« "Diamonds v. Pearls" Student Blasts CNN (Updated With CNN Response) | Main | Will Obama Turn Out Young Voters In Iowa? »

Risk V. Reward: The Anti-Romney Phone Calls

16 Nov 2007 01:14 pm

Whodunnit?

Here is why it is unlikely that Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson or any top-tier challenger to Mitt Romney had anything to do with the wave of anti-Mormon, Anti-Romney phone calls in Iowa and New Hampshire.

Think about the reward. Would the questions asked by the firm elicit any meaningful data for the campaign who wrote them? Would the relative reward of a few dozen voters changing their minds about Romney because of his Mormonism be worth the avalanche of embarassment and ill-will that would accrue to the candidate who authorized the phone calls?

Political consultants aren't stupid -- they understand that culprits eventually will out, that the profusion of citizen reporters and company moles virtually guarantees that the identity of the organization that contracted with the phone bank will one day be known.

Even if the goal is to earn media coverage by planting some audacious phone calls and then allowing the media pick up on them -- notice how the media coverage repeats the explicit anti-Mormon claims -- it's probably true that the sympathy that attaches itself to Romney washes out the reptition.

My guess: the responsible party is a free agent sympathetic to but not associated with a real campaign -- or an anti-GOP group testing messages -- or a dull party apparatchick who works for a small, inconsequential interest group funded by wealthy donors.

Comments (110)

Maybe it's Ron Paul ...

I am also a "Mormon" (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) and I am OUTRAGED at the way my religion, faith, and belief set is being bashed.

What Catholic, Baptist, Jehovah Witness, etc. would tolerate this? Even Muslims are being treated better than what they are putting Mitt Romney and my church through, and we are Christians!!!!

America was successfully founded on religious freedom.

As a resident of MA I have one thing and one thing only to say about Mitt Romney. The man is the real deal. When the ceiling tile fell in the new tunnel in Boston he came on, fired Matt Amorello and took charge of the situation. I'll never forget his first press conference on it. He had NO notes. He knew more in 24 hours about the entire project than Amorello knew after years on his hack job. It was simply amazing.

He is a born manager, a leader, and to be President you have to be a manager and a leader.

I feel for ya Debrar - it's sad that Romney is getting picked on for his faith. That would never happen to a Jewish candidate, or someone based on their race or sex. But for some reason, religious bigotry towards Mormons is permitted.

P- Thanks for the comment.

We are grown-ups and we can handle life, but what makes this media hooplah even more offensive is that falsehoods, misconceptions, partial truths, bias, hidden agendas, etc. are being stated as fact, as truth, as concrete reality -- and Mitt Romney is being used as the poster child for the LDS church.

Can ALL the candidates have their backgrounds, their faith, their faith's background, their families, their lifestyles, their associations; their EVERYTHING scrutinized, analyzed, and misconstrued … and not complain, can they come out clean?

Everyone has something in their closets, some more than others, and it is the EPITOME OF ARROGANCE AND HYPOCRISY TO hold one candidate at a level that others are not required being accountable towards.

Whether you have a designated religion or not, shouldn't ALL of the candidates be people of morals, ethics, values, and shouldn’t they ALL uphold the principles upon which this great country was raised-up and founded on?

I hate this garbage about religion. I don't care what Mitt Romney's religion is, I don't care if Fred Thompson goes to church, I don't care if John McCain has changed his religion and I don't care if Rudy has gone through two or ten wives. Just tell me your solutions to the problems of our country. That is what I am looking for.

The Morman's huff and puff outrage and squeal "bigotry" anytime a question is raised about their very questionable religion. I want to know what sorts of cons my possible President may have fallen prey to. A religion begun by a guy who had a revelation as a 14 yo boy from an angel named Maroni certainly seems like a con. It gets better....sacred underwear? celestial marriage? the end of the world happening in Missouri? American Indians as the "lost tribes of Israel? whew! And we're concerned about Romney"s flip flops!

The American public needs to know the following facts about Mitt Romney and his Religion:

According to Mormons, God was once a man like us and we can one day become a God like him. (Though in fact that wouldn't be much of a change at all, since according to Mormon theology God is not omnipresent but has a physical body much like our own and lives on a planet which orbits the star "Kolob.") According to Mormons Jesus Christ is a created being who was chosen to become earth's savior rather than his brother Satan because Jesus submitted a superior plan of salvation than his brother Satan submitted. Mormons do not view God as a Trinity but believe the Father, Son and Holy Spirit to be three entirely separate beings.

Temple Mormons are required to wear special underwear, they call this underwear "garments", this underwear has special masonic symbols sewn over their chest and knee. Since Mitt Romney is a Temple Mormon I am sure he wears this. Temple Mormons are given a new name in the temple, this is the name that they must use to get into heaven. So, Mitt has been given his secret name. Mrs. Romney has also been given a secret name that she can only tell Mitt so he can call her (by her temple secret name) to get her into heaven. Mormons are also taught secret handshakes. They believe the Book of Mormon before the Bible, as they state, "We believe the Bible as far it is translated correctly" but they consider the Book of Mormon to be the absoulute word of God. The Bible is secondary to the BOM! This is the main sign of a cult, they have their own book that trumps the Bible. Mormons are also widely considered to be a cult because they teach that there is no salvation outside of their Church and that we must accept their leaders, including Joseph Smith, as God's prophets if we are ever going to enter into the kingdom of God.

Does any of this sound like Christianity? Not to me!

Do a web search on Mormonism. Its not hard to find the truth about this corruption of Christianity. There is no doubt that Mormons preach a "different good news" than that which was preached by the apostles. And the apostle Paul said that anyone doing so will be eternally condemned. (Gal. 1:8,9)

Do you realize how large the LDS church is, and how fast it is growing? There are tons of people who believe the same things which Mitt Romney believes, and you live next door to many of them. You benefit from them in times of disasters, you hear about them helping other people, you find that many of them are used as role models.

Do you know that the Catholic Church, the church of President John F. Kennedy, is ALSO considered a cult?

I think Mitt Romney HAS shown you how he does business; you are only grabbing at things that you can cause rancor over. Mitt Romney is not trying to convert you to his religion, so you do not need to agree with ONE WORD of the LDS church’s doctrine.

If your desire was to have Mitt Romney as President, you would care less about his religion. So, the point is that you do not want him for President and therefore try to make an issue out of anything you feel might benefit your cause -- whether it is true, misconstrued, irrelevant, biased, or nonsensical.

Romney is not running for an ecclesiastic position, he is running for the President of the United States of America. His actions have shown his values, just as the other candidates running for this important position have shown theirs.

Sounds like Michael was behind the anti-Romney calls :)

RE: Michael Satterlee

Wow I am impressed! I am a practicing Mormon and get sick an tired of the ludicrous claims some of these anti-mormon whackos come up with. Most of it is patently untrue and has been debunked repeatedly by Mormons over the years, so answering those questions is tiresome at best. However most everything you say is accurate. I would beg to differ that I need to call upon my Wife's secret name for her to get into Heaven, she is by no means dependant on my salavation for her own. There is a doctrine that exists that is similar to that, but it is probably too much to go into on a political blog, but I assure you it does not prevent anyone from entering heaven.

We do recognize the Bible as Holy Scripture and the word of God, we just realize that over the years there have been Translation errors, and that the decision by commitee on which books were to be included in the Bible, occurred many years after we feel that the church had been corrupted.

So now that I have given weight to everything you post.....So What?

What does it matter on whether he can be President? I don't see any of these concepts affecting his policy decisions. I have heard that people are afraid of someone who aspires to Godhood being president, but hey the only way to do that is to live a righteous life. So if anything he has more incentive to be a good president so that he doesn't lose that priveledge in the after-life. What would you lose by being a bad president? I assume you are Born Again and thus already saved. Would you lose your Harp Playing priveledges?

The American public needs to know the following facts about Mitt Romney and his Religion:

According to Mormons, God was once a man like us and we can one day become a God like him. (Though in fact that wouldn't be much of a change at all, since according to Mormon theology God is not omnipresent but has a physical body much like our own and lives on a planet which orbits the star "Kolob.")
-We believe that we can attain exaltation, and be like Gods, however God will still be OUR God forever. Also, in my 19 years of being the church I have never heard "Kolob" at church or out of the mouths of any of the Prophets. The only people I hear that from are anti-mormons who try to make us sound like a cult.

According to Mormons Jesus Christ is a created being who was chosen to become earth's savior rather than his brother Satan because Jesus submitted a superior plan of salvation than his brother Satan submitted. Mormons do not view God as a Trinity but believe the Father, Son and Holy Spirit to be three entirely separate beings.
-We believe that in the pre-existence we were all spirit brothers and sisters. We do not think of Jesus and Satan as LITERAL brothers...you are right in the trinity. We believe they are three seperate beings, but you know the whole concept of the trinity wasn't even introduced until later, notice how in the bible the trinity isn't mentioned once.
Temple Mormons are required to wear special underwear, they call this underwear "garments", this underwear has special masonic symbols sewn over their chest and knee. Since Mitt Romney is a Temple Mormon I am sure he wears this. Temple Mormons are given a new name in the temple, this is the name that they must use to get into heaven. So, Mitt has been given his secret name. Mrs. Romney has also been given a secret name that she can only tell Mitt so he can call her (by her temple secret name) to get her into heaven. Mormons are also taught secret handshakes.
-Temple Garments are just to remind you of covenants you made with God. It's like somebody wearing a cross. And all the other stuff you said doesn't matter, it may be considered weird but there are certain things in every religion that make it different from others.
They believe the Book of Mormon before the Bible, as they state, "We believe the Bible as far it is translated correctly" but they consider the Book of Mormon to be the absoulute word of God. The Bible is secondary to the BOM! This is the main sign of a cult, they have their own book that trumps the Bible. Mormons are also widely considered to be a cult because they teach that there is no salvation outside of their Church and that we must accept their leaders, including Joseph Smith, as God's prophets if we are ever going to enter into the kingdom of God.
-We hold the Bible on the same level as The Book Of Mormon and believe they both testify of Jesus Christ. There is lots of evidence that the Bible HAS been changed over all these years, that is why we say as far as it is translated correctly. Since the BOM was translated in the 1800s it has not had time to be changed and it stands as the original copy.
Does any of this sound like Christianity? Not to me!
-Go and read the articles of faith for what we really believe, if you look at the positive rather then all the skewed mis represented negatives you will find that there are far more positive christian aspects to mormonism. The fact that our whole church is based around Jesus Christ makes us some form of christianity. Not mainstream, but none the less still christian. Look up the definition of a Christian in the dictionary it says something to the affect of "a follower of Jesus Christ".
Do a web search on Mormonism. Its not hard to find the truth about this corruption of Christianity. There is no doubt that Mormons preach a "different good news" than that which was preached by the apostles. And the apostle Paul said that anyone doing so will be eternally condemned. (Gal. 1:8,9)
-Not everything you read on the internet is true. Anybody can make any religion sound horrible if you try. Try this..go to LDS.ORG

The day-long response to this incident, especially what I am beginning to sense as being somewhat orchestrated, is leading me to believe that it may be some kind of provocation (not unlike the old Russian concept of "provocatsia") or even what is known in the trade as "Black Propaganda." There is just a little to much screeching in response for my sensabilities. This "poll" is nothing compared to the viscious pre-primary "push polls" used against Steve Forbes in 1996 and against McCain in 2000 or that have been used against a number of other prominent candidates making disparaging inuendo about their religion or personal lives.

It is an outright prevarication that Mitt's church is not Christian. It is more First Century Christian than any other denomination. Members of the church believe every word of the original Greek New Testament, and spend twice as much time studying the Bible as they do studying the Book of Mormon.

Check http://MormonsAreChristian.blogspot.com for details.

Debra,

You say: Romney is not running for an ecclesiastic position, he is running for the President of the United States of America.

To me and many others, Romney's choice of religion tells us a lot about whether or not the man has good judgment and whether or not he might be easily deceived by our county's enemies. If Mitt will believe that the God of the Bible is a man who lives on a planet near the star Kolob, and believes this man/God from Kolob requires his worshippers to wear special underwear what else will he believe? Maybe anything Vladimir Putin and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad tell him.

Romney is a lousy leader who cares if he's Mormon he ruined Ma. and the GOP in Ma. its probably the GOP in ma. making the calls. Dump Mitt in 08.

This could be a tricked played by smart-as* Romney himself to gain some sympathy votes.

*****The company accused of the push polling, Western Wats Inc., their VP for operations is a Mitt Romney contributor! WELCH, JEFFREY MR. CEDARA HILLS, UT 84062 WESTERN WATS INC./BUSINESS MANAGE ROMNEY, MITT VIA ROMNEY FOR PRESIDENT INC. 09/30/2007 500.00 27931366119.

I think someone (Romney) is trying to round up sympathy votes. This fish stinks! ****************

Andrew:

You wrote: There is lots of evidence that the Bible HAS been changed over all these years, that is why we say as far as it is translated correctly. Since the BOM was translated in the 1800s it has not had time to be changed and it stands as the original copy.

First of all, you are wrong. The BOM has been changed many times since it was first "translated" in the 1800s. But even if you are right, which you are not - do some research, how would we know if it was translated correctly when Joseph Smith first supposedly "translated" it in the 1800s? No one saw "golden plates" he supposedly translated the BOM from but Joseph Smith. Then he says an angel took the plates back to heaven with him. How convenient.

This article is interresting and poignant. As for the previous poster - Michael Satterlee - he needs to get his facts straight.

Mormons believe that the Bibls is equal to the Book of Mormon in every respect - this has been stated time and again by all their leaders. Translation is not just an issue for Mormons, it is for all Christianity - which version do you use: NIV, KJT, Vulgate, etc..? Mormons are allowed to state their preference in translations just the same as any other Christian, and that is all the "as far as it is translated correctly" statement means.

Mormons do believe that the glory of God is omnipresent, but that he does have a distinct physical being that can only be in one place at a time. This is based, among other sources, upon teachings in the Bible (see Genesis 1:26-27, Acts 17:28). Also based upon these scriptures, as well as many others in the Bible, Mormons have a belief that God is the Father and that we are His children. Mormons do believe that the Father wants, and has prepared a way through Jesus Christ, for all his children to learn to be like him.

Mormons do not believe that Jesus submitted a better plan than Satan to Heavenly Father and that is why he is our Savior (as Michael stated above). Mormons do believe that Jesus is the offspring of God (His only Begotten Son - just as He is described in the Bible), and God himself, and that Jesus was called upon to be our Savior by Heavenly Father. Mormons also believe that Satan is contrary to God and wanted to usurp God's plan, and did submitt to Heavenly Father a seperate plan that was rejected by Heavenly Father). But Jesus only did the will of the Father (John 5:30), so you are wholey incorrect in your statements.

By the way, the concept of the "Trinity" is an old Christian tradition that is never mentioned anywhere in the Bible. Try to find the world trinity anywhere in any Bible and you will not locate it - no matter the translation. It is tradition and not Biblical in origin. Mormons are not necessarilly conventionally-traditional Christians, but they do believe in revealed scripture as written by prophets. They do believe completely in the Bible (and they believe in correct translations, not incorrect ones), as well as other scriptures that they believe testify of the divinity of Jesus and have been revealed by the miraculous work of God.

Mormons also believe that one does not need to rely soley upon tradition to understand the salvation of Jesus. They believe in modern-day prophets and continued revelation. They believe that God is the same yesterday, today and forever (Heb. 13:8) and that if He talked to prophets in the past, there is no reason to suppose that he has changed and now no longer talks to prophets (Amos 3:6).

And Yes, I am Mormon. If you want to know what a Mormon believes, ask one. I beleive in the things that I have written, not the falsities of Michael Satterlee - who obviously bases his belief about Mormons on false teachings that he learned from someone that apparently hates Mormons. Check your sources, that's all we ever ask.

Mitt would make an awesome President and handle the office with dignity, fighting for the traditional family values held by most Christians, and with supurb accumen, intelligence and managment ability. At least that is what I believe. Which is more than I can say for nearly any other candidate out there.


By and large any controversy in this matter has swirled around two
doctrinal issues—our view of the Godhead and our belief in the principle of
continuing revelation leading to an open scriptural canon. In addressing this
we do not need to be apologists for our faith, but we would like not to be
misunderstood. So with a desire to increase understanding and unequivocally
declare our Christianity, I speak today on the first of those two doctrinal
issues just mentioned.


Our first and foremost article of faith in The Church of Jesus Christ
of Latter-day Saints is “We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son,
Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.”2
We believe these three divine persons constituting a single Godhead are united
in purpose, in manner, in testimony, in mission. We believe Them to be filled
with the same godly sense of mercy and love, justice and grace, patience,
forgiveness, and redemption. I think it is accurate to say we believe They are
one in every significant and eternal aspect imaginable except believing
Them to be three persons combined in one substance, a Trinitarian notion never
set forth in the scriptures because it is not true.


Indeed no less a source than the stalwart Harper’s Bible Dictionary
records that “the formal doctrine of the Trinity as it was defined by the great
church councils of the fourth and fifth centuries is not to be found in
the [New Testament].”3


So any criticism that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
does not hold the contemporary Christian view of God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost
is not a comment about our commitment to Christ but rather a recognition
(accurate, I might add) that our view of the Godhead breaks with post–New
Testament Christian history and returns to the doctrine taught by Jesus
Himself. Now, a word about that post–New Testament history might be helpful.

Debrar,

You are a moronic hyprocrite. Muslims have as much of a right to religious freedom as freaks like you do, yet you think they should be persecuted more than you for not being Christians? Because you consider Catholicism to be a cult, America should be poking fun at Catholics instead of people of your faith? Have you ever heard of the Golden Rule?

And because the Mormon church encourages its members to help out their neighbors, is your point that the rest of America somehow owes them? Also, there are people from every faith that are viewed as role models so I don't understand your point. If you are representative of how all Mormons think, we are in trouble.

Michael Satterlee –

Mitt Romney is not the only "Mormon" on this planet, and you are addressing another one when you post a personal comment to me. I hate to say it this way, but your comments are so juvenile, bigoted, and see-through that I don’t have much to say to you that would be worth my time. I know your agenda, and it is ok if you have it. Many of us see through it.

“Romney's choice of religion tells us a lot about whether or not the man has good judgment.” You could also say the same about me, and I would thank you for that. The longer that I am a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (“Mormon”), and if I honor my faith, the more humble, appreciative, respectful .. and respectable, trustworthy, understanding, compassionate, Christ like, wise, etc. I try to become. These are some of the goals we as LDS members strive for, to become better followers of our Savior. What more can you ask, if you were asking about religion?

However, you comment is as if he is “new out of the shoot” – Mitt Romney is an established businessman, leader, intellectual, etc.

I find your comments ludicrous, especially since you personally cannot be all religions associated with all the other candidates, and so therefore have would not agree with their religion of choice .. and yet, YOU HAVE NOT DISAGREED WITH THEIR RELIGION, OR ABILITIES DUE TO THEIR RELIGION, as well.

Why do you think there are so many religions out there? All people do not believe the same on religion. Does this mean that they are not worthy of being President of the United States of America? We have a Muslim running for office. Are you a Muslim? Do you agree with their ideologies, history, and practices? From the history of the Muslim faith, can you trust how Muslims will act in office?

We can go further; I think that I have made my point.

In the year A.D. 325 the Roman emperor Constantine convened the Council of Nicaea to address—among other things—the growing issue of God’s alleged “trinity in unity.” What emerged from the heated contentions of churchmen, philosophers, and ecclesiastical dignitaries came to be known (after another 125 years and three more major councils)4 as the Nicene Creed, with later reformulations such as the Athanasian Creed. These various evolutions and iterations of creeds—and others to come over the centuries—declared the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost to be abstract, absolute, transcendent, imminent, consubstantial, coeternal, and unknowable, without body, parts, or passions and dwelling outside space and time. In such creeds all three members are separate persons, but they are a single being, the oft-noted “mystery of the trinity.” They are three distinct persons, yet not three Gods but one. All three persons are incomprehensible, yet it is one God who is incomprehensible.

We agree with our critics on at least that point—that such a formulation for divinity is truly incomprehensible. With such a confusing definition of God being imposed upon the church, little wonder that a fourth-century monk cried out, “Woe is me! They have taken my God away from me, . . . and I know not whom to adore or to address.”5 How are we to trust, love, worship, to say nothing of strive to be like, One who is incomprehensible and unknowable? What of Jesus’s prayer to His Father in Heaven that “this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent”?6

It is not our purpose to demean any person’s belief nor the doctrine of any religion. We extend to all the same respect for their doctrine that we are asking for ours. (That, too, is an article of our faith.) But if one says we are not Christians because we do not hold a fourth- or fifth-century view of the Godhead, then what of those first Christian Saints, many of whom were eyewitnesses of the living Christ, who did not hold such a view either?7

As a resident of MA I have only one thing to say about Mitt Romney. He is a fraud. He is the classic "say anything to get elected" guy. Once he got a whiff of Potomac Fever (roughly after 2004, when his- alleged- campaign to increase the # of Republicans in the MA legislature failed miserably; we LOST further seats!) he tacked Far Right, shifting almost all of his views- esp. his social views- w/in the span of roughly six months in a craven atttempt at appeasing certain elements of the national GOP electorate. Compare the rhetoric of Romney in his '94 Senate run, or his '02 Gubernatorial run, to today's Romney. Phony. And his record of accomplishment (as opposed to rhetoric) is sparse, especially when compared to the REAL achievements of other GOP contenders (at least one of whom, as Chief Executive of his jurisdiction, and saddled w/ an equally liberal Democratic legislative branch and establishment, achieved REAL conservative results on things that mattered; tax cuts, welfare reform and reduction, privatization, crime reduction, and more.)

Having said all of this, I will also say- attacks on Romney because of his religion are deplorable, and should be roundly condemned by all respectable Republicans. There are many reasons NOT to vote for Romney- his Mormonism isn't one of them.

Michael Satterlee, Where is Heaven? Surely you must know, if it isn't Kolob, it must be somewhere? So essentially one of our Prophets had the guts to name a location, it doesn't mean anything, it in no way alters the teachings of Christ. It is essentially an obscure doctrine that is brought up to make us sound more wacky than we really are (and yes we are wacky, Mormons eat a lot of Jello, have basketball courts in their buildings and all sorts of weird stuff).

So now lets get into the crux of it, you claim it speaks to Romneys judgement based on the beleif that God perhaps was a man at one time before gaining an exalted state? You beleive the same of anyone who wears clothing with religous symbology?

I am still guessing you are a Christian of some sort, I am guessing of the evangelical variety. But in fairness I am going to play this one safe and stick with something that applies a little more universally to many of the major religions, so i will stick with the Old Testament.

You beleive that God spoke to Moses in the form of a burning bush? You beleve that somewhere there is a Cheribum with a flaming word guarding the garden of Eden, to prevent future entrance? You believe that Moses rebuked God causing him to repent of the evil he was considering (Exodus 32:11-14)? You believe that Noah literally gathered every species in pairs (and 7 of many) on a boat made of gopherwood, and that boat landed on a mountain in Turkey?

Do I really need to go on and make a mockery of other religions? Basically the questioning someones judgement based on their religion is dangerous ground unless you are wholly athiest. I suspect you wouldn't have the specific problems with mormonism that you do if you were. Let people believe as they believe and worship as they worship as long as they are not harming you.

Oh and I don't normally try to explain the underwear thing, but think of it this way, it is merely a reminder of the commitments to Christ that we have made. Why Underwear? Well based on the design they keep us moral as well. It is hard to dress provacatively in garments. They also make us think twice about participating in any event that would cause us to expose them or remove them. Believe me, when I had a very attractive woman try to seduce me once while wearing nothing but a towel, that extra little thing definitely helped me from falling into infidelity.

So back to the real question. How are you afraid that this could affect the presidency. Only now try not to say that it shows a lack of judgement, because that can only lead to an atheist being an acceptable candidate (and many feel they lack good judgement as well)

We declare it is self-evident from the scriptures that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are separate persons, three divine beings, noting such unequivocal illustrations as the Savior’s great Intercessory Prayer just mentioned, His baptism at the hands of John, the experience on the Mount of Transfiguration, and the martyrdom of Stephen—to name just four.

With these New Testament sources and more8 ringing in our ears, it may be redundant to ask what Jesus meant when He said, “The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do.”9 On another occasion He said, “I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.”10 Of His antagonists He said, “[They have] . . . seen and hated both me and my Father.”11 And there is, of course, that always deferential subordination to His Father that had Jesus say, “Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.”12 “My father is greater than I.”13

To whom was Jesus pleading so fervently all those years, including in such anguished cries as “O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me”14 and “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me”?15 To acknowledge the scriptural evidence that otherwise perfectly united members of the Godhead are nevertheless separate and distinct beings is not to be guilty of polytheism; it is, rather, part of the great revelation Jesus came to deliver concerning the nature of divine beings. Perhaps the Apostle Paul said it best: “Christ Jesus . . . being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God.”16

A related reason The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is excluded from the Christian category by some is because we believe, as did the ancient prophets and apostles, in an embodied—but certainly glorified—God.17 To those who criticize this scripturally based belief, I ask at least rhetorically: If the idea of an embodied God is repugnant, why are the central doctrines and singularly most distinguishing characteristics of all Christianity the Incarnation, the Atonement, and the physical Resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ? If having a body is not only not needed but not desirable by Deity, why did the Redeemer of mankind redeem His body, redeeming it from the grasp of death and the grave, guaranteeing it would never again be separated from His spirit in time or eternity?18 Any who dismiss the concept of an embodied God dismiss both the mortal and the resurrected Christ. No one claiming to be a true Christian will want to do that.

Now, to anyone within the sound of my voice who has wondered regarding our Christianity, I bear this witness. I testify that Jesus Christ is the literal, living Son of our literal, living God. This Jesus is our Savior and Redeemer who, under the guidance of the Father, was the Creator of heaven and earth and all things that in them are. I bear witness that He was born of a virgin mother, that in His lifetime He performed mighty miracles observed by legions of His disciples and by His enemies as well. I testify that He had power over death because He was divine but that He willingly subjected Himself to death for our sake because for a period of time He was also mortal. I declare that in His willing submission to death He took upon Himself the sins of the world, paying an infinite price for every sorrow and sickness, every heartache and unhappiness from Adam to the end of the world. In doing so He conquered both the grave physically and hell spiritually and set the human family free. I bear witness that He was literally resurrected from the tomb and, after ascending to His Father to complete the process of that Resurrection, He appeared, repeatedly, to hundreds of disciples in the Old World and in the New. I know He is the Holy One of Israel, the Messiah who will one day come again in final glory, to reign on earth as Lord of lords and King of kings. I know that there is no other name given under heaven whereby a man can be saved and that only by relying wholly upon His merits, mercy, and everlasting grace19 can we gain eternal life.

GO ROMNEY!!!!

Enough is enough. If these phone calls were directed toward Muslims all hell would break loose. It would be intolerant to all of that faith. The United State of America is based on freeedom. Freedom to practice any religion you choose. There is no way that Mitt Romne if elected President of The United States could ever impose his religion or belief on others as a society.

Why don't you take a look at the Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (a Mormon)and also a Democrat. Is anyone sending anti-Mormon propaganda around with his name as the one being labeled. Harry Reid is in a very powerful position in government.

Why don't we focus on issues and qualifications of the candidates, and not try to come up with some religious litmus test to decide who can or can not be President.

Probable false flag. I'm amazed when otherwise intelligent people don't take the ol' self-wound into account when something like this comes up. I mean, how hard is it to ask, cui bono?

This is disgusting. If Brownback were still in we'd assume it was him, since he proved he wasn't above anti-Mormon campaigning. I'm guessing it's a private group too.

The good news for Romney is that this is bringing him some more attention.

Degree Absolute :

Please re-read my comments and get the point I was making.

By the way, the Catholic church has been considered a cult for a very long time, longer than am I old -- which would mean that I did not pen that concept. You missed my point, including the crux of the Golden Rule which you tell me to follow. Doing unto others would probably not include calling them a "moronic hyprocrite" -- unless that is a name you also would want to go by.

Did you also know that early Christianity was also considered cultish?

Romney's campaign did this himself to preempt it happening when the voting starts. too slick and too clever by half. pretty much sums up Mitt 'Used Car Salesman' Romney

I think the best (and fairest) definition of a cult that I've heard is that a cult is a secretive organization that claims truth can only be found in their unique and secret way.

Is that the Mormon church? I'll not go into that. Honestly, I have a Mormon friend who I'd be quite willing to vote for, I can vouch for his integrity and would trust him. Romney doesn't strike me as trustworthy (nor does Guiliani for that matter). If Romney was consistent in following the LDS teachings, such as on pro-life (rather than in the 90s saying something along the lines about his dedication to preserving a woman's right to choose an abortion) -- I think a lot more social conservatives would flock to him. Honestly, the people who seem the most consistent and speak with integrity (on either party) don't seem to do well in the polls.

Regarding theology -- yes, the word "Trinity" never appears in the Bible. Neither does Kolob, FWIW. Nor does the word "Bible". Note however, that "Bible" is a useful encapsulation of a number of books that were considered Scripture (take for instance Peter's reference to those who misuse Paul's writings as they do __other__ Scriptures). Likewise the "Trinity" is a wonderful encapsulation of many scriptures found in both Old and New Testament (this is a good link describing the Scriptural support of the Trinity for those who wish to understand it better [even if not to be persuaded] http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=215)

Religion is important in a candidate -- ONLY in so much as a person has consistently been a practitioner of it AND that consistency allows us to determine if candidate X has been faithful in little then he will likely be faithful in much. Romney doesn't fit the bill as a consistent Mormon, and therefore I'd say he's really not worthy of conservative backing.

The caller is likely somebody in one of the rival campaigns who knows about companies that make political survey calls. Maybe a slightly lower level activist in the Giuliani campaign or a Mormon-hater in the Huckabee campaign.

If you are a Christian, wake up! There are far more dangerous things to be considering than whether a Mormon is in the White House. Read Romney's speech to Christians:
http://christianprophecy.blogspot.com/2007/10/mitt-romneys-speech-on-religion.html

We have three true-believer Marxists running on the Democratic side, we have Islamic Jihadists threatening to hit America again in a big way, we have millions of illegal aliens threatening to bankrupt states who pay for their welfare, we have condums being given to 11 year olds in school ... we all should be happy that a devout spritual man is willing to run for President.

I have been a member of the LDS church for 18 years and every day I become more confident that I have made the right choice. I study both the bible and the Book of Mormon.
I am a better person today than when I started, my children have turned out better than any of my brothers and sisters have. I don't drink, smoke, do drugs and I am faithful to my wife. This is not the person I started out as before I joined the church.

What is wrong with a religion that believes in God, is Christian, has standards principles and values that are in accordance with Gods word. Those principles, values and standards help us to live longer, be more humble, thankful, respectful, and the longer we are members and live the principles the better we become. What's not to like? I believe in God, I beleive in the Bible, I believe the Book of Mormon to be another testament of Jesus Christ.

I will vote for Mitt Romeny solely based on his integrity, values and track record as a leader. We need a leader in America to navigate us through some troubling times that we are facing.



I joined the church after studying these 17 points all taken from the bible. I challenge you to do the same.






Seventeen Points of the True Church


  1. Christ organized the church. Eph.
    4:11-14

  2. The church must bear the name of
    Jesus Christ. Eph. 5:23

  3. The church must have a foundation
    of Apostles & Prophets. Eph. 2:19-20

  4. The church must have the same
    organization as Christ’s church. Eph. 4:11-14

  5. The church must claim divine
    authority. Heb. 5:4-10

  6. The church must have no paid
    ministry. Isa. 45:13, 1 Peter 5:2

  7. The church must baptize by
    immersion. Matt 3:13-15

  8. The church must bestow the gift
    of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands. Acts 8:14-17

  9. The church must practice divine
    healings. Mark 3:14-15

  10. The church must teach Jesus
    Christ & God are separate and distinct beings. John 17:11 &
    20:17

  11. The church must teach God & Jesus
    Christ have bodies of flesh and bone. Luke 24:36-39, Acts
    1:9-11

  12. The officers must be called by
    God. Heb. 5:4, Exodus 29:1 & 40:13-16

  13. The church must claim revelation
    from God. Amos 3:7

  14. The church must be a missionary
    church. Matt. 28:19-20

  15. The church must be a restored
    church. Acts 3:19-20

  16. The church must practice baptisms
    for the dead. 1 Cor. 15:15 & 29

  17. By their fruits ye shall know
    them. Matt. 7:20


Why are these things important? Heb. 13:8



This is pathetic...every single Mitt blog digresses like this one. Is anyone here interested in America?

And don't say "Yes that's why I'm scared of Mormons"...it's just religious bigotry.

I know those of you hating on Mormons don't think of yourselves that way...but it's true.

Debrar,

If I was spouting hypocritical nonsense like you are, then yes, I would expect to labeled as a moronic hypocrite.

Don't patronize me. I know that Christianity was an underground religion for centuries and that it did not become dominant until Constantine converted on his death bed. But, again whats your point? Are you saying when Romney becomes President he going to make Mormonism the official religion of the United States like Constantine did with Christianity in order to cast off its cult status?

Explain yourself. You make no sense.

Mormons Rule!

RE: Satterlee

I'm also an evangelical Christian, but I'm also attuned to the fact that the choice we make in this next election is between 2 people(not 3, 4, etc). These people in all likelihood will not hold all of our same viewpoints on religion, abortion, etc.

If you're so concerned about Governor Romney's specific religious beliefs and will not look to the content of his character - then you have every right to not vote for him.

If you honestly care about who leads this country - in the "real world" we're living in then vote with "common sense" on the choices for this position and who will best support them out of the 2 choices that we will be left with.

I disagree w/ a number of the 17 points:
Seventeen Points of the True Church

2. The church must bear the name of Jesus Christ. Eph. 5:23
That verse is certainly out of context, nor does it say anything about the "name" of Jesus Christ. It talks about Jesus being the head of the church.

5. The church must claim divine authority. Heb. 5:4-10
That is poorly worded -- those who minister must be called by God is a much more accurate statement!

6. The church must have no paid ministry. Isa. 45:13, 1 Peter 5:2

What utter nonsense, that directly contradicts Paul: 1Co 9:9-14 and 1 Ti 5:18 (which in context say the exact opposite!). Now if you say it is voluntary, that is another matter, but "must" is not a criteria of the "true" church.

8. The church must bestow the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands. Acts 8:14-17

Acts 2:4 shows that laying on of hands is not necessary. This is not a criteria for a true church. Having the Holy Spirit indwell is a criteria for a true believer, however.


9. The church must practice divine healings. Mark 3:14-15

As before.

10. The church must teach Jesus Christ & God are separate and distinct beings. John 17:11 & 20:17

And the Church must teach that Jesus Christ and God are the same as well -- "I and the father are one." Jn 10:30.

11. The church must teach God & Jesus Christ have bodies of flesh and bone. Luke 24:36-39, Acts 1:9-11

Nonsense -- what about Psalm 91 -- does God have wings then? Certainly Jesus has a body of flesh and bone.

15. The church must be a restored church. Acts 3:19-20
That is a misstatement of the scriptures -- a more fair rendering of the scripture verses mentioned is that people need to repent to receive God's mercy. The church is not mentioned, and again the way this point is stated is definitely not a criteria for a valid church.

16. The church must practice baptisms for the dead. 1 Cor. 15:15 & 29

This is a very weak point -- for one, 1 Cor 15:15 and surrounding context says that IF Christ was not raised from the dead we have no hope and are to be pitied above all men for having a vain hope that surely dooms us (note the IF).

This is the only reference in the Bible of baptism of the dead, and it is unclear was was meant. But given that 15:15 doesn't support 29 in the way it seems to be implied in your point, I'd say using 29 for a "must" is a dangerous requirement.

Guys i dont like mormons that much, but Romney rocks

lots of moromon posts, but let's be blunt, mormonism is yet another wacky cult that has the sense to be corporatist (and tax exempt, thanks to our generous tax laws) and is out (along with its surrogate, mitt romney) for naked political power.

granted, romney has changed his positions on the issues so many times that i can see that as another compelling reason to oppose him.

mormonism has a patina of christian theology grafted onto a faith that isnt really christian at all. which is ok, but let's be up front about it.

it will be interesting to see if christian fundamentalists are dumb enough to fall for this pig in a poke and buy a ticket onto the mormon express.

you think bush circumscibes our liberties, just wait until the mormon power brokers get a shot at control!

I didn't see Mitt circumscribe liberties in Massachusetts, or when saving the Olympics from disaster in Utah. I don't think you can denigrate Mitt by comparing him to Bush, because first of all, the comparison is far fetched, and second, because Bush is fighting a war, perhaps the most difficult war we've ever fought because these aren't soldiers in uniform representing a specific nation we're battling, but a guerilla force that is everywhere and nowhere. Maybe you should be glad you're still alive and kicking rather than wiped off the face of the Earth by some nuclear munition that the War on Terror prevented from being delivered to your city. How we tend to carp about ghosts and joust with windmills!

Well at a minimum this is just as offensive as I find the ongoing Fox News polls and their "push" polling and reporting. They continue to show Governor Romney receiving 7-8%, even though they are the so-called "fair and balanced" folks. Yeah right. EVERY other pollster shows Romney in the mid-teens at this point.

Now that Reagan has exposed the FOX CEO, the Mob, and NewsCorp as being total Julie Annie supporters, it explains everything.

It's about time we all consider boycotting Fox News and Hannity for their blatant Julie Annie favoritism and hypocritical claims to be anti-biased and fair reporters. One look at the latest Fox News poll speaks volumes. Are they polling another America than the one in which I live, or even yet, is there some "tampering" going on here? Jeez!

While I am mormon, I don't support Romney. I simply have different political views. But for all those who see his religion as an easy target, I do ask you to think of how you would like it if the tables were turned. I'll respect your views and your religion. It really is not too much to ask to get the same treatment in return.

Degree Absolute:

Hmmmmmm, regarding your very odd question about Mitt Romney, Mormonism and Constantine, the answer is: "No". Where do you come up with this stuff?

And about explaining myself, I have no interest; I have nothing to explain or qualify, nor do I have the desire. The thought of spending one iota of my time or effort in trying to communicate something which is of great value to me, which means nothing to you but possibly an opportunity for coming up with an entirely different meaning and spin (peppered with snide remarks), is not something I have planned for this weekend.

However, don’t let me stop you. Please, feel free to explain yourself for the rest of us to review and evaluate. The floor is yours, we're listening.

I have been a Mormon all of my life. All of my ancestors have been Mormon for five generations. I admit that some of the beliefs and practices are weird. I am confused;however,how these beliefs are weirder than other religions. Catholics believe bread magically turns into Jesus, Moslems believe Mohammed was superior to Jesus and yet I find the Koran to be boring and have not a single new idea in it. It just seems to be very repetitive. Protestants believe everybody goes to Hell forever except for them. Honestly people I can not see how these religions are less weirder than my own. Sorry.

I have been a Mormon all of my life. All of my ancestors have been Mormon for five generations. I admit that some of the beliefs and practices are weird. I am confused;however,how these beliefs are weirder than other religions. Catholics believe bread magically turns into Jesus, Moslems believe Mohammed was superior to Jesus and yet I find the Koran to be boring and have not a single new idea in it. It just seems to be very repetitive. Protestants believe everybody goes to Hell forever except for them. Honestly people I can not see how these religions are less weirder than my own. Sorry.

I met Mitt Romney tonight at the home of Steven and Sandra Covey and was extremely impressed with the man. I have had indirect dealings with him via his leadership in the Olympics in 2002. He doesn't just talk.

Mitt is modest, committed to American ideals, and has a solid proposition for strengthening America, beginning with its people rather than its bureaucracy.

I don't know how else to say this:

I want to be part of Mitt's America. Mitt is a visionary, a leader, and if Mormonism has anything to do with it, all the better. Will Democrats and other opponents of Mitt really stoop so low as to incite religious intolerance and bigotry from coast to coast? Is power that important to them? Then give them power, but make it over a cell in Guantanamo... They, or whoever is behind these attacks, are terrorizing America.

Joel,

You asked: Where is Heaven? Surely you must know, if it isn't Kolob, it must be somewhere?

Jesus told us, "God is a spirit." (John 4:24) And he said, "A spirit does not have flesh and bones." (Luke 24:39) God is not a physical being and because he is not he is not confined to a few cubic feet somewhere within our physical universe. Height, width, depth, and time are all merely dimensions of our physical universe. A universe which God created for his physical creations to occupy. If you create a birdcage for your parakeets to occupy it is unlikely that you are going to confine yourself to some small spot within that cage, though you may place your hand in it from time to time in order to tend your birds.

You wrote: So now lets get into the crux of it, you claim it speaks to Romneys judgement based on the beleif that God perhaps was a man at one time before gaining an exalted state?

No, I say it speaks to his judgment that he believes the claims of Mormonism. The Book of Mormon describes a vast pre-Columbian culture that supposedly existed for centuries in North and South America. It goes into amazingly specific detail describing the civilizations erected by the "Nephites" and "Lamanites," who it says were Jews who fled Palestine, built massive cities in the New World, farmed the land, produced works of art, and fought large-scale wars which culminated in the utter destruction of the Nephites in A.D. 421. The awkward part for the Mormon church is the total lack of historical and archaeological evidence to support the Book of Mormon in any of this. For example, after the cataclysmic last battle fought between the Nephites and Lamanites, there was no one left to clean up the mess. Hundreds of thousands of men and beasts allegedly perished in that battle, and the ground was strewn with weapons and armor. Keep in mind that A.D. 421 is just yesterday in archaeological terms. It should be easy to locate and retrieve copious evidence of such a battle, and there hasn’t been enough time for the weapons and armor to turn to dust. The Bible tells of similar battles which took place long before A.D. 421, battles which archaeologists have been able verify. The embarrassing truth—embarrassing for Mormons, that is—is that no scientist, Mormon or otherwise, has been able to find anything to substantiate that such a great battle took place. The Book of Mormon is filled with many such "archeological" problems.

There are several other kinds of problems with the Book of Mormon. For example, the only Bible that Joseph Smith relied on was the King James Version. This translation was based on a good but imperfect set of Greek and Hebrew manuscripts of the Bible commonly called the Textus Receptus. Since the King James Bible was translated from this set of manuscripts many older manuscripts have been found clearly showing that the manuscripts from which the KJV was translated contains errors, which means the King James Version contains errors. The problem for Mormons is that these exact same errors show up in the Book of Mormon. It seems reasonable to assume that if Smith was a prophet of God and was translating the Book of Mormon under divine inspiration, the now known errors which then existed in Smith's KJV Bible would not have been "translated" into the Book of Mormon. But the errors went in.

Why does the Book of Mormon use old KJV type English when it was supposedly translated at a time when it was not currently used?

Why is about 1/8th of the Book of Mormon appear to have been copied directly from the KJV (1611AD) when it was alleged to have been written some 1200-2000 years before the KJV existed?

If the original 1830 Book of Mormon was inspired than why were there so many errors and changes and additions and deletions, when compared to current editions? Some examples:

Original 1830 Edition, Book of Mormon compared to later Editions - 1837, 1888, 1920, 1964, 1978

Title page
Joseph Smith, Jr. The author and proprietor of this work
Joseph Smith, Jr. the translator of this work

Title page
now if there be fault, it be the mistake of men...
now if there are faults, they are the mistakes of men...

1 Ne 13:40
the lamb of God is the Eternal Father
the lamb of God is the son of the Eternal Father

1Nephi 11:21
the Eternal Father
son of the Eternal Father

1 Nephi 11:32
the Everlasting God
son of the Everlasting God

1 Nephi 20:1
words added
or out of the waters of Baptism

2 Nephi 12:9
the mean man boweth down
the mean man boweth not down

Alma 29:4
Yea, decreeth unto them decrees which are unalterable
words deleted

Alma 37:21,24
directors
Interpreters


Mosiah 21:28; Ether 4:1
king Benjamin
Mosiah (Benjamin was dead at this time)

1 Nephi 12:18
Jesus Christ
Messiah (Jesus had not yet been revealed to the Nephites)

1 Nephi 20:1
come forth out of the waters of Judah
or out of the waters of baptism (these words added after "Judah"

Much has been written in recent years that DNA studies have found no link between American Indian populations and Jewish peoples. It is almost certainly in response to these studies that a change has very recently been made to the Book of Mormons. In the Introduction to recent editions of the Book of Mormon the second paragraph reads: “The book was written by many ancient prophets by the spirit of prophecy and revelation. Their words, written on gold plates, were quoted and abridged by a prophet-historian named Mormon. The record gives an account of the two great civilizations. One came from Jerusalem in 600 B.C., and afterward separated into two nations, known as the Nephites and the Lamanites. The other came much earlier when the Lord confounded the tongues at the Tower of Babel. This group is known as the Jaredites. After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are the principal ancestors of the American Indians.” This was included in the first printing runs of the Doubleday Edition. In the latest printing of the Doubleday Edition of the Book of Mormon, the last sentence was changed to read: “...After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are among the ancestors of the American Indians.”

You asked: You beleive that God spoke to Moses in the form of a burning bush? ... etc.

There are many difficult passages in the Bible. But none that can be so easily proven to be false as the many claims made by Mormons.

Mitt's father George had to give up his run for the presidency after admitting that he had been "brainwashed" in his beliefs about the Vietnam war. It seems to me that many Christians' real concern about Mitt Romney's religion is that by his being so willing and able to accept all of the highly questionable claims of his church, it appears that, like his father, he may be someone who is far too easily misled about important matters.

There’s a reason that we don’t always talk religion or politics, it’s because people have so many varying viewpoints. When John F. Kennedy was running for President of the United States, he did not ask anyone to agree with his beliefs (to some people, the Catholic Church has some strange practices and beliefs – hence, there are many religions out there), nor did he have to qualify or represent the theology behind his faith. What he did do was inform the nation that he would be independent of the Pope, and would make decisions as the President of this country, not the president, or representative, of his church.

That you have tried to make some association between George Romney, his feelings about the Vietnam War and his run for the Presidency, as some kind of connection to his religion is so far stretched that it’s humorous. Not only did people have all kinds of views about the Vietnam war while it was in progress, we still – even today -- have all kinds of views about what really happened, how we really feel, what the plan “shoulda”, “coulda”, and “woulda” been. With that kind of thinking, we can’t number how many people were “brain washed”, mislead, confused, etc. over the Vietnam War. Isn’t this a war that we still continue to verbally fight over? Some people think we pulled out too soon, others think we stayed in too long. John Kerry was labeled a traitor to our nation for what went on with him during the Vietnam War.

So, with your way of thinking in mind, here are some questions. These questions do not require a written response:

President Lyndon B. Johnson, who was a Disciple of Christ, a member of the Stone-Campbell (Restoration Movement) denomination known as the “Christian Church” (Disciplines of Christ), was the president during the Vietnam War; we have many thoughts on how he handled the war, did his religion play a part? How can we know? Are you a member of his church? Do you agree with his religion? If you disagree with his religion, does that mean his religion is wrong? Was he told not to practice his religion while serving as the President of the United States of America? If someone does not agree with his religion, does that mean that his religion is wrong?

Debrar,

You wrote: You have tried to make some association between George Romney, his feelings about the Vietnam War and his run for the Presidency, as some kind of connection to his religion.

George Romney's religion had very little to do with his failed presidential campaign. George's campaign failed because he admitted that he had been "brainwashed" about the Vietnam war. He admitted that he had allowed himself to be greatly misled about one very important matter. Knowing that George Romney was able to be "brainwashed" in one very important matter caused people to lose confidence in his ability to make sound judgements in other very important matters.

Today most Christians consider Mormons to be people who have allowed themselves to become greatly misled in one very important matter, their religious beliefs. Because they see Mitt Romney as someone who was able to be "brainwashed" in one very important matter they doubt his ability to make sound judgements in other very important matters.

TOO ALL MORMONS:

It's a shame the there is so much contention between Mormons and those that hate Mormons. Especially the debate over doctrine and the tit for tat that accompanies it.

As a mormon I get tired of other mormons who feel it is their duty to defend the faith. give it a rest. I have yet to read a blog where an anti mormon like Michael Sattelerlee say "oh thank you for teaching me - I was wrong please send over the mormon missionaries to baptize me!"

It's sad that so many mormons reduce themselves to bashing and cite lame so called proofs like "the 17 points of the true church".. Gee all this time i thought that truth came to men though the Holy Ghost. True or not, nobody buys into the LDS church doctrine because of that tired old list. It embarrasses me.

Defending Mormonism in connection with support of Mitt Romney is as deplorable as condemning him in connection with it. If you want to debate, then defend Mitt on his record and his virtues - leave the church out of it and let the anti-mormon people do their thing - follow the counsel of the Savior rather than argue about it. Forgive, turn the other cheek, bless them that curse you, do unto to others as you would have them do unto you.


... And there shall be no disputations among you, as there have hitherto been; neither shall there be disputations among you concerning the points of my doctrine, as there have hitherto been.
For verily, verily I say unto you, he that hath the spirit of contention is not of me, but is of the devil, who is the father of contention, and he stirreth up the hearts of men to contend with anger, one with another.
Behold, this is not my doctrine, to stir up the hearts of men with anger, one against another; but this is my doctrine, that such things should be done away. (3ne 11:28-30)

One cannot improve on the words of king Benjamin “now if you believe these things see that you do them”( Mosiah 4:10)

Look, if these people want to slander the church who cares? Furthermore who cares if Mitt wins or loose - it is certainly not a victory or a loss for the church anymore than the unfortunate rise of mormon Harry Reed is. Church and state are separate in this country and it needs to stay that way.

Sure I’ll vote for Mitt – I’ll probably even send in my $2,300 to his camp before its all over. If he losses I can still pray, and go to church and live my religion according to the dictates of my own conscience. In the mean time we need to allow others to have the same privilege let the worship how where or what they may. If they are misinformed about temples or temple clothing or whatever, lets forgive them seventy times seven.

Now Mike and Joel and the rest of you - shake hands and say something positive about each others church - come on now - say something nice. You guys are brothers created by the same Heavenly Father – so lets treat each other that way.

Michael Satterlee

You must not have seen the website "EVANGELICALS FOR MITT"
http://www.evangelicalsformitt.org/


I do not want to argue with you over religious beliefs, no one really wins. I am a “Mormon” (a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) and am aware that there are those out there who do not, and will never, agree with my belief system. This is quite alright; we have religious freedom in America. To say that most Christians consider Mormons to be misled is not true; our church has 13 MILLION world wide members, and growing. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4188/is_20070626/ai_n19324355


It is obvious that your underlying reason for your assorted comments on this website is due to your personal religious beliefs. No one wants to take those from you, just as no one wants theirs to be taken from them. We can coexist in this nation, just as we can coexist on this blog.

IT IS FAR BETTER TO FIND REASONS TO UNITE, RATHER THAN TO FIND REASONS TO DIVIDE.

“Can’t we all just get along?”

Some writers here have expressed concern about what religious "cons" Romney has fallen for as an indicator that he would lack judgment to be president.

Our country was founded by a wide variety of men who held a wide variety of religious beliefs. Some were deists, some Christians, some Jews, some Masons. Some believed some really whacko stuff, but they created the ultimate rational document of governance--the Constitution.

Kennedy believed the cracker the Priest put on his tongue turned into the literal body of Christ. An irrational belief to most, but a pretty good President. That belief didn't interfere with his ability to handle the Russians.

Lincoln attended sayances in the white house at his wife's request. An irrational belief to most, but a great President. That belief didn't interfere with his vision to free the slaves.

A truckload of Presidents believed Moses parted the red sea, Jesus walked on water, and that Elijah called fire down from heaven. All irrational notions which were yet held by rational men. Such is the province of religion.

Romney believes in many irrational things but he is a most rational man. Of all the candidates, no one has showed better judgment, business acumen, leadership and intelligence than Romney. The man loves to wallow in the data, studies, graphs and charts before he makes a decision. Point out all the weirdness of Mormonism that you want, but you can't escape this fact: Romney is the most rational fact following data crunching of all the candidates. As inconsistent as that seems to his religion, Romney if given the chance will be great for America.

I think the LDS is a cult, however that wouldn't for a second prevent me from voting for Mitt. The guy built a healthy business, saved the Salt Lake Olympics from being a disaster and was an effective Governor. Rudy is a tool. His judgement is great, if Bernie Kerik is the type of person he'd put in his cabinet, a Rudy administration could look a lot like Bushes with a group of close allies from NY, much like team Crawford. What has Rudy done since 2001? The Court will pretty much look the same regardless of which Republican is elected, however Rudy would be another President for Cowboy foreign policy.

The Congress wouldn't rubber stamp any Mormon overhaul of the nation, he would however be a great leader/manager who would appoint Wall Street types and not just Washington insiders.

Mormonism is strange, but so is Rudy and his dysfunctional family life, and he strikes me as the low end of the bell curve in law school. McCain is one old son of a gun. I hate to hold his POW time against him, but I think 5 years of torture has got to knock some years off life expectancy, and he's already 72. So given the choices, its gotta be Mitt.

It is so blatantly absurd and it clearly demonstrates that Mitt Romney has something to hide that anyone who dares raise issues of his religion is branded a Mormon hater and a bigot .

It is Romney himself who keeps saying he is a Christian as he is trying to get the support of evangelical Christians who form such an important voting block - that being the case America is entitled to know something about his views and practices . Why is Romney so coy ? Is it because Mormonism teaches that Jesus is the Devil's brother , that God the Father is a man with at least one wife [ actually plenty of Mormon leaders have said He and Jesus are polygamists ] and that humanity originates from a pre existence on a planet near a star called Kolob . American electors are also entitled to know what was Romney's views on black people when he was a mature young man in the 1970s . Also in the secret Mormon Temple rictual which he participated in , he went along with the reprensentation of the Christian Pastor as being in the hire and pay of Satan .

The fact is Romney is being entirely deceptive and playing on people's ignorance . A man of integrity and transparancy would be quite happy to say something about his true religious beliefs .
Let Romney tell America that he believes Jesus is the Devil's brother and the voters can make up their own mind .

IT IS FAR BETTER TO FIND REASONS TO UNITE, RATHER THAN TO FIND REASONS TO DIVIDE.

Gee, if this is all the Liberal/Socialist/Communists have to hang their hat on with Mitt Romney, they are in for a BIG surprise.

Has ANYONE noticed??? Harry Reid is a Mormon, and oh yeah. How many out there know that Barack Obama's middle name is HUSSEIN and that his FATHER was a RADICAL MUSLIM?

Mitt Romney will be the next president of the United States and you can take that to the bank!

Fred Thompson weighs in on "robo-dial bigotry" (Push-polls against Romney)

The Politico ^ | November 16, 2007 | Jonathan Martin

From the desk of Todd Harris, communications director to Fred Thompson:

"There is no room for this kind of smut in a Republican primary election. While there are certainly issues our campaigns disagree on, we are united by far more than that which divides us. One of our candidates is going to emerge from this process as the standard bearer for all Republicans, and we will need a united party to win next year. This kind of robo-dial bigotry which tears down Republicans today will only serve to prop up Democrats tomorrow. It has to end and end now."

Tom S. wrote: Mitt Romney will be the next president of the United States and you can take that to the bank!

Among the top Republican candidates, Rasmussein Reports most recent polls shows Mitt Romney to be the most unelectable and John McCain (not my choice) to be the most electable.

Romney (42%) Clinton (47%)
Romney (39%) Obama (48%)

McCain (47%) Clinton (45%)
McCain (45%) Obama (44%)

I doubt Romney can be elected, partly because (fairly or not) a lot of Christians simply will not vote for a Mormon.

Is Michael Satterlee some sort of anagram for Pat Robertson?

Fred Thompson just received the endorsement of the National Right To Life Committee (the biggest grassroots pro-life organization in the United States, with 3,000 chapters in all 50 states and MILLIONS of members and supporters) and will soon receive the unprecedented primary endosement of the National Rifle Association (the largest pro-2nd Amendment/firearms owner group in America with MILLIONS of members and MILLIONS more people they influence). That means that Senator Fred Thompson, in addition to the MILLIONS of supporters he already has (including over 120,000 donors)will have several millions of volunteers and supporters working on his behalf in EVERY state in the Union! Why? Because Fred is the conservative alternative to Mitt, Rudy and Mike, and will have no problem with Hillary "Queen of the Waffle House" Clinton in November 2008!!

2nd div. asked: Is Michael Satterlee some sort of anagram for Pat Robertson?

No, Pat, for some nutty reason, is a Rudy fan. Myself, I like Mike Huckabee.

But I highly doubt he can be elected - for much the same reason I doubt Mitt Romney can be elected. It seems voters prefer their Preidential candidates to be not quite so religious as either Mitt or Mike.

Let's take the LDS viewpoint and apply it to the Statement of Faith believed by Christians who believe only in the Bible:

We believe in the main God of a number of Gods, who acquired His place as Supreme Being over a long period of time by living a righteous life, the Father Almighty, one of the Makers of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible (and Who is married, by the way);

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, one of the spirit children of God (Lucifer being another), (5) the Only-begotten, Begotten of the Father before all worlds. Light of Light, True God of True God, Begotten, not made, by whom all things were made. Who won God’s favor by agreeing with God’s plan of salvation when Lucifer disagreed, and who was called Jehovah in the Old Testament;

Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven, and was incarnate of a physical relationship between God the Father and Mary, and was made man, and was married at the wedding in Cana;

And was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered and was buried;

And the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures;

And ascended into heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of the Father in the celestial kingdom, the highest of the three kingdoms of heaven; And He and Joseph Smith shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead, Whose kingdom shall have no end.

And we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, and Giver of Life, Who proceeds from the Father, Who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified, Who spoke by the Prophets;

And we believe in the Mormon Church, which restores Christianity to the form it had in the time of the apostles;

We acknowledge one Baptism – for both living and dead for the remission of sins as long as that baptism is conducted by the Mormon Church;

We look for the Resurrection of the dead which will be presided over by Joseph Smith,

And the Life of the world to come. Amen.

IT IS FAR BETTER TO FIND REASONS TO UNITE, RATHER THAN TO FIND REASONS TO DIVIDE.

“Can’t we all just get along?”


"EVANGELICALS FOR MITT"
http://www.evangelicalsformitt.org/

The Romney difference

By Paul M. Weyrich
November 16, 2007

http://washingtontimes.com/article/20071116/EDITORIAL/111160015/1013

This is how the "Mormons" (members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) feel:

11th Article of Faith:
We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.

12 Article of Faith:
We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.

All 14 Articles of Faith:
http://www.lds.org/library/display/0,4945,106-1-2-1,FF.html

People that say that they are Christians and wont vote for a "Mormon" because of there beliefs are just off in their own self righteous internal fantasy island.

Just remember this - if Hillary Clinton is elected there will be a higher probability of no overturn of Roe vs. Wade and less late term aborition retrictions - remember partial birth?

In my belief, the majority of Evangelical Christians (excluding the Bible thumping, tons of skeletons in the closet nutcases) will vote for Romney if the choice is between him and Clinton.

Michael Satterlee:

So in my response to where is Heaven, you give me the answer to where is God? I didn't ask that. But you did give me some realing interesting insight into your beliefs. Apparently you believe that God and other spirits live in some sort of parallel universe to ours. Tell me honestly that doesn't sound just as Sci-Fi and Whacky as us Mormons.

As for the changes in the BoM since original translation, I don't think I ever said it hadn't been changed. You will find that the bulk of the changes were punctuation, and garmatical. There were some that were contextual however as you have pointed out. This is easily explained as we do not believe the Book of Mormon was written by God. We believe it was written by prophets who were men inspired of God, and further abridged by a single prophet, it was later translated by a man (with the assistance of God's revalation) who dictated that translation to another man who wrote it down. Men are not perfect. Fortunately we do not beleive that the windows of heaven have been closed and that God is done speaking to us. It has still been changed less than the hundreds of versions of the Bible.

Don't go into the archeological arguement that suppossedly disproves Mormonism. I can go into every bit as much archeology that disproves the Old Testament, Christianity, and just about any major religion as a whole.

My arguement is not that Mormons are right, I know I would never win such an arguement, just like you could never win an arguement saying you are right. My arguement is merely that virtually every religion in the world is every bit as Whacky as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints when you take a step back. So questioning someone's judgement by believing the tenants of their faith is very dangerous, it disqualifies pretty much everyone. There are just as many folks out there that think Huckabee is a looney for admitting that he does not beleive in Evolution. I am merely asking that you step back and gain some perspective on what beliefs are considered whacky and fraudulent by whom. Now if you have a valid reason to say Mitt Romney's policies could be dangerously impacted by his religion, then I'd like to hear them, because so far the most I can see you being afraid of, is him possibly reducing funding to study archeology in meso-america, because it might undermine his religion even more.

I just find it amazing that folks get so obsessed over what they hold to be true that they must attack others on it. It reminds me of all the obsessive Mac/PC Fanboys (or Video Game Console fanboys) on all the technical Blogs. Nobody wins those arguments either. In the end it comes down to whether or not you feel the need to tear down another persons religious beliefs in order to support or build your own. We beleive you are wrong just as much as you beleive we are wrong. Have you ever wondered why there are so many different churches (denominations) in the world. It is because not everyone believes the same thing, and they think the other churches are wrong. You should be glad that we do beleive in Baptisms for the Dead, it is one of the major reasons that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints does not make a practice of attacking other religions. We do not feel it is necessary for your salvation. If we can't gently persuade you while you are alive, you can have the option after your dead. On the other hand many of the evangelical strains of Christianity feel that we are going to Hell, unless they manage to convince us of our evil ways. So yes, I understand that what you are doing is out of concern for us and our fellow man, but at the same time, I wish you would stop attacking what many of us hold dear and that is our Christianity. You cannot build someone's faith in your cause by attempting destroying their faith in what they currently believe. So go ahead and gives us a gentle nudge, and tell us how right you are, we won't mind. But tell us we've been conned and that we are a fraudulent religion is offensive and will always spark defense. Just remembr the structure of the LDS church is substantially different than most church orginizations. It is made of the memebrs of the church. We are the church. The church is not some building, it is not some well paid heirarchial orginization. It is us, it is all volunteer, other than the few folks who do administrative tasks in Downtown Salt Lake, it is a volunteer orginization. So when you say that we are being misguided, and duped by an evil or fraudulent church, you are in fact calling us evil or fraudulent. Just stop and realize we aren't.

Joel,

You wrote: you say that we are being misguided, and duped by an evil or fraudulent church, you are in fact calling us evil or fraudulent.

I never said your Church was evil or fraudulent. I am sure that you and, most likely, even all of the present day "apostles" of your church sincerely believe what you have all been taught. So, it is entirely possible that only one man associated with you church, Joseph Smith, ever knowingly perpetrated a fraud. For he was the only man who ever actually claimed to have seen the "golden plates" from which he said he translated the Book of Mormon. He did so, calling out words to a secretary who transcribed what he heard Joseph Smith say, while both Joseph Smith and his supposed golden plates were hidden from his view behind a curtain. No one else ever really saw those plates. A few claimed to have seen them but later clarified their words by saying that they did so only with their "eyes of faith." So your entire belief system rests on accepting the story of one man of questionable charachter who you have never met.

If I told you that an angel appeared to me and revealed to me that much of what you presently believe about God is entirely wrong, would you belive me? Of course not. You would think I was either a liar or crazy, or that the "angel" I claimed to speak with was actually a demon. If I asked you to pray about it and that maybe if you prayed long enough with an open heart and mind that maybe God would reveal to you that what I was telling you and what the angel told me was true, would you pray to God about what I had told you, keeping an open mind and heart on the matter as you did so? I doubt you would. Not if what I told you contradicted much of what you now believe to be true. That's where most Christians now find themselves when presented with the Mormon gospel, a different gospel than they have read about in the Bible.

For the apostle Paul wrote in Galatians 1:6-9: "I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!"

I am a member of the LDS church, and honestly I can't say that this phone thing or all the negative posts make me worry, nor am I OUTRAGED. The church has undergone scrutiny since its founding and probably will forever. It doesn't slow the growth of the church. A word to my fellow Mormons; chill out. Peacefuly responding to negative posts is fine, but when it comes to an article like this, don't get so hot headed, you're not gonna change anyone's mind by posting here, the only thing we can do is increase understanding.

And regarding the Bible comments, We belive that in it's pure form, when it was written by the hands of the apostles and prophets, it was the word of God. We believe that it still is, and we have no shame in saying 'as far as it is translated correctly. Would you rather we say 'weather or not it is translated correctly' or 'even if it is translated incorectly'? We believe that the Bible is the Word of God. If there are mistakes made by man, are we to believe that those mistakes are the Word of God? If you are a Christian, you know that any mistakes made would not belong to God, but to man. And I would much rather put my trust in things of God than in things of man.

Patrick,

You wrote: regarding the Bible ... we have no shame in saying 'as far as it is translated correctly.'

Why then do you not say the same thing about the Book of Mormon? Thousands of changes have been made to the Book of Mormon since it was first "translated" and printed in the 1830s. Granted most have been very minor changes in grammer and spelling but several have been very substantial. I do not believe any one translation of the Bible has been revised so often during this same period of time. The 1611 Edition of the KJV is still printed today exactly as it was in 1611. Why then have the keepers of the BOM felt it was necessary to make so many changes to it over the years?

By saying that Mormons accept the Bible as the word of God 'as far as it is translated correctly' and not saying the same thing about the BOM they cast doubt on the trustworthyness of the Bible and imply that the BOM is more trustworthy. If the Bible and the BOM ever appear to be at odds Mormons always assume the passage being discussed in the Bible has probably been mistranslated. For Mormons the BOM always trumps the Bible even though Mormons admit that the BOM as originally translated contained thousands of errors, minor and major, and has had to be revised several times over the years to correct them.

These things being so, the Mormon statement of faith limiting their trust in the Bible but not limiting their trust in the BOM makes no sense.

For scans of the first edition of the BOM compared to the present edition see this Web site.

http://www.irr.org/mit/changingscrips.html

Michael Satterlee:

See we are getting to undrtand each other beter now. If you feel that perhaps all of the members of our church are sincere in their belief and that if there was a fraud to have been committed it was nearly 200 years ago. So what is the big deal. Why is it so bad for an orginization of millions of people to try everything they can to improve themselves and live righteously according to Christ's teachings that are in the Bible? Yes he have some extra stuff on the side that you don't believe in, but in essence it doesn't change our values and who we are as people. I think you will find that most people who interact with Mormons on a regular basis find them to be intelligent, hard working upstanding citizens. So why does it matter if a Mormon is President? Mormons are not trying to establish a theocracy, We will leave that to Christ.

we also aren't to keen on forcing others to follow our beliefs (thus the ability for some Mormons to be be able to sleep at night while being pro-choice). We have a pretty unique distinction of being the largest denomination having ever been officially persecuted by a Government agency within the U.S. They actually passed a law requiring citizens to execute Mormons on sight. The last thing we want to do is to do that to others. We are a hardy people that have withstood persecution for years. Mush of it far worse than anything you could dish out (legally at least :) ). We aren't going anywhere, and we aren't going to hurt anyone. Can't we work together to try and straighten out some of this corruption within our Government?

A TEENAGER'S REVIEW
(also a reply to Andy)

Thank you for posting that. After reading all of these ridiculous, Bible-bash posts, even for a teenager it started to annoy the heck out of me. (And trust me, I don't really read political posts on a daily basis, I'd probably say I was more interested in "friends, homework and dating" Ha!) But anyway, this site was on the computer and it caught my eye and interested me -because my dad likes Mitt Romney, and we are forced to listen to AM radio when he drives; which I admit me and my little sister eventually enjoy.

I read this entire page (which I still can't believe) and it was refreshening to read something different. I started getting tired of proud people's minds. ...The funny thing is those people are just people.

And it came to mind, people should learn to see others as heavenly brothers and sisters. Hmmm, why not try that? As a matter a fact, I am going to do that this week. Maybe it'll allow me to be less judgmental and see each other in a more positive light. I challenge you to do the same, if you want.

I also think it is humorous that you all are acting like immature, dramatic teenagers when I am a teenager who is telling you that you are stealing the "teenager's job". Cmon! But, that's okay. You have fun with it. I am sure you are a great person, truly.

I hope I am not coming off as somebody who doesn't know what they're talking about, because "this is the political world and I am a juvenile". I know the seriousness in the situation and I have my opinions and views, as does anyone else. And yes, I agree with my father, of course, but for my own individual reasons.

After reading all you wonderful people's passages I simply ask you to pray for the truth. I think Heavenly Father will tell you the truth, cause He loves you and He wants you to know the truth. I know it.

Have an AMAZING day brother or sister! (That sounds so corny, but it's kind of fun.)

I think Huckabee is behind this. He's a Baptist and Baptists hate Mormons. They are the source of most of the anti-Mormon bigotry in this country.

Actually, they are the source of most bigotry in this country.

Jon,I'd be surprised if Huckabee is behind it because his campaign doesn't have enough money to afford something like this.

Regarding Baptists hating mormons, perhaps, but I have also heard that Southern Baptists convert more per capita to Mormonism than other denominations... Perhaps I'm wrong on that, because I also heard that said of Catholics, and both can't be right, right??

A lot of people are expressing frustration (or doubt) that Romney's religion is going to matter much in Iowa (or in general).

Well, me too! But the people who are following this story and making comments are NOT the ones being targeted by these phone calls and we are not the ones for whom religion matters.

If you've spent any time doing retail politics in primary elections, especially on the Republican side of things, you would know that the largest voting block are the thousands of little old ladies, and their husbands. These ladies are typically church volunteers, come from small towns, always vote, and care a lot about tradition and affibility and not economic policy.

They matter, not you and me. Think about these phone calls having an effect on all those little old ladies, probably talking about Mormonism over coffee at their local church on a Tuesday morning.

Anyways, I think the calls hurt Romney unless he can spin this to his advantage. I think Romney should take on the anti-Mormon issue and give a speech about religious tolerence. He should envite people from all faiths. With all the talk about whether Romney should give a speech the press would have a field day with it. Romney would get a lot of coverage and nobody could disagree with the message.

Gadzooks, people, calm down.

I am okay with people not wanting to vote for Romney becuz it seems like he's changed his position or he seems a little too salesman-y. I'm LDS and he's actually my second choice behind McCain.

I bet we'll learn it was some independent guy, maybe a descendent of that Missouri governor who made it legal to murder Mormons.

Meanwhile, to greg who wants to dismiss the LDS faith as a "wacky cult", there are over 13 million members in the world, over 6 million in the US, which is roughly 2% of the population. Christianity was once considered a cult too. When I think "cult" I think of Jim Jones and the deadly Flavor-Aid. Which is probably about as high as you esteem those 13 million Mormons.

When you watch the debates, when you go to the various websites and read their positions, are you figuring out which candidate would really represent your political views best, or do you see Romney's lips move and think "Bzz bzz bzz, he's Mormon so not a chance he gets my vote. No way I'm voting for that Jew Lieberman either. Grr."?

McCain would give us a rational foreign policy that recognizes the instability we're now in, slowly undoing the damage Rumsfeld and Bremer and Bush have done. I believe him when he says he is the best to actually tackle pork-barrel spending.

Romney is a natural leader, as he demonstrated with saving the SLC Olympics, and the anecdotes I've heard out of MA.

Thompson doesn't seem to be going anywhere. He waited too long to get in.

Giuliani seems to be the worst of Bush and Bill. Do you really think there wouldn't be a sex scandal under Rudy? And do you really think he'll be less hawkish than Bush? And why does FoxNews want him to win?

Paul's fun but he has no chance.

Huckabee's a minister, but I see him getting crushed in the national election.

Tancredo and Hunter should drop out now.

Mitt Romney’s faith is not up for election; Mitt Romney’s leadership skills, business expertise, character, and view and plans for America are up for election.

John F. Kennedy didn’t call a religious conference when he was running for President; Mitt Romney doesn’t need to get approval on the doctrines of his church either.

Did every Kennedy voter agree with the Catholic religion, were they demanding (or forced) to listen to the history, doctrine and leadership of his church prior to casting their votes? Are you aware the Catholic Church has an assorted “history” (take a moment and do some lengthy research) that makes most people cringe – yet there are many very good people who are Catholics. The point that I am making is that there are myriads of people who consider John F. Kennedy to be one of our great American Presidents, regardless of whether or not they shared the same religion.

Another thing, not just older women and their husbands have been receiving these phone calls, which have also been mad to voters in New Hampshire.

And, many people realize they don’t have to be of the same faith to vote for a worthy candidate. I myself am also a “Mormon” (a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints), but would NEVER dream of voting for, or supporting, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

Some people have downplayed that Joseph Smith, at the age of 14, had seen a vision. Whether people believe him or not, he stood by this fact, just as any other prophets and leaders have done throughout the ages.

“.. So it was with me. I had actually seen a light, and in the midst of that light I saw two Personages, and they did in reality speak to me; and though I was hated and persecuted for saying that I had seen a vision, yet it was true; and while they were persecuting me, reviling me, and speaking all manner of evil against me falsely for so saying, I was led to say in my heart: Why persecute me for telling the truth? I have actually seen a vision; and who am I that I can withstand God, or why does the world think to make me deny what I have actually seen? For I had seen a vision; I knew it, and I knew that God knew it, and I could not deny it, neither dared I do it; at least I knew that by so doing I would offend God, and come under condemnation”.
- The Testimony of the Prophet Joseph Smith, http://www.lds.org/library/display/0,4945,104-1-3-5,00.html

Samuel - the boy Prophet, Moses, Abraham, Noah - - - were all of them believed? Did God stop talking to us after these leaders’ deaths? Does He only care for the people of Biblical times? And why were the people in the Old Testament able to receive revelation, knowledge, scripture, etc. BEFORE Christ was born (where did they receive the revelation from?) and yet some think we cannot receive any more revelation AFTER His crucifixion? Is Christ a living God, or is He a dead God? Does He care for all of His children, throughout the ages, throughout the world? Does He also speak with them? Do they document as they documented in the Old and the New Testaments, or was this an exclusive era and people? Are we less than those living during that time, and therefore we are not allowed to have any modern revelation from God? Are the people during Biblical times the only ones required, allowed, worthy, or whatever, to document what they are inspired to write, reveal, etc? Do we have all of the answers? Are there “other sheep” that did not live in the vicinity of the Savior when He came to earth? Are they worthy of hearing the Gospel and of having prophets and leaders, men and women of faith -- or was this just particular to one region on the earth, during one specific timeframe? Does God still want to communicate with man?

Debrar,

The problem as I see it with your way of thinking is that, if we accept it, we must now give equal respect and equal consideration to every person claiming to have received a personal revelation from God (and the world is full of them) as we now give to the Bible.

Joseph Smith claimed to have been given a vision from God. Joseph Smith claimed to have been given inscribed golden plates and divine help in translating their contents into English. The only evidence that I have that these things are true is that he said they were. If I am to accept his word on this matter or even give his claims a fair hearing, to be fair to others who have in the past and will I am sure in the future make similar claims of specially received divine communications, I must also respectfully listen to and carefully and prayerfully investigate the possible validity of all such claims. And the world is full of people making such claims. And I simply don't have enough time to investigate the possible validity of all of them.

There are about six million Mormons in the USA. Most of them were born and raised Mormons. They believe as they do because they were taught from infancy that the Mormon church is God's one true church. Some have converted to the Mormon faith after studying its teachings. However, most who have carefully and prayerfully investigated the claims of Joseph Smith and of the church he founded have felt led by God to reject both. Should we not also respect what these people tell us God spoke to them on this matter?

Consider my own case. I listened to Mormon missionaries at my door several years ago. Shortly thereafter I prayed to God and asked him for his direction in the matter and on what how I should respond to the two young men when they returned. Immediately I felt God directing me to open my Bible. When I did so I felt very strongly that God was impressing on my heart that his word the Bible is sufficient and that since its completion in the first century he has no longer inspired any more written works like it. How did God impress this on my heart? Immediately after my prayer I opened my Bible to the book of psalms. There I found something I had not noticed before. I noticed that Psalms was divided into five separate books, not just chapters, but "books". So I picked up a Bible encyclopedia and this is what I found. I found that Psalms was originally written and compiled as five separate books, and that it remains divided into five separate books in all Bibles today. Book I, Book II, Book III, Book IV, and Book V. I am not talking about being divided into chapters and verses which were in most cases added many years later. I am talking about Psalms being and always having been five separate books.

The Bible is normally thought of as being "sixty-six books." But, as I believe God pointed out to me, because the Psalms themselves are actually five separate books, our Bible is really a collection of seventy books. And because the Bible itself often uses the number seventy to signify spiritual completeness and spiritual perfection, I believe God gave us a Bible made up of seventy books to tell us that the Bible itself contains all the written revelations God would ever give to man. I also believe that by God giving us a Bible made up of seventy books God was telling us that we should reject the testimony of anyone trying to convince us that their new written work was inspired by God and that we should consider it to be equal in authority to the Bible. This is what I believe God revealed to me on the matter of modern day written works claiming to be inspired by God in a manner similar to the books of the Bible.

God Bless.

Michael Satterlee:

To tell you the truth, I didn't get through all of your comments since we will disagree over religion and I do now want to argue and “bash” it out. For example, just having me mention that the Bible talks about writings and books from other Prophets, which are not included in the Bible,or, that the book of Revelations was not the last book added to the Bible -- would cause uproar among some. It’s OK that we disagree – religion is a very personal thing.

My recent post was included for reasons of clarity over previous comments, however, my goal is not to be here to insult other people's beliefs and tell instruct them on how they must feel.

I am happy that you have found the religion of your choice, as have I, and for that we should be thankful that each of us are trying, in our own ways, to be better people than we could be just merely on our own, without the influence of Jesus Christ.

Because my church has 13 MILLION people, and growing, http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4188/is_20070626/ai_n19324355
it appears that many people feel the same way I do about answers to their prayers regarding the LDS doctrine.

No one is trying to convert you to this religion, and not everyone feels that your comments work for them either. I think this is the whole crux of what is happening to Mitt Romney. He is not trying to convert people to his church, he is not running for that office --- but there are those who are trying to force their religious viewpoints and bias onto others. This is not Christ like, and it is not appropriate.

I’m happy to find that it looks like we are content with wishing each other well. Thank you. God Bless.

Debrar,

You wrote: To tell you the truth, I didn't get through all of your comments since we will disagree ...

That's too bad. I think the last couple paragraphs contained some very interesting information I would have liked to hear your response to.

Unfortunately I have found your attitude to be all too common among those who belong to religions like your own. It seems that either their leaders do not permit them to read anything written by someone who disagrees with official church doctrine, or they themselves are afraid to do so.

Michael Satterlee:

I did read the last paragraph, in fact I read most of all that you wrote .. I just didn’t focus on your book count but skimmed over it.

See, there you go again. I don’t agree with you, or the book count idea (so skimmed through it, getting the jest of what you were saying), and now you’re insulting me and “those who belong to religions like your own” as not knowing what we’re talk about, or that our belief system may not be worthwhile. Why do you stoop to that? Can’t you just be OK with realizing that people believe differently on some issues, and that we can still find common ground?

By the way, we are grown-up ---- we can read what we chose. No church leaders of mine are trying to stop me from reading all of your comments. Pretty creepy thought since they aren’t even here with me to see what I'm doing. Do you yourself have church leaders watching what you are reading and typing right now? You’ve go to admit that this statement of your is a bit odd, offensive, and argumentative. My goal is to not argue with you, and at the most, find the common ground that we can share and strengthen each other over. That is what our nation also needs.

Debrar,

You wrote: No church leaders of mine are trying to stop me from reading all of your comments.

So you say. But I know for a fact that your church very strongly discourages its members from reading anything written by those who they know to be opposed to its teachings. I also know that your Church actually excommunicates members for "apostacy" (disagreeing with church teachings). These acts of "excommunication" and branding someone as an "apostate" are designed to prevent church members from listening to or reading anything the "apostate" has to say.

It is partly because of the use of such mind control tactics that your church is often called a cult.

Michael Satterlee:

You are not a member of my church, I am, and you're not stating correct facts. Just come clean and say how much you hate my church and therefore your comments will be biased. Surely you’re not that naïve to think that members of my church can be controlled as you’ve stated. Why do churches excommunicate?


I can assume what church you must belong to from some of your posts, but it is not worth the time or contention to find ways to insult each other or dispute our religious differences. This is not the gospel of Christ.

By the way, avoiding contention IS one of the concepts (or respect and manners) my church does teach. We feel that the gospel, sacred topics, and the teachings of Jesus Christ cannot be taught and explored with a spirit of contention; rather, we encourage a spirit of reverence and receptiveness to the Holy Ghost. How Christ like are you being when attacking, insulting, and arguing seems to be the way you do business?

For any people who do not agree with your church, and then talk erroneously or rudely about it (while acting like they are the designated authority and ultimate theologian), including comments like you have towards mine, wouldn’t you think that they were a bit out of line?

If you’d like to know about the Jewish religion you would not have asked Hitler, you would ask a Jew or a Rabbi; if you are interested in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (“Mormons”) you would ask someone who does not hate the church, but rather you would ask someone who can tell you more (www.lds.org). Since you are not interested in my religion, it is only due to contention that you make comments.

P.S. Did you also know that early Christianity was also considered cultish?

Debrar,

You say I hate your church. But earlier it was here explained to me that your church is its members. If that is the case, I love your church. For I love every member of it. It is only because I do that I take the time to speak to its members. When Mormon missionaries knock on doors they often hear, "We are not interested in talking to you." Not when they knock on my door. Because I am convinced they are seriously mislead and because I care about them, I do my best to show them the error of their ways. Just as I would try to help them out if I saw them trapped in a burning building.

I believe true Christianity is all about our personal relationship with Jesus Christ apart from the claimed authority of any man made church organization. The Bible tells us that, "Where the Spirit of God is there is freedom." (2 Cor. 3:17) When I see people calling themselves Christians who have become members of a religious organization which seeks to control every aspect of their lives, from what they are allowed to eat, drink and read to what they must wear and believe I recall Paul's words to the Galatians, "It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery." However, I am well aware of the fact that in many ways it is easier to be a prisoner than to be free. It is for this reason that many people who have served years in prison, after serving their sentence, will deliberately commit another crime in order to return to highly structured and highly regulated prison life.

Christian freedom requires people to think for themselves and to make their own decisions in all areas of their lives, without having someone else always there to authoritatively tell them what God requires them to do. Some people cannot handle Christian freedom, just like some people cannot handle life outside of prison walls. For that reason religions which exercise a high level control over their members' lives and falsely claim to do so with God's authority always are able to attract and hold onto members.

Michael Satterlee:

I appreciate that you are a religious person, and I can tell that we are going to continue going rounds. I do not want to go rounds with you because we will just continue to disagree, quote scriptures .. or whatever, and try to convince each other of things which we have very strong feelings towards. I would much rather choose (hmmmm, there’s that concept again) to let us be different in our religious beliefs/church doctrine, and instead realize that there is some common ground and brotherhood, both in our belief in Jesus Christ and our concern for this country. If we can both contribute to the betterment of America, we are doing well.

Although your intentions with the missionaries may appear kind on your part, there is much misguidance and condescension raising its ugly head also. I am sure that you have strong feelings about your church and would be offended if others disputed you or confused your doctrine, and spent their time telling you how you cannot feel the way you do since they themselves are convinced that you are seriously mislead – and it is because they care about you that they tell you this, regardless of what you tell them. How about the idea of being called a cult because you are firm in your beliefs that they do not agree with? You get the picture.

How many religions are in the world? Right off the cuff we know that there are tons of Baptist churches, and not all of them teach the same thing -- oftentimes it depends on the Preacher. So, do you think you need to talk with them since they are not consistent in their doctrine; are you concerned that they are misleading people? If they do not teach the same things, and they are different than what you want to hear, then you even have more people to work on. I use this as an example because you cannot control how people believe. Everyone does not believe the way you do, it is obvious by the various religions we have throughout the world. Even some Baptist churches, which, from my own personal experience as a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (or “Mormon”) tend to produce people who like to attack and bash other religions, and yet they themselves do not stay constant with all of their own Baptist doctrine. Does this concern you? You may not agree with my church, but you will find that, world wide, we are constant with our teachings. For instance, whatever lesson may be taught in California, it is also the same lesson being taught, on the same day, in Japan.

Michael, you say some really odd things, and I know that you believe them. I will not be able to convince you otherwise, and that is OK. When you make some of your erroneous comments, it is not just a misdirected slight you are trying to put on the LDS doctrine, but it is a poor reflection on you.

I truly appreciate your religious convictions, and I wish you good health and many successes. We need more people who are trying to do what is right in the world. Thanks.

Michael Satterlee:

Maybe you should go to an LDS meeting and see for yourself the doctrine that is being taught; you may just end up agreeing somewhat with us. (And no one will force you to stay, or do anything against you will.)

IT IS FAR BETTER TO FIND REASONS TO UNITE, RATHER THAN TO FIND REASONS TO DIVIDE.

Debrar,

To begin with, just so you'll know where I am coming from, I am not a Baptist. I actually attend a non-denominational Christian fellowship. I am simply a Christian. You ask me how I would feel if someone spoke against my church. The only "church" I belong to is one that is made up of all people who have accepted Jesus Christ as their King, Lord and Savior, Christ's entire body of believers. Thus I accept you as a member of my church, Christ's church, though I doubt you accept me in the same way.

The problem is, being a member of Christ's "church" - his entire body of professed believers - is not going to be sufficient on Judgment day. In Matt. 13:47-49 Jesus used the phrase, "the kingdom of heaven". When he did so he was clearly referring to all who would profess to accept him as their king. For a "kingdom" is a domain over which a king rules. There Jesus said, "The kingdom of heaven is like a net that was let down into the lake and caught all kinds of fish. When it was full, the fishermen pulled it up on the shore. Then they sat down and collected the good fish in baskets, but threw the bad away. This is how it will be at the end of the age. The angels will come and separate the wicked from the righteous."

The primary message of Christianity - "Christ died for us" - is now accepted by some two billion people on earth who all call themselves "Christians". They all now fill the "net" of "the kingdom of heaven." As professed Christians they are all part of Christ's body of believers. But being a part of Christ's body of professed believers is not enough. Like being in that net was not enough. That net caught "good fish" and "bad fish".

Just as you will probably agree, the primary message of Christianity has attracted men who have used that message to found some good religious organizations and some bad ones. When the fish are taken out of the net will they be counted as "bad fish" only if they themselves founded a false religious organization, or will those who have allowed themselves to be deceived by these false religious leaders also be counted as "bad fish"? I believe the latter to be true. For Jesus said that, "When the blind lead the blind they will both fall into the pit." (Matt. 15:14) And Paul told us that, "They will perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. ... All will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness." (2 Thess. 2:10,11)

It is for this reason that I talk to those who tell me I need more than faith in Christ to be saved, that I need to accept the authority of their religious organization. It is because I love the truth, and because I know that what they have just told me is not true, and because I know that only believers who love the truth will be counted among the "good fish" caught by the "net" of Christianity.

Hi Michael Satterlee:

I never said you were Baptist, and you never said what religion you were, I just used an example. There are many things we have in common, and I appreciate your diligence and desire to follow the Savior -- I too have the same pursuit. I think that we just need to decide to agree that we disagree; I feel all that I’ve told you is correct, you feel that it is not – you and I are different religions for a reason. Many people do not want to belong to or attend an organized religion, that’s their choice. Plus, we each have different religious approaches, including whether we want to argue over beliefs, or be more humble, receptive, and work with the Spirit in teaching. Not only can two different religions get along in this world, but many religions can find common ground – which, at the very least, would be to allow people the freedom of choice. Like I said before, I wish you the best and honestly appreciate your goals at helping this world be a better place.

Odd as it may sound, I’ll miss talking with you when we finally sign off -- regardless of our differences. :)

IT IS FAR BETTER TO FIND REASONS TO UNITE, RATHER THAN TO FIND REASONS TO DIVIDE.

Debrar,

You wrote: "we each have different religious approaches, including whether we want to argue over beliefs, or be more humble [and] receptive ..."

I consider myself to be both humble and receptive. I believe I have much yet to learn and I believe it is actually possible that I could learn something of great spiritual value from talking to you. One thing I find disheartening when discussing spiritual matters with someone who claims to belong to "the only true church" - whichever "only true church" that may be (there are a few of them), is that they are the ones who never seem to be either "humble" or "receptive". Maybe it's hard to be humble when a person believes they are one of a very tiny fraction of world's population, far less than 1%, who belong to "the one true church." It is also probably hard to be "receptive" when a person believes that God now dispenses all spiritual truth only through their church leaders and that nothing of any great spirtual value will ever be presented to them by someone who does not accept all of the claims of their religious leaders.

MichaelSatterlee:

Have you reviewed any of our previous comments? I continue to try and find common ground with you, even when you look for and continue to hash and pose your agenda regarding things about my church. This is not the forum for this, I am not here to justify my belief system to you, nor will I, especially when your comments are housed in misconceptions/lies and half truths, with some sprinklings of truth. You have no desire to know what my church teaches – I could talk and try to explain until I am “blue in the face”, and you will still tell me that I am wrong, deceived, yada, yada, yada. You don’t believe the way I do which I, at least, am OK with … but because of this, you continue to throw your own beliefs at me. I will continue to let them ride because I’m not on this blog to argue over our differences. In some ways it is a much harder course to take, bypassing your comments that are intended to push buttons, than it is to answer you tit for tat. Only contention will come of this, especially since I am not asking for your approval or acceptance of what I believe, nor am I trying to convince you of the LDS doctrine.

However, I do continue to tell you that there are many religions on this planet, an obvious statement, but what does not seem to be sinking in with you is the basic foundation : not everyone will agree on the same belief systems, AND, most all people attending their church of choice do so because they believe it to be the correct doctrine. You need to realize that you believe differently than I do, you interpret some scriptures differently than I do. Does this panic you? Do you think this is unusual? I certainly don’t.

I love my church. I am so thankful for my church. I appreciate the beauty of the Gospel, and the knowledge I have of where I came from before I was born, why I am here on this earth, and where I am going after I die. I’ve learned to be more Christ like, to offer more service, to be more humble, patient, and understanding, to strive to be a better person be more like the Savior. I try to work on the virtues that the Prophet Paul mentioned, and which is summed up in our 13th Article of Faith: “We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men; indeed, we may say that we follow the admonition of Paul—We believe all things, we hope all things, we have endured many things, and hope to be able to endure all things. If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things”.

Another thing --- of course my church feels it is correct, duh! We believe what we preach! Therefore, we believe there is a reason why we say we feel it is the only true church. We are being honest. Does that mean there is no truth in other churches, or that there is no goodness or good people in other churches? Heaven’s no! You do not need to be of the same mind and heart as all the other churches that are different than you, but you do need to let people have their own minds and beliefs. For commenting so much on being brainwashed, you are doing a good job at trying to push your views on me. What’s up with that Michael? I feel that we are free to practice and believe as we will, until that practice harms other people.

This is how the "Mormons" (members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) feel:
11th Article of Faith:

”We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may”.

All 13 Articles of Faith:
http://www.lds.org/library/display/0,4945,106-1-2-1,FF.html

Once again I say to you that I am glad that you have found the Savior, of course -- and whether I am glad for you or not, does not play a part in what and how you pursue your belief set. You will follow the dictates of your own conscience, as will I.

Debrar,

You quoted your 11th Article of Faith as saying, ”We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may”. You then quoted your 13th Article of Faith as saying, "We believe in being honest ..." So let's be honest. Here's what Mormons really think about Christian faiths other than their own.

Joseph Fielding Smith, the tenth president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints said: [There is] "no salvation without accepting Joseph Smith. If Joseph Smith was verily a prophet, and if he told the truth...no man can reject that testimony without incurring the most dreadful consequences, for he cannot enter the kingdom of God" (Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 1, p.190).
Brigham Young stated: "no man or woman in this dispensation will ever enter into the celestial kingdom of God without the consent of Joseph Smith...every man and woman must have the certificate of Joseph Smith, junior, as a passport to their entrance into the mansion where God and Christ are." (Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, p.289).
Brigham Young also declared, "He that confesseth not that Jesus has come in the flesh and sent Joseph Smith with the fullness of the Gospel to this generation, is not of God, but is anti-christ." (Journal of Discourses, vol. 9, p.312).
Bruce McConkie a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day stated: "If it had not been for Joseph Smith and the restoration, there would be no salvation. There is no salvation outside The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" (Mormon Doctrine, p.670).
Brigham Young said, "Should you ask why we differ from other Christians, as they are called, it is simply because they are not Christians as the New Testament defines Christianity" (Journal of Discourses 10:230).
Orson Pratt, an original member of the Quorum of Twelve Apostles, proclaimed: "Both Catholics and Protestants are nothing less than the 'whore of Babylon' whom the Lord denounces. ... Any person who shall be so corrupt as to receive a holy ordinance of the Gospel from the ministers of any of these apostate churches will be sent down to hell with them, unless they repent" (The Seer, p. 255).

Jesus said, "Stop judging and you will not be judged," and "Stop condemning and you will not be condemned." ( Matt. 7:1; Luke 6:37 ) Since it's founding in the early 19th century the leaders of the Mormon church have consistantantly been judging and condemning all non-Mormons in the worst way. Who Jesus Christ accepts as true Christians and who he does not is a judgment that is His to make, not ours. The Mormon teaching that Christ only considers Mormons to be true Christians is not a teaching of Scripture and, in fact, is totally contrary to the teachings of Christ.

The fact of the matter is that if Mitt Romney was honest about what his Church really teaches about people who belong to other Christian churches no one other than a Mormon would ever vote for him.

That’s true, the 11th Article of Faith says: “We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may”.

Yep, and that is exactly what I have been trying to do with you. You believe you are right, I believe I am right --- I do not try to force my beliefs upon you, however, you do try to force your beliefs upon me.

Well Michael, this is most likely my last post. You just want to fight; I’ll leave you to yourself to do just that. I’ve found that many times when people add quotes to past, or current, leaders of my church, they either take them out of context or misquote them. I believe what the leaders of my church have said, period. You don’t have to. Amazing huh? Freedom of religion -- what a concept.

Mitt Romney has a very great chance of becoming President, he has much to offer and there are many who recognize this. I find it a bit ironic that there were people concerned that maybe Mitt Romney would force his religion onto others, and look here, I think that you have this already covered. It really is a shame that you cannot accept our differences. Oh well, good luck to you.

You may want to read the following. Here are some non-LDS who support Mitt Romney:

"EVANGELICALS FOR MITT"
http://www.evangelicalsformitt.org/


The Romney difference
By Paul M. Weyrich
November 16, 2007
http://washingtontimes.com/article/20071116/EDITORIAL/111160015/1013


ULTIMITT
http://ultimitt.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=13&Itemid=73


By their fruits you shall know them. I wish you the best.


P.S.
If you really want to know about what we believe, including that we believe and honor the Bible, go to:
www.lds.org

Excerpt from:
"EVANGELICALS FOR MITT"
http://www.evangelicalsformitt.org/


But…He’s a Mormon.

Yes, Gov. Romney is a Mormon. We are not. According to the liberal media, this is an unbridgeable gap, and evangelicals will never turn out to support a faithful Mormon like Governor Romney. As usual, the media have it wrong. And they root their error (as usual) in a fundamental misunderstanding about American evangelicals—seeing us as ignorant and intolerant simpletons who are incapable of making sophisticated political value judgments.


To be perfectly clear, we believe Governor Romney is not only acceptable to conservative Christians, but that he is clearly the best choice for people of faith. He is right on all the issues, and he has proven his positions with actions. He is a gifted and persuasive spokesman for our political and moral values. Here is the bottom line: the 2008 election is for president, not pastor. We would never advocate that the Governor become our pastor or lead our churches—we disagree with him profoundly on theological issues. But we reject the notion that the president of the United States has to be in perfect harmony with our religious doctrine. In fact, that is not a test that has been applied before—after all, Jimmy Carter was probably more theologically in line with evangelicals than Ronald Reagan, yet we believe that Reagan was clearly the better choice in 1980.


Let’s leave the absurd religious litmus test to the Democrats. What we want is a president who shares our moral and political values and will put them into action. A President Romney would do that—just as he’s done in Massachusetts—making him stand head and shoulders above the rest of the field.


Finally, it is not just our theory that evangelicals will support Governor Romney. In March, 2006, he shocked the political establishment by finishing second at the Southern Republican Leadership Conference straw poll in Memphis, Tennessee. We led the grassroots effort that put him above John McCain and George Allen, and where did he get the vast majority of his support? From the very Southern evangelicals who the media is convinced will not support a Mormon from Massachusetts.

Debrar,

You wrote: I’ve found that many times when people add quotes to past, or current, leaders of my church, they either take them out of context or misquote them.

Is that right? The fact is I can produce many more quotes from your church leaders just like those I just posted. So tell me which of the quotes which I just posted do you believe is a misquote or taken out of context? And tell me if I can prove to you that it is not, by producing a scanned copy of the quote from Mormon literature in its full context, will you then agree with me that your church leaders have been very wrong in what they have said and written? Will you then admit that any church which regularly judges and condemns others, contrary to the commands of Christ, cannot be what it claims to be, "the one true church"?

Andrew Smith wrote: Since the BOM was translated in the 1800s it has not had time to be changed and it stands as the original copy.

The following Web site provides full color photographic scans of every page of an 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon.

http://www.inephi.com/Search.htm

Andrew may want to compare it to his present BOM. When he does he will find nearly 4,000 changes have been made to the BOM over the years, most minor in nature, such as correcting Joseph Smith's often poor grammer which cast doubt on his claim to have translated the BOM "word for word by the power of God." But several changes were clearly made to bring the BOM into confomity with later established church doctrine.

Here are a few of the changes Andrew will find. The 1830 edition was not divided into chapters and verses. So only page numbers are here provided for the 1830 edition. The web site allows you to search and view all pages by page number. Chapter and verse are here given for comparison with today's version of the BOM.

1) First Book of Nephi, p.25 (1830): "Behold, the virgin which thou seest, is the mother of God, after the manner of the flesh."

Today: 1 Nephi 11:18: "...is the mother of the Son of God."

2) First Book of Nephi, p.25 (1830):."...behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the Eternal Father!"

Today: 1 Nephi 11:21: "yea, even the Son of the Eternal Father!"

3) First Book of Nephi, p.26 (1830): "And I looked and beheld the Lamb of God, that he was taken by the people; yea, the Everlasting God was judged of the the world..."

Today: 1 Nephi 11:32: "...yea, the Son of the Everlasting God was judged of the world..."

4) First Book of Nephi, p.32; (1830): "...that the Lamb of God is the Eternal Father and the Saviour of the world."

Today: 1 Nephi 13:40 "..the Lamb of God is the Son of the Eternal Father and the Savior of the world."

"Glass houses".

Mitt Romney is not the church's poster child, nor does he want, or say, himself to be. I would venture to guess that he is conducting himself as a good and faithful Latter-day Saint. I certainly am extremely impressed with him, his educational and business backgrounds, and for his personal strength of character.

I can only imagine how critical some people can be as they try to find any flaw in his character, faith, background, etc. Do any of you have flaws, or have any of you been in his position?

And to think, he is willing once more, as he did in Massachusetts, to do the job without being paid. I know some will say that he is already wealthy, . yep, you've missed the point. Which of the candidates is not? None, they are all wealthy. Would you be so generous?

"Glass houses".

Among the least wealthy candidates in the race according to CNN.com are Sen. Joe Biden, D-Delaware, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, a Republican, neither of whom are anywhere close to being millionaires.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/17/candidates.wealth/index.html

That may be one of the reasons Huckabee is one of my favorite Republican candidates and Romney is one of my least favorites. Huckabee comes from a very poor family and, like most of us, has struggled financially his entire life. He will be able to understand and sympathize with the plight of ordinary working folks. Romney has always been a son of wealth and privilege and has never known financial hardship.

Michael Sattelee:

You are so ornery and biased that you make me laugh! :)

Debrar,

You wrote: you make me laugh! :)

Well I'm sure glad I could brighten your day! : )

Hey, I thought you weren't talking to me anymore.

The humor of your comment couldn't stop my fingers from responding. Thanks for the laugh. :)


Reminds me of a comment I read:

"If the mormons hadn’t given him his 8 figure job and financed this campaign then you would be right

But the source of his wealth is his parents and exyended family and relatives personal wealth"

EricPWJohnson on November 15, 2007 at 10:18 PM

"Kerist. Romney’s made his fortune at Bain & Company and Bain Capital. Are those Mormon firms?

Do you think the fact that he attended Stanford, graduated first in his class at BYU, and has a joint law/business degree from Harvard might have qualified him to get hired somewhere?

Or do you think that without his parents’ help he would have been an aimless ne’er do well who never amounted to anything?"

Buy Danish on November 15, 2007 at 10:54 PM


IT IS FAR BETTER TO FIND REASONS TO UNITE, RATHER THAN TO FIND REASONS TO DIVIDE.

YOUR RIGHT, United we Stand Divided We Fall lets have the man with the message this side of our Fathers house "our Founding Fathers Ron Paul 2008, let live in The Constitution of he US

"All the problems in theology and religion have been the result of what we call 'revealed religion'."
"Wild and blasphemous ideas of God are formed because man has wandered away from the unchangeable laws of science, and the right use of reason; and because something called revealed religion was invented."
"It is the duty of every man who respects the character of the Creator, to reject all ideas of revealed religions as a dangerous heresy, and an irreverent fraud. This will reduce many of the miseries of mankind, and will remove the cause behind persecutions. What have we learned from this false thing called 'revealed religion'? Absolutely nothing that is useful to man, and everything that is dishonorable to God."
"The most horrible wickedness and cruelties, and the greatest miseries that have troubled the human race began with this thing called revelation, or revealed religion. Belief in revelation is the greatest dishonor to the character of God that was ever made known since man existed. It destroys morality, and harms the peace and happiness of man. "