, but the prophecy goes further, insinuating that Mormons will control the government. "Power will be given to the White Horse to rebuke the nations afar off, and you obey it, for the laws go forth from Zion," the prophecy says.
We already have a false God leasing the USA. He is named Obama and his religion is socialism from the sub sect liberalism.
Now why would we want to hold Lds to anything less than what the Mormon Jesus does? "Therefore I would that ye should BE PERFECT, even as I, or your Father who is in heaven is perfect." (3 Nephi 12:48, Book of Mormon)
(Did ya notice that this says BE perfect -- not BECOME perfect?)
Are Lds perfect? Have Lds done ALL they can do per 2 Nephi 25:23? If they haven't, how will grace ever begin to kick in per the Mormon standard found in 2 Nephi 25:23 -- "AFTER ALL they can do"?
Now do you see why Evangelicals stress
that God, not ourselves, is our source of righteousness (Romans 10:3)
that Jesus Christ, not ourselves, is our source of righteousness (1 Cor. 1:30)
that were saved by grace alone (Romans 11:6)
that the true gospel is ALWAYS gracious & grace-filled (Acts 20:24)
and that this all can be a point of agreement between Christians and transitioning Mormons cause even when it comes to alignment with Gods will, does not 2 Nephi 10:24 in the Book of Mormon say, Wherefore, my beloved brethren, reconcile yourselves to the will of God, and not to the will of the devil and the flesh; and remember, after ye are reconciled unto God, that it is ONLY IN AND THROUGH THE GRACE OF GOD THAT YE ARE SAVED.
Gods will is the same for all of us;
Mormon or Evangelical;
saint or sinner.
After all, He intended us all to be His people;
and He intended that once we became sinners, that we would become holy (saint) in His Son (1 Cor. 1:30). Christ is our holiness; Christ is our righteousness. He is our Standard! And the Father accepts nothing less than perfection. He is indeed perfect. Hes my substitute. Im holding on to Him when I appear in His presence.
So...before Smith got it wrong in 2 Nephi 25:23, at least got it right both in 10:24 in that chapter and parts of 2:4-8: Salvation is free
And by the law no flesh is justified
Behold, he offereth himself a sacrifice for sin, to answer the ends of the law, unto all those who have a broken heart and a contrite spirit; and unto none else can the ends of the law be answered. Wherefore, how great the importance to make these things known unto the inhabitants of the earth, that they may know that there is no flesh that can dwell in the presence of God, save it be through the merits and mercy, and grace of the Holy Messiah, who layeth down his life
(2 Nephi 2:4-5, 7-8)
Mormons think of grace as primarily future-tense due to Book of Mormon passages like 2 Nephi 25:23 and Moroni 10:32...as mentioned in a previous post...it's like some after-burner will kick in to both "save" the Mormon and lead them to perfection.
The apostle Paul destroyed that nonsense:
...the gospel, by the power of God who has saved us and called us to a holy lifeNOT because of anything WE have done BUT because of his own purpose and grace. This grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time... (2 Tim. 1:8-9)
#1 We're saved by the character of graciousness exhibited by God as exercised in His Son, Jesus Christ; not the character of man.
#2 And to pre-empt complete boasting on man's part, 'twas done before the clocked ticked once. (That's why the apostle Paul said that if works served as man's way to God, WE could boast about how WE worked our way into God's presence see Ephesians 2:8-9)
Think of all this w/this illustration:
Parental "grace" or "favor" extended by adopted parents is "grace" extended to all they adopt, right?
But say you adopted a 12 yo boy who no matter what "pure gift" you gave to him @ his birthday or Christmas time, he would absolutely insist that he "work" for it..."pay you back" for it...and even eventually billed himself for "room and board" during his teen years to "pay you back" for that, too...
Believe me, such a 'tude exhibited by the "pay-back boy" would get old soon enough. How many times would the father say to Himself, "You know this boy can never pay back how I reached into the darkest part of the world to rescue him; yet he thinks he can 'earn' his way into sonship." At some point, this legalism is going to become "offensive" to a Gracious Father -- just like it would if your adopted son could never simply "receive" gifts from you.
Bottom line: Does the above describe a grace-filled father-son relationship?; or is that a legalistic tit-for-tat campaign to "prove" himself "worthy" as if he was a mere "house tenant" -- instead of acting like a true adopted son?
The apostle Paul also made it clear to the Galatians that they could nullify grace. Consider these three passages he wrote to them:
I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing! [My note: If we de-magnify God's grace, we set it apart...and belittle the cross of Christ, which the Mormons don't honor, anyway]
Galatians 3:1-3: 1You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified. 2I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law, or by believing what you heard? 3Are you so foolish? After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort?
Galatians 5:4: You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace. [Example of grace nullification]
The apostle Paul also told the Romans 11:5-6: 5 So too, at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace. 6 And if by grace, then IT CANNOT BE BASED ON WORKS; IF IT WERE, GRACE WOULD NO LONGER BE GRACE.
Simply put: Grace is an unearned, undeserved, unmerited gift!
#1 8 For it is BY GRACE you have been saved, THROUGH FAITHand this is NOT FROM YOURSELVES, it is the GIFT God 9 NOT by works, so that no one can boast. (Eph. 2:8-9)
#2 Works nullify grace! ...at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace. 6 And if by grace, then it CANNOT be based on works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace. (Romans 11:5-6; cf. Gal. 2:15-16 -- justified by faith in Christ; not works of the law)
#3 We didn't qualify for eternal life; No, He qualified us: ...giving joyful thanks to the Father, who HAS qualified you to share in the inheritance of his holy people in the kingdom of light. (Col. 1:12) [Do you see the PAST tense there -- "HAS qualified you" -- you seem to neglect too much of God's past tense actions & lean too heavily ONLY on either a present or future tense focus].
#4 Even considering future tense...what does Paul say? ...being confident of this, that he who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus. (Phil. 1:6)
Give it a rest
Obama is an atheist with Islamic sympathies.
I can work with Mormons. Which Mormon belief makes them a threat to the Constitution?
I guess we can all ignore that “freedom of religion” crap now. Good post. Thanks for opening my eyes. We should stick with the atheist Marxist in the White House.
FOUR MORE YEARS!
Good thing a Jew is not running for President. Then, the religious bigot would really be out in force.
So you would rather have a Muslim serve another 4 years?
only if you're not the one.
I'd rather have the Mormon than the moron
This is sheer idiocy...rank stupidity.
So does that mean that a different man worshiping a different false god is ok to be president?
The current occupant worships a false god.
The potential president worships a false god.
In that respect there is no difference between the two.
So the question is do we want a person being president who worships a false god? It is a good question considering this is the religion forum.
If all I have is a choice between the death worshipping moon cult and the cult of Joseph Smith I know which I consider “the lesser of two weevils.”
We have a communist in the white house now. Mitt Romney is not a communist and anyone who is not a communist is going to be a drastic improvement over what we have.
We have a two party system and a choice of one of two people for the next president. The communist has to be defeated. There is really nothing more to think about.
It might be helpful to study Mormonism, to find the answers for yourself.
The question is a good one, considering this is the religion forum: do we want as president a man who worships a false god?
I must respond to you as an evangelical Christian.
The United States of America is a Constitutional Republic.
God made a covenant with Israel. That was the only nation that He made a covenant with. His new covenant is made with those who believe in the blood of Jesus to cover their sins (Luke 22:20: “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.”) There are believers everywhere in the world that are part of this new covenant.
God does not have a special relationship with ANY country. God’s people can be found in China, in Korea, in Zimbabwe, in Nigeria, in Brazil.
YES - we Christians have a special duty to work in all realms, and we believe that following God’s laws are beneficial to ensure general happiness and welfare. So we work hard to see that those good laws are implemented in civic society. But we cannot save anyone, or make them go to heaven, through the implementation of civil law.
Mormons do not believe in salvation through the blood of Jesus Christ alone. They reject this God - they have their own made-up version of God. I will pray for Mitt Romney and for his salvation.
But God is on the throne and He always will be.
Who said anything about denying freedom of religion?
This is about Mormonism and Romney’s belief.
Because this is the religion forum its a good question.
Do we want as president a man who worships a false god?
We have a false god leading the USA now.
I believe a communist could worship the true and living God, and go to heaven. But I don't want a communist to lead our country. I believe that God instituted civil government, but I don't require that its leaders all worship the true and living God. That would be an impossible yardstick. We all need to live here on earth with one another in a civil manner, but we are not all called by God to be His children. The path is narrow and few find it.
Your addition to the article title: “Yes, indeed!!! Lest we have a false god leading USA” is a total misrepresentation of Mr. Brody’s article.
I think he’s been cleared as a Free Republic-approved spammer.
“Do we want as president a man who worships a false god?”
Do you prefer the godless Marxist we have now? Is this a real world question?
This is the same cr@p that the the anti-Catholics were posting when Kennedy ran
God have mercy on us.
This is the same CR@P that was said when Kennedy ran for Pres.
My question was: do we want a man as president who worships a false god?
Your question to me does not answer my question.
Asking a question in response to a question is not an answer.
Responding to what you think should have been asked, is also a non answer.
I will repeat my statement in a more understandable way:
I do not want any man who worships a false god to be president.
I was alive and very aware of politics when Kennedy ran, I never once remember anyone saying he worshiped a false god.
Now people talked about his philandering a lot.
You see there was no need to say Kennedy worshiped a false god, because he didn’t.
Jer 18:7 At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy it;  If that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them.  And at what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it;  If it do evil in my sight, that it obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good, wherewith I said I would benefit them.
As for what might incline God to so judge a nation, if only we had hands as clean as the people of Nineveh, I might have hope for us. But we have known the way of the true God, and have known his power to bring us blessing, peace, and favor as a nation. Yet now we are being asked to choose between a man whose god is the utopian state of Marxism, versus a man who sees himself as a god, one day to be worshipped on far worlds. If a third choice does not appear, I will conclude we are indeed under judgment, at which turn my desire will be to keep myself clean before God and hope for His mercy.
And to remain clean, among other things, I cannot ever, ever give my support to the purveyor of a false Gospel, a false Christ, a multiplicity of false and pagan deities. To do so would be to boldly disobey Christ, to spit in Gods face, right at the moment he is taking us to the woodshed for our rebellion. This strikes me as foolish in the extreme. It is a free country, for now, and you are free to vote as like, for whatever reason you like. But for me and mine, we will take our chances with trusting God and not man.
“Give it a rest”
Thank you. This crap has gotten really old.
Didn’t they worry about a similar issue with Kennedy? “Won’t he be taking his orders from the Pope?”
“I do not want any man who worships a false god to be president.”
I’m sorry, I thought I was dealing with an adult who lives in reality. In my opinion (here comes your answer) we have two choices; someone who recognizes a higher authority than himself (although that higher authority does not meet your criteria as God) and someone who doesn’t. Those are the choices, like it or not. I think our wisest choice, misguided as he may be, is the man who recognizes a greater authority than Man, or in the Marxist’s case, the state.
So yes, strictly speaking and choosing one above the other, as they are my only choice, I choose the man who believes in a false God.
It’s the economy stupid. Did Mass. become a Mormon state?
Mormons ain’t so bad as da udder M word...
Do you occasionally catch flies and eat them?
One can be totally opposed to the Mormon religion, due to its false doctrines about Christ and the Holy Trinity--and still be in favor of a Mormon holding a political office. That, in fact, is where I stand.
” What you say, Willis “ ?
Think born-again Jimmy Carter.
I agree for the most part with your statement, with this one exception (because I know Mormonism) Romney is who he is because of his belief in Mormonism not in spite of it.
Romney has not governed in a contrary way to this belief.
Many people have been trying to make this point over the years, and to some extent have failed because unfortunately most people (even Mormons) know little of Mormonism and when it is exposed view it as a personal attack on individuals (which it is not).
No one would be raising these questions if we didn’t have a Mormon bishop as the GOP candidate.
We can accuse Colofornian of being a bigot, and certainly this issue is central to him—but I haven’t seen any misrepresentations of what Mormons do and believe.
The major problem is that Romney has a record as a baby killer, a gay activist, and a big government socialist. He put through taxpayer funded abortion as a part of Romneycare, and he was single handedly responsible for making Massachusetts the break-through state that forced gay marriage on us.
And, whatever Mormons profess to believe, they line up to vote for Romney, no matter what he does.
Yes, one can argue that having a gay, socialist Muslim in the Whitehouse is worse than having a gay activist, socialist Mormon in the White House.
But that’s the problem. The GOP has never given us any other choice but the lesser of two evils—with the sole exception of Reagan, who managed to defy the establishment and beat their candidate. As a result, we have been going from bad to worse in this country, as far as the federal government is concerned, ever since the time of Woodrow Wilson and Teddy Roosevelt.
I would suggest that people read what Colofornian posts before condemning him for bigotry, since everything he says is, regretably, factual. Unpleasant, and I sorely wish it were unnecessary. But Romney and the GOPe have put it all front and center, where we have to deal with it.
It’s a bit like asking, who would you rather be ruled by, a Shiite Muslim or a Sunni Muslim. Well, actually, neither.
(Thank you for bumping the thread)
You’d prefer Obama, then?
Half muslim, half black-liberation-theology racist?
A guy who actually — not theoretically — THREATENS Christian freedom of religion daily?
As a Christian, I don’t understand how ANYONE could prefer Obama. So I assume you’re not Christian?