Romney's Religion Speech: Pros and Cons

"We have a lot of states about to vote in rapid succession and voters want to be comfortable with who candidates really are," a senior adviser to Mitt Romney says., "If we waited any longer, folks would be voting and you couldn't give the speech and not have it get caught up in political moment."

--------------------------

Note that Romney's campaign statement asserts that he decided to deliver the speech "sometime last week" -- i.e, before the latest round of polls.

The pros of giving the speech:

1. it’s a ubiquitous issue, there’s a lot of misinformation about the religion, and there perhaps are some voters who would be comforted by having Romney explain precisely how his faith would inform his decision-making.

2. Perhaps Romney is personally aggrieved by the public and private attacks on his religion and he feels compelled to defend it.

3. The Romney campaign is collecting information about an under-the-radar campaign to directly attack Romney on his religion and wants to pre-empt it

4. Maybe some voters who are inclined to hold Romney’s Mormonism against him will feel guilty when Romney cites the principle of religious tolerance.

5. By laying a marker, Romney makes sure that when reporters write about his religion, they have to cite excerpts from his speech, thereby guaranteeing that Romney’s point of view gets expressed.

6. Romney raises the level of awareness about under-the-radar attacks on his religion and thereby makes it more risky that any campaign caught perpetrating them will be castigated.

The Cons:

1. A large tranche of voters in Iowa will blanche at Romney’s attempt to make them feel guilty about their objections to Mormonism.

2. Christian conservatives do not like to be lectured to; depending on what Romney says, they might feel as if he lecturing to them.

3. Romney’ speech guarantees a week of in-depth, public debate about the specific practices of Mormonism.

4. Romney is now taking ownership of every single practice, of every single historical quirk of his religion.

5. The press will spend the days leading up to the speech speculating that Romney is giving it because he is panicked about losing Iowa.

6. Any under-the-radar efforts by Romney opponents to play up his religion can be abandoned because Romney himself will bring it up.

Comments

#1 on the cons list is the biggest reason why Romney shouldn't do this. Unless he hits a perfect tone, it'll come across to most as an attempt to shame them into backing Mitt. It could come across as religious blackmail.

Besides, the GOP isn't exactly open to religous or racial minorities of any sort. Why would they be swayed by Mitt's arguament for religious affirmative action?

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by matt | December 3, 2007 10:17 AM

This is just panic from Team Romney now that Huck's beating him in Iowa. Most people don't know that much about Mormonism, and the more they find out, the more they'll be turned off.

Once Mitt starts talking about Joseph Smith and the mysterious disappearing golden plates, the evangelicals will start flying out the door. Oh yeah, what REALLY goes on in those temples, anyway?

Posted by Peter | December 3, 2007 10:33 AM

This "JFK style" speech on religion is not what it claims to be.

Rather, it sets up Romney - a candidate with an unlimited campaign warchest - to be able to lose Iowa to Huckabee and still march on, blaming the loss on "religious bigotry." (This, from a man who declares he won't allow Muslims in his cabinet: his situational ethics extend to religious freedom, too)

This speech is intended to change the subject: from Romney's famous flip flops on abortion and other hot-button issues, from the "Sanctuary Mansion," from dozens of high profile missteps along the campaign trail. It sets up the pundits to say, after he loses Iowa, "it was because of his religion" and not "it was because he ran a dishonest and incompetent campaign."

He's launching a flair into the sky so you won't notice what is going on at ground level. That's all it is.

Posted by victimologist | December 3, 2007 11:06 AM

Romney himself is such a bigot. He does not want a Muslim in his cabinet but he wants everyone to believe his own spin about Moromonism.

Posted by Steph | December 3, 2007 11:11 AM

Romney is intellectually dishonest. He push polls himself about Moromonism and then wants to give the speech about Mormonism.

Posted by Tom | December 3, 2007 11:13 AM

The speech will not work because Romney always comes out as deceptive when he opens his mouth. He may look most presidential but he comes out as most deceptive politician when he starts speaking. Only the brainwashed Romney followers like him.

A speech like that may work for personalities like McCain, Huckabee but it will never work for Romney.

Posted by TM Smith | December 3, 2007 11:18 AM

"Christian conservatives do not like to be lectured to; depending on what Romney says, they might feel as if he lecturing to them."

Christian conservatives love being lectured to; just as long as the lecture is in sync with what they already believe.

Posted by Adam | December 3, 2007 11:28 AM

Peter: "Once Mitt starts talking about Joseph Smith and the mysterious disappearing golden plates, the evangelicals will start flying out the door. Oh yeah, what REALLY goes on in those temples, anyway?"

C'mon Peter, the evangelicals have been scaring their congregations about Mormons since the early 1800's and it's only gotten worse in the last two decades. To you really think the average evangelical doesn't know the arguments against Joseph Smith or the golden plates?

What's pathetic here is that no matter how many Mormon politicians serve with honor and dignity in the United States government, the people of our country still let people with religious agendas force an LDS candidate to pass their ridiculous religious tests before they can be considered as a candidate.

Americans just need to grow up a little. If you want to disagree with us about religion...fine...but don't stir up the public into some kind of new anti-mormon frenzy about Mitt just because you don't like our church.

What "REALLY goes on in our temples? We get together trying to figure out how we can overthrow the government of the united states with our magical underwear. Now you know.

Posted by Elbeau | December 3, 2007 11:28 AM

After saying "no Muslims need apply," Romney now giving speech on "religious freedom"?

Posted by amb | December 3, 2007 11:57 AM

For all it's worth, Romney is leading Huckabee in the latest Iowa poll out this morning.

Posted by Daniel | December 3, 2007 12:09 PM

Mormons are learning that a large segment of the Republican Party isn't really interested in them, or at least a large segment of the Post-Rove-Bush Republican Party.

But Mormons have seen worse, such as when the federal government disenfranchised the entire church, took away the women's vote in Utah, and arrested the Church's leaders.

Before that the American opposition to Mormonism was limited to local community tarring and featherings, with an occasional assination.

Romney has it easy. He's only getting criticized on the internet.

Posted by cyndu | December 3, 2007 12:15 PM

You know Romney will be the next President by all the folklore political idiots keep raising as facts. This only happens to the winners. Romney says he will make appointments to his cabinet based upon qualifications not religion, and now, becuase enough enemies have said he won't let Muslims in the cabinet, they have officially changed what he said, nevermind the fact that that story was started by a Democrat fundraiser. Next we have people saying Mitt push-polled himself, everyone in Utah knows who did that push poll and it wasn't anyone with the Romney campaign. If a thousand people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. But when they say it about a political candidate, you have your winner!

By the way, Romney has hunted more than twice, that was another piece of fiction perpetuated by 1000 foolish people. I could go on and on. He is being attacked by the log cabin folks and the pro-abortion folks, who else is attracting this kind of attention, only President Romney.

Posted by HMH | December 3, 2007 12:22 PM

I am for Romney giving a speach on his religion. Quite frankly, people may find the policies of political neutrality wise on the part of the LDS Church. I am also quite surprised at all of the people on this website. One would think that showing favoritism towards one culture over another is inherently dangerous for any candidate. Apparently, everyone on this post has their minds made up as to who they are already voting for. In fact, I would go so far as to say that they are already bought and paid for by their own candidates.

Posted by David | December 3, 2007 12:24 PM

Con #1: If he makes a JFK speech, the conservative evangelicals don't like it because keeping religion and governance separate is not at all what they're after. If he instead talks about how his religiously defined values and loyalties SHOULD inform his work, the conservative evangelicals don't like it because it's the wrong religion (or denomination, but that's not what they'll say). It's a lose/lose to do this during the primaries.

Posted by Steve Thorngate | December 3, 2007 12:37 PM

I wonder if most of the people in the United States wish Romney were not a Mormon. It's not that they want him necessarily to be something else, but definitely not a Mormon.

Why? Isn't it because of bad perceptions of Mormons? They are strange and don't fit in at our drinking parties and what about the missionaries that come to our doors?

But what happens when we get to know actual Mormons ourselves? They aren't bad people, and I think they are some of the greatest people you can find. They are genuinely kind, loving, warm, and have some of the sweetest families.

It's that lack of knowledge and misguided perception of Mormons that hurts Romney. And people are voting against him for reasons that have more to do with religion than we care to admit. Mormons aren't going to hell, but are good people who have the same values as most of us.

Posted by Dane | December 3, 2007 1:17 PM

Mitt Romney has been telling America for months that America needs a President who is a man of faith , in other words he has not been averse himself to play the religious card . So now that he has taken the plunge and decided to elaborate on his faith , the question is will he be candid .
Will he tell the truth that his understanding of who Jesus is - is that he is the Devil's brother produced along with the rest of humanity by a relationship between God the Father and one of his plural wives on a planet near a star called Kolob . Romney must understand that this view along with a host of other Mormon views is deeply offensive to not only Christians but also to people with no particular faith .

If Romney is absolutely open then whilst it does not take away from the horror of these views at least he is being principled which hitherto he has not been .

Posted by Andrew Price | December 3, 2007 2:31 PM

Hey!!!! Andrew Price is Back!!!!

A warm welcome from all Mormon bloggers to the king of anti-mormon bloggers!!!

Your comments are the epitomy of the fact that the people "worried" about Romney's religion are really just making religious arguments...not interested in anything that actually effects politics.

But, welcome anyways...it always makes the debate spicier.

Posted by Elbeau | December 3, 2007 2:38 PM

By the way Andrew...

When it comes to voicing your politics you should mention that you are British and not living in America. Do you really believe that the citizens of your country should busy themselves telling us how to vote?

But, that's not why you're here is it? Just a little more Mormon-Hating.

Posted by Elbeau | December 3, 2007 2:47 PM

I think Romney perpetrated this whole Mormonism debacle. He has the money to pay for excellent consultants and none of this is about what Mitt wants to do – it is what his consultants decide will have the desired effect on his campaign. I was impressed by his “I’m only human” approach to defending his flip-flopping (great message development!). He is appealing to American public’s need to be Politically Correct when people bring up his religion and he acts the victim.

As for the poster who wrote: You know Romney will be the next President by all the folklore political idiots keep raising as facts.

Just because you think he is being “persecuted” doesn’t mean he is right. Isn’t that how Mormonism was galvanized in the beginning? As they were driven out of community after community they felt (and were) persecuted, therefore they must be on to something! Then their founder was martyred which lent them more legitimacy. If everyone is against you, you must be on to something, right? Not in this case.

So back to my main point – I think Romney is responsible for this Mormon hoopla. He is using it to his advantage. The fact of the matter is, his political experience is not where it should be (a one-term governor in a state where he is now HUGELY unpopular). He has always been willing to say whatever he needed to in order to get elected. Would he be willing to use his religion to come off persecuted? I think so. But I also think he is just a pretty face with a gigantic checkbook.

Posted by Ann | December 3, 2007 3:14 PM

This is coming from someone who has been raised Mormon.

People who aren't very familiar with the practices and beliefs of the Mormon religion fail to see why it could be dangerous to elect a Mormon president, and why this impending speech needs to be heard.

The prophet of the Mormon church receives revelation from God for the church and all its members which they are encouraged to follow unquestioningly. The prophet's revelations are purportedly infallible, as he is just God's mouthpiece, so to disobey him is to disobey God. Mitt Romney, as a member of the church, would be expected to tailor his beliefs and political stance to any future revelations from the Mormon church.

If the prophet received revelation from God saying no one is to do business on the Sabbath, what is Romney's level of obligation to support the revelation? Make all businesses close on Sunday? This is an entirely hypothetical situation, but you see where I'm going with this. I can almost guarantee that new revelations would be mirrored in policy. I think it would allow the prophet of the Mormon church to impose his will on a nation as opposed to his specific followers, and leaves the government and hierarchy of the church wide open to corruption.

I agree that many Mormons are good, kind people. Most of my family is Mormon, as were the families I grew up around. However, the temperament of a religious population has nothing to do with the separation of church and state.

Posted by MsJane | December 3, 2007 3:14 PM

Elbeau - Instead of attacking Andrew Price, why don't you attack what he wrote? We get that you are trying to undermine him but what about his message? Thanks!

Posted by Ann | December 3, 2007 3:28 PM

MsJane: This might suprise you, but I'm actually fine with your argument about the Mormon prophet and the worry some could have about him running the candidate. At least that is a political argument...but take a look around the internet and other media...this is NOT the major argument that people are making. They're going on and on about magical underwear and about 19th century Mormon history. They're completely ignoring the fact that we have served this country faithfully ever since our church was founded. They're completely ignoring the fact that Romney has a LONG political and business record all showing that he does not take orders from Salt Lake City. They're completely ignoring the fact that he has said time and time again the he would not listen to orders from Salt Lake City. They're completely ignoring the fact that Salt Lake City has said over and over again that they would not ever tell a candidate what to do in political office.

The problem is not that people are worried that he will be a puppet. There's plenty of evidence to refute that. The problem is that America is allowing people with purely religious agendas to push their hatred of us into the presidential race.

Posted by Elbeau | December 3, 2007 3:31 PM

Ann: The reason I don't engage Andrew Price in a debate about Mormon doctrines is that it has no place in a presidential race. I've spent my life as a Mormon and even served a Mormon mission in Mississippi where there are more than a few evangelicals and others who disagree with us. I love to talk to them about doctrines in the appropriate setting.

What I have a problem with is that America is ignoring the candidate and focusing on the religion. This is a political forum. I do not expect Romney to just be the president of the Mormons any more than I would expect Huckabee to be just president of the protestants. This is a political forum, not a debate about religion.

It is pathetic that our country - which touts its tolerance - has pushed and pushed this candidate to give a religious speech.

The hatred towards our church is almost completely driven by people with alternate religious agendas...like Andrew Price...and it has no business in this forum.

Posted by Elbeau | December 3, 2007 3:36 PM

Mr Elbeau - I do not hide the fact I am British , neither do I hide behind a blogger name . Since your great country is the most important country in the world for which I thank God , it is not unreasonable for me to have a concern and interest as to who is your President . I would further make the observation that American citizens ie politicians , economists etc are always on your TV and British TV waxing eloquent about the type of government in other countries they prefer . So I trust if it is good enough for them it is good enough for me . I would also make mention of the fact I have many Mormon friends whom I take great pleasure in meeting when ever I visit Utah or Idaho . Shush dont tell their bishops or stake presidents in case they are threatened with having their Temple Recommends removed.
Anyway enough about me - may I just press the point if Romney is going to speak about his so called Christian faith and his so called Saviour can he just tell the world that he understands Jesus to be the Devil's brother etc All are agreed that Jesus is the heart of the Christian faith . With that information the American people can make an informed opinion . I trust that is reasonable .

Posted by Andrew Price | December 3, 2007 3:49 PM

Andrew: Thanks for clearing that up...and if I can get my temple recommend rescinded by conversing with the British, then I'm in serious trouble, because I have a lot of British friends :D

You're still trying to engage me on religious arguments in a political forum. How would Romney talking about his belief in the relationship between Jesus and Satan affect his potential as president? Why would you or anyone else push the issue except to keep sounding off on this blog and to the world a bunch of stuff that you think will scare people off of the Mormon religion. You don't do it to further a political goal...you have a long-standing beef with Mormons. You're not here to blog politically...you're here because you don't like our religion.

Posted by Elbeau | December 3, 2007 3:57 PM

Daniel wrote: For all it's worth, Romney is leading Huckabee in the latest Iowa poll out this morning.

It's not worth much. Check the article. It states, "[This] poll was taken from November 7th to the 25th."

Not exactly "the latest Iowa poll" since many of its participants were interviewed almost a month ago.

Posted by Michael Satterlee | December 3, 2007 4:11 PM

I don’t think Mitt is being coerced into giving this religious speech – if he didn’t think it would help his campaign he wouldn’t do it plain and simple.

And you can’t have it both ways – If Mitt talks about his religion then why is it off-limits to the rest of us? By saying that Jesus is his savior he is trying to appeal to all the Protestant/Catholics out there who also call Jesus their savior. So it is okay to point out all the similarities but not the differences? So the religious debate can only be on those terms otherwise it’s just Mormon-bashing?

Posted by Ann | December 3, 2007 4:18 PM

Mr Elbeau - you are being evasive you know very well a member of the LDS would not have his Temple Recommend removed for mixing with somebody from the UK , but they would have their Recommend removed for mixing too closely with apostates or people like me - who is a Christian worker among the Mormons . When we last exchanged views I asked the question - since when has the Mormons divided politics from religion ? - you did not give a satisfactory response . Your so called prophet Joseph Smith was wanting to stand for President of the United States . As you know other examples can be given of the overlap between Mormonism and their theory of government .
Like Islam , like Christianity the Mormons have a world view . Just to remind you politics is the theory of government - you are simply not being honest if you are suggesting Romney would not be heavily influenced by his Mormonism and the brotherhood in Salt Lake.

Finally on this subject Romney made secret oaths in the Mormon Temple which he must not divulge on pain of having his throat slit and that his first loyalty was to the church ie The CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS .

Posted by Andrew Price | December 3, 2007 4:34 PM

That's better...now you've made some political tie-ins, which I will address - although what you said about "people like me - who is a Christian worker among the Mormons" still is a good description that your motives are religious even though you've moved a little onto political grounds.

"since when has the Mormons divided politics from religion?"

Here is some cannonized Mormon scripture - and these versus particularly are ones that we are taught to memorize as children:

"We believe in worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience and allow all men the same priviledge, let them worship how, where or what they may"

"We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law"

If you want more than just words - look at our politicians, from Harry Reid to Orin Hatch of today...or maybe you prefer Ezra Benson who served in the presidential cabinet as secretary of agriculture and fed a very hungry Europe after WWII (he later became the leader of our church) - did he attach copies of the Book of Mormon to the potatoes he had air-lifted into Poland? Perhaps you should look at Mitt himself who has served in public office and in high levels of business and has no record of having the "brotherhood in Salt Lake" make decisions for him.

We have been entrusted with government many times and we have a reputation for not abusing that power...but you know all of this, you "are simply not being honest" as you like to casually put it. Like you said...I just don't give "satisfactory responses" to you.

You just have a beef with Mormons...I don't know where it stemmed from, and I really don't care. The vast majority of us are trying to do well as citizens and we deserve to be treated with the respect we've earned.

As far as promises made in the temple or anywhere else promising any kind of loyalty to our church. The only way to fulfill those would be to follow the church's policy of separating our religion from politics...but like I said, you just won't find that "satisfactory"...but that's ok, most people can tell the difference between a religious agenda and a political argument.

Posted by Elbeau | December 3, 2007 5:02 PM

Ann: I tend to agree with you that a candidate should set the example of keeping religion out of politics...my question to you is what should a candidate do when a HUGE part of the electorate wants to ask him about his religion? Watch one of his "Ask Mitt Anything" events and see how many people are bringing it up. It's ridiculous. Although I disagree with him ever bringing up any specific religious tenents in speeches, the evangelical voters have made it completely impossible for any candidate to achieve political office without talking about religion. Now it is becoming abundantly clear that they don't just mean religious values...but their exact doctrine. It sucks, but it's the truth. It's America that needs to lay off the religious argument...until we do, our candidates will be forced through political religious rituals like we're seeing from Mitt.

Posted by Elbeau | December 3, 2007 5:32 PM

Mr Elbeau - I hold up my hands and say my Christian faith influeces my political views and judgement . Mike Huckabee has said the same - George W Bush has said the same . Do you see all open , all honest . Some Americans will like this and some will not like this . Mitt Romney is playing a game he claims his religion will not influence him and yet he says the Whitehouse needs a man of faith . As several astute bloggers have observed it is Romney that is playing the religious card . Are you saying that Romney accidently said Osama and not Obama the other week ? When it suits Romney he plays the religious card and as soon as anyone examines his Mormon convictions - his followers cry bigotry . So I am sorry Mr Elbeau your man is exposed for what he is a thoroughly dishonest man .

I have spoken to numerous pastors in Iowa over the last few weeks and they do not want a man who believes that Jesus is the Devil's brother . If you wish to disparage them that is your problem .
If you can allow a British citizen to comment on these men - they are simple Christian men who love their country and want the best for America and her citizens.

With respect to your various quotations you are trying to throw dust in people's eyes you are deliberately avoiding the main players in Mormonism ie Joseph Smith and Brigham Young .Smith was Mayor of Nauvoo and Young was governor of Utah - are you seriously suggesting their religious convictions did not affect their governance . Further you know there is a Mormon view that one day in a time of crisis for America a Mormon will be raised up to be her Saviour .

Posted by Andrew Price | December 3, 2007 6:17 PM

The problem with Romney and the religion speech is that both are subject to multiple changes. The LDS religion and beliefs have changed more times that Romney's abortion position.
Until the last 20 years no self-respecting Mormon ever wanted to be considered a Christian (duh- that's why they call themselves Mormons not Christians). If Mormons are christians- then why do they send missionaries to Alabama and Italy?
It also has been only recently when they started talking up the bible- trouble is- they don't carry the bible to church they carry the Book of Mormon.
If/when the general public actually finds out that Romney believes that Jesus was in Mexico when the Founders were creating the USA in the 1700s and that Satan is Jesus's brother then you will see a complete rejection of the Republican Bill Clinton. If he's not the MORMON candidate- then why is UTAH the largest contributing state to his campaign (Don't say it was the Olymypics because he was Governor of MASS much more recently). Romney is a gumby candidate and he will go hopefully go nowhere.
I also find it interesting that he has FIVE sons and NONE served in the military but all went on a 2 year Mormon mission.

Posted by David | December 3, 2007 6:42 PM

Andrew,
Your comment of:

"Finally on this subject Romney made secret oaths in the Mormon Temple which he must not divulge on pain of having his throat slit and that his first loyalty was to the church ie The CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS." is exceptionally repulsive. This shows you do not know ANYTHING about our religion.

First I want to say I am a CONVERT to the LDS Church. I was baptized in 1994 and have gone to the Temple to be sealed to my wife (yes.. Only 1!)

Now onto the rest of the post.

There are no "blood oaths"

No one will have their throats slit

First loyalty is not to the LDS Church

I have been to the Temple MANY times in my life. The oaths we take in the Temple are to live righteously, follow the teachings of Jesus Christ, and remain loyal to our Spouse (if we have one). The Temple is all about symbolism not "blood oaths". Seesh! Grow up and ASK a Mormon what we do in the Temple and stop spreading LIES about a religion you do not like. The reason we do not OPENLY discuss what goes on in the Temple is not because it is SECRET but because it is SACRED. The symbolism that I interpret would be different than you would. Every time I go to the Temple, I learn more from it. If I explained it to you, it would not mean the same to you as it does to me. Especially since you are already anti-Mormon. It would be a WASTE of my time. Wouldn't it?

Having "throats slit" is TOTALLY against EVERYTHING we stand for. It is against EVERYTHING Christ stands for. It is against EVERYTHING we have been taught.

Our loyality is to God, Family, Country. The LDS Church is where we LEARN about God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost. We learn how we can learn to be more like Jesus Christ. We learn how to be the best towards our family that we can. Yes there are those that are BAD towards their family, but you get that in any religion. And the Church is where we learn to be good citizens to our country.

The Church even goes so far as to state in EVERY ward during the time of elections that the Church is NOT to lead anyone about their choice. They will not endorse any candidate. They will not recommend anyone to vote for. They state that EVERYONE must make that decision on their own and to vote in an informed way. THAT IS ALL.

I suggest you actually look at our Church and stop listening to what other anti-Mormon people say. Or better yet go to http://www.mormon.org and LEARN about us. Don't let other people TELL you want to think and know. Be unique and think for yourself!!!!

Posted by Lance | December 3, 2007 6:45 PM

To Andrew Price-
A religious belief that Christ is a brother of Satan should not be offensive to Christians who are familiar with the Bible and should not influence anyone's political decisions. Cain and Abel, after all, were brothers. Abel is known as one of the most righteous of Adam's posterity, while Cain was a murderer. Certainly Cain does not reduce his brother's righteousness because of his own iniquities. Family relations has nothing to do with whether or not a person will be seen as great in the eyes of God. Andrew, you know very well that your are ignoring reason, moderation, and intelligence in order to avoid valid political debate. I join with Elbeau in asking you to focus on Mitt's political views rather than his religious views. I personally disagree with many of Mitt's political views and will be voting for a different candidate but that has nothing to do with his religious views about Christ's pedigree.

Posted by moderateman | December 3, 2007 6:57 PM

Lance you received your endowments in 1994 , the throat slitting ceromony was pre 1990 in other words a ceremony which Mitt Romney participated in .

Since Romney is making a speech on his faith which he claims is Christian can he please tell the American people what in the world has motions with your thumbs indicating throat slitting got to do with Christianity ?

Posted by Andrew Price | December 3, 2007 7:08 PM

David, you obviously don't know what your talking about. Mormons take the bible with them to church every week. And if Mormon's only recently decided to call themselves Christian, they picked a lousy name for the church (the Church of Jesus Christ). The name mormon is a slang term that others picked for them. They never asked to be called that. I don't know who sold the load of crap your peddling here- probably a fellow bigot. Leave the man alone. Leave his religion alone.

Posted by Ben | December 3, 2007 7:29 PM

To all of my fellow Saints reading this: Will you please stop answering Andrew Price postings. It serves no purpose to cast perils before swine.

I think Romney is in the best position to know what he should do and say. If he rises to the occasion and can convince enough voters to vote for him then great. If he can’t garner enough support, then he does not deserve to be President. If the American People reject him simply because he’s a Mormon then they don’t deserve Romney as their President.

Posted by Curtis Pedersen | December 3, 2007 7:59 PM

I wish Huckabee had to give a religion speach. I'd like to hear Huckabee explain why so many of the Southern Baptists back in the 50's and 60's belonged to the KKK, supported Segregation, and enjoyed tormenting and killing black Americans. I wish the Southern Baptists would go back to Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party.

Posted by Ted | December 3, 2007 8:14 PM

Ted,

I agree with you. I don't know why Romney is the only one who REALLY has to answer about his religion.

Rudy says he is Catholic but he can't be because he is divorced, he has had affairs, and has married each of his mistresses. He has even been told he would not be given the Sacrament because of his standing with the Catholic Church.

Thompson says he does not want to talk about his religious feelings. Why not? What is he hiding?

Huckabee takes his politics to the pulpit with him (gave a sermon and it ended up being mostly about him and his running). I thought taking politics to the pulpit was not allowed? Oh wait.. This is a Southern Baptist we are talking about.. they take it to the pulpit often. The LDS Church NEVER takes it to the pulpit.

Romney has never had an affair, he married his girlfriend while BOTH were virgins, has had only ONE marriage, does not and has never smoked pot or used illegal drugs, does not drink coffee, and has always stood by his religion. Aren't those values all of the Christians want? The only person that can come close is Huckabee.

Question: Where does Huckabee stand on religious freedom that this country was built on? No one knows. He does not stand up and say that the bigotry in Romney's direction is wrong. Some great example of tolerance! I guess it is ok against a MORMON..

What is going to happen if he is elected? Will the same "tolerance" be put forward towards other non-Southern Baptists?

Posted by Lance | December 3, 2007 8:34 PM

I hope every Mormon reconsiders his or her political affiliation with the Mormon-hating Southern-Evangelical-dominated Republican Party and joins the Democratic Party which has demonstrated its willingness to let Harry Reid, a Mormon, lead its Party. Mormons make up a large part of the voting population in the West--especially the intermountain west. If the Mormons did change parties, then California, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Utah, Wyoming, Nevada, and Arizona would forever vote Democrat. What has happened to the Republican Party? The big tent is now a revival tent. Give me a break.

Posted by Reagan Republican | December 3, 2007 9:31 PM

Reagan Republican,

Now you're talking! I've felt for some time that the LDS Church membership, being based in the intermountain west and largely carrying that culture, would fit into a Democratic big tent better than a Republican one. There are plenty of Westerners who don't like the Patriot Act, illegal wiretapping, No Child Left Behind, etc. And many Democrats won in the west in 2006 campaigning against those issues.

It's not an issue that Harry Reid is a Mormon because the Democratic party does not require religious orthodoxy (it sometimes does require other kinds of orthodoxy, however). Don't forget that Mormons were not allowed to pray at the Republican-organized National Day of Prayer after 9/11. Many in the "Religous Right" say the LDS Church is a cult but take the Mormon vote for granted.

The Pat Robertsons of the world would rather endorse a pro-choice, pro-gay-marriage, thrice-divorced, corrupt Rudy Giuliani than Mitt Romney, who is none of those things. That's how bad it is. And Mike Huckabee doesn't seem to mind a bit.

Posted by DM | December 3, 2007 9:46 PM

If you're wondering why we know Andrew Price...simply google the phrase "Andrew Price Mormon". It's pretty self-explanatory after that. We just don't want him showing up outside our home and screaming at us.

Posted by Elbeau | December 3, 2007 10:57 PM

DM & Reagan Republican: Interesting thoughts you have there. I know a lot of Democratic Mormons, but most of us don't remotely fit the mold for being a Democrat...I'll let you decide if that's a compliment or not.

Anyways, even if I could get past the fact that people want me alienated because of my beliefs, I would still be left baffled that after two elections where the winner was chosen by a sliver of a margin, the Republicans would be willing to write off the very solid backing of 2% of America. It's morally wrong and politically baffling.

I'm Mormon and I've had no problem backing evangelical candidates as long as they supported the issues that I feel are most important...but with what we are seeing with the backlash against Romney's religion, religious freedom is very quickly getting pushed to the top of my political agenda and the religious right has not exactly earned my vote on that.

Posted by Elbeau | December 3, 2007 11:06 PM

Certain Evangelicals have a lot of nerve to try to corner Romney on his Mormonism.
Those who were and are lap dogs for Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson.
Most Evangelicals are not that upset about his religion. They understand the differences,
and pretty much ignore them. We are not electing a Church Leader.
Many southern evangelical democrats voted for John Kennedy and there are many
differences between Evangelicals and Catholics.
All Mormons I know are decent people. They are moral, honest and considerate.
They demonstrate more real "Christian" characteristics than most Evangelicals I know.
Romney's religion is not as big a barrier as his appearance of being insincere.
He has many qualities we want in a President but he is going to have to convince
people he is not a phony and/or flip flopper if he expects to get the nomination and win in 08.

Posted by edward cropper | December 3, 2007 11:52 PM

I don't usually read posts and for good reason. I read an interesting post about the Mormons going over to the Democrat tent. I am a Mormon and I will never be a Democrat until they go back to being the party of Truman that dropped bombs, or FDR that stuck it to the Nazis and the Japanese. Currently the Democrats are a party of cowards, communists, anarchists, socialists, crazy environmentalists, the gay community and many other unsavory groups that I consider to be un-American. Mormons would never be properly represented in that party. Mormons are not accepted by a huge block of the Republican party but we do share values. I feel like the kid in high school that doesn't fit in with any particular clique. I don't believe in playing the victim this is a country of majority rule so I will accept the Majority of the Republican partys decision not to elect a Mormon. Give it another 100 years when we have reproduced at a faster rate than the rest of the country. Let me make a correction about the gay community they are as American as anyone else as long as they accept the disadvantages of being a minority in this great country like every other minority.

Posted by Cameron | December 4, 2007 1:06 AM

Hey at least it is a good horse race. The suspense! The anticipation! The speculation! Anyone want to start placing bets? Romney would be very viable if he could get support from evangelicals in large numbers. He has the funds to defeat Hillary. He busts his ass day in day out on the campaign trail. His personal life is so clean his attackers have to resort to him putting his dog on top of his car. He may not sound genuine but he does what he has to to get the job done. Look how he took on Kennedy in Mass. I am not worried one bit about his ability to take on Hillary. His experience in life is kind of amazing he has the midas touch the economy could really benefit from someone with his expertise. Huckabee in the end would alienate a lot of centrist voters but I would vote for him if he got it Guliani would alienate a lot of us right winger anti abortion types. Personally I will vote for Obama before I vote for Guliani what is the difference. I want a distinction between the parties. Of course I will have to grin and bare it if Hillary makes it.

Posted by Cameron | December 4, 2007 1:24 AM

I find the anti-Mormon comments to be so factually disadvantaged that were they not so full of bigotry they would be laughable. The problem is that what these anti-Romney anti-Mormon folks have to say is just plain wrong. They are the product of fantasy riding a wave of intolerance. Some speak with authority about practices in the Mormon temples which they have never seen or heard for themselves. Others make outlandish statements about church doctrine that any interested party could find out is completely untrue if they would bother to take a look at www.mormon.org where just about anything anyone wants to know about the Church Of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Most of what these religious bigots say just won't pass the smell test. Since the leader of the Democrat party in the Senate is Mormon Harry Reid and Romney and Reid disagree about nearly everything...which one of them is the leader of the Mormon church ordering around? I have been a Mormon since 1966 and I can tell you that I have never heard any church leader support any candidate of any party from the pulpit. But the evangelical ministers do it all the time. That is their right since the separation of church and state prohibits the state not the church. Maybe that is why they are so sure that the Mormon church will try to influence Romney because that is what they do all the time and with impunity. It would be breath of fresh air if the people reading these posts would put what is said here to a reasonableness test...or more pungently, a smell test.

Posted by Convert | December 4, 2007 2:14 AM

Funny how anti-religious bigotry somehow doesn't apply as long as you're discussing Mormons. Let's see if we can clear up a few misconceptions here.

1) The prophet would not be directing Mitt Romney to do anything. The church is a world wide church. It is against church policy for politics to be discussed from the pulpit.

2) Mormons are not all conservatives. It might surprise some here that one of the most revered General Authorities in the church, Bruce McConkie, was an ardent Democrat and Ted Kennedy supporter. Harry Reid is a Mormon in good standing. I doubt anyone would be claiming he is recieving instructions from Salt Lake on how to conduct his political careeer. Yet he is, arguably, one of the most powerful people in Washington.

3) Mormon's don't believe that their prophet is infallible. They realize that a prophet is a man. They realize that he is subject to the very same mistakes that prophets in the Bible have made.
a) Moses took credit for God's Miracle
b) Noah got Drunk
c) Jonah ran away from God
d) David comitted murder
e) Paul persecuted the Christians and had arguments with Peter
f) Peter denied Christ
I've no doubt that if we had the wealth of information on these men that we do on Mormon leaders, we would have many more fine examples of thier faults and misgivings.

As a mormon, I really don't care about the misconceptions and lies told about my church. Why? because everytime some preacher gets up and spews his hatred, he shows himself for what he truly is and people in his congregation who know mormons start asking questions. Everytime a bell rings, an angel gets his wings and every time The God-Makers is shown in some Baptist Basement, another mormon is baptized.

Posted by Cogito | December 4, 2007 6:13 AM

Lance: Romney has never had an affair, he married his girlfriend while BOTH were virgins, has had only ONE marriage, does not and has never smoked pot or used illegal drugs, does not drink coffee, and has always stood by his religion.

How righteous Romney is! How very representative of the American people!

Cameron: Give it another 100 years when we have reproduced at a faster rate than the rest of the country.

Wow.

Leave the messaging for the Romney campaign – between you and Lance you will turn EVERYONE against Romney.

I don’t think that if Romney became president that he would push his religion on the American people. If he did, people would cry foul and he wouldn’t be elected for a second term.

I don’t like him simply because he adjusts his political positions based on what office he is running for. I was surprised when I moved to Mass by how much people despise him here. He would have never been reelected as Governor had he run. He blatantly used his office to run for President and the people here resent him for it. He used Massachusetts as a means to an end. Perhaps you should take into consideration how the people he has previously represented are NOT rallying behind him. That should tell you something.

Posted by Ann | December 4, 2007 11:20 AM

Let me get this straight. Romney using the governorship of Mass. as a springboard to higher office is frowned upon but Hillary leaving the Whitehouse and shopping for a state that will elect her senator so she can use THAT as a springboard for the presidency is okay?

Posted by Cogito | December 4, 2007 11:41 AM

Cogito: No, I don't think it is okay! I'm shocked that New Yorkers elected someone who's intentions were so obvious. Just like Romney, she wasn't native to the state in which she was elected - At least Romney built his career in Mass - Unlike Clinton.

Posted by Ann | December 4, 2007 11:55 AM

Well everyone, I guess there is not much else to say, other than there is a lot of bigotry going on here. And a whole lot of lies, deception, and hate. What a shame! Americans should be better than that. Same with our British friend.

There is going to come a time, probably sooner than later, when all of the Christians are going to need to come together in defense of the nation. The sooner the better.

Posted by J Scott | December 5, 2007 9:09 PM

As a full-time Mormon missionary from 1975 to 1977, I lied for the church countless times. Like my colleagues in the South Dakota-Rapid City Mission, which served the Dakotas and adjacent areas, I spoke truthfully about my background, but touted many Mormon teachings that contradict the Bible. After my mission ended, however, I examined these doctrines more closely. The harder I tried to reconcile the contradictions, the more evident they became. So, after extensive prayer and study, I resigned my church membership in 1984. Cheated and betrayed, I lacked spiritual life for the next 17 years. But God, knowing those who are His (John 10:14; 2 Timothy 2:19), drew me to Christ (John 6:44) and saved me in 2001. My spiritual emptiness was replaced by the abundant life only the Savior can give (John 10:10). And now, like millions of Christians worldwide, I have everlasting life through my faith in Him (John 3:36; 6:47).

I can't remember all of my missionary lies. Some were small, others grandiose, but all were false and misleading. Here are ten I'll never forget.

1. We're Not Trying to Convert You
Of all my lies, this was the most frequent. I learned it well while in Winnipeg, Manitoba, which was my first assignment. A standard door-to-door proselyting pitch began with, "We represent The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." Interrupting, many people said they had their own religion. "Oh, we're not trying to convert you," I responded. "We're sharing a message for all faiths."

But Mormon missionaries have one overriding goal, and that's to bring converts into the church. Clearly, this was the purpose of my mission. I didn't trade the Southern California sunshine for the Dakota snow merely to build interfaith relations. My calling was to teach the church-approved missionary lessons and then baptize the people I taught.

2. The Bible is Insufficient
According to their eighth Article of Faith, Mormons accept the Bible as the word of God only when it's translated correctly. How convenient for a missionary. When a non-Mormon's interpretation of scripture differed from mine, I frequently blamed faulty Bible translation. And since I believed the Bible was missing "many plain and precious things," as the Book of Mormon claims in 1 Nephi 13:28-29, I urged prospective converts not to trust it completely.

And yet, Mormon proof texts had few translation problems. Throughout my mission, I used only those Bible verses that steered prospects away from their church and toward Mormonism. But what kind of Christian believes that an all-knowing, all-powerful and all-loving God gave mankind an inadequate version of His word. Actually, the Bible is more than sufficient. With its 66 books, 1,189 chapters and nearly 740,000 words, it's the divine road map to eternal life through Jesus Christ.

3. We're the Only True Christians

For decades, the Mormon Church has tried to blend with mainstream Christianity. Accordingly, during my mission a quarter-century ago, I worked hard to convince prospects that Mormons believe in the biblical Jesus. But Paul warned of deceivers who would lure Christians away from "the simplicity that is in Christ." These false teachers preached "another Jesus" and "another gospel" (2 Corinthians 11: 3-4) and were accursed (see Galatians 1:8-9). How interesting that Paul also cautions against false apostles, such as those in the Mormon Church (2 Corinthians 11:13-14).

So which Jesus and gospel do Mormons preach? While a missionary, I taught that Christ was the firstborn spirit child of the Father in a premortal life. (The remainder of humanity was born as spirits later in this "pre-existence.") But I didn't tell prospects this was a literal birth, the result of literal fathering, as Mormon prophets and apostles have claimed. If asked, I taught that the devil was born as one of God's noble spirit sons during the pre-existence, but had rebelled and started a war in heaven.

Consistent with Mormon doctrine, then, Christ and Satan are spirit brothers. But the Bible teaches that Christ is God (Isaiah 7:14; 9:6; John 1:1), that He has always been God (Psalm 90:2), and that He always will be God (Hebrews 13:8). Born into mortality some 2,000 years ago, Jesus is "God... manifest in the flesh" (1 Timothy 3:16). He is far grander and holier than "our Elder Brother," as Mormons dub Him. Jesus and Satan aren't spirit brothers, and true Christians don't believe such blasphemy.

4. We're the Only True Church

I usually told this lie during the first of seven 30-minute missionary lessons, which presented the Joseph Smith story. According to our script, Smith prayed in 1820 about which church to join. He claimed the Father and Son appeared and told him that all Christian churches of the day were wrong. Smith said he was forbidden to join any of them, that their creeds were abominable and their professors all corrupt. "They draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me," the Lord allegedly added. "They teach for doctrines the commandments of men" (Joseph Smith — History, verse 19). In subsequent lessons, I told prospects that Mormonism is the true church God restored through Smith.

But the Bible says such a restoration was unnecessary. Admittedly, there was partial apostasy after Christ's resurrection, but never a complete falling away. In fact, shortly before His crucifixion, Jesus promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against His church (Matthew 16:18). During my mission, however, I argued that the gates of hell did prevail against Christ's church.

Shortly after renouncing Mormonism, I learned a scriptural death blow to notions of universal apostasy. Addressing Ephesian believers 30 years after the Ascension, the Apostle Paul writes, "Unto [God] be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen" (Ephesians 3:21). God received glory in the Christian church from the time of Paul's writing to the present day, and He will receive such glory throughout all succeeding generations. Therefore, the church must exist from Paul's day throughout eternity. This annihilates Mormon claims of complete apostasy and makes restoration of Christ's church impossible.

5. We Have a Living Prophet
Whether in wintry Winnipeg or the balmy Black Hills of Rapid City, I criticized Christians because their church lacked a living prophet. Mormons claim the true church must have one. My favorite Bible proof text to back this claim was Amos 3:7, which reads, "Surely, the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets."

When prospective converts remained skeptical of living prophets, I quoted Ephesians 4:11-14, which apparently requires living apostles and prophets until believers unify in the faith and understand Christ completely. However, writing in the past tense, Paul is actually referring to apostles and prophets of Jesus' day. Otherwise, verse 11 would read that the Lord "is giving" or "will give" apostles and prophets. Of course, God did reveal His will through Old Testament prophets, as Amos 3:7 affirms. But for the last 2,000 years, He has spoken to believers through Christ (Hebrews 1:1-2).

The truth about Mormonism's living prophets is further illuminated in Deuteronomy 18:22. "When a prophet speaketh in the name of the Lord," the scripture reads, "if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him." Isaiah 8:20 contains a similar warning: "To the law and the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them."

False prophets who led ancient Israel astray received the death penalty (Deuteronomy 13:1-5; 18:20), and all who profess to be living prophets should consider the consequences. Mormon prophets might appear grandfatherly and sincere, but they're not God's living oracles. Since the Mormon Church was founded in 1830, its prophets have uttered a striking number of false prophecies. (See chapter 14 of Jerald and Sandra Tanner's "The Changing World of Mormonism.")

6. The Book of Mormon is Scripture
Joseph Smith claimed that the Book of Mormon is the most correct book on earth, adding that man would become closer to God by following its precepts than by obeying any other book ("History of the Church," Vol. 4, p. 461). Replace "Book of Mormon" with "the Bible" and Smith would have told the truth.

When teaching missionary lessons, I boldly maintained that the Book of Mormon is scripture. I spent myriad hours convincing prospects that it's a sacred record of Christ's activities in the western hemisphere. Yet many Christians I contacted realized the book "borrows" heavily from the Bible and other sources. And in stark contrast to the Old and New Testaments, virtually no archaeological and anthropological evidence supports the Book of Mormon. Why not? Because it's fiction. When Christians want to read scripture, they turn to the Bible.

7. You're Saved By Works

More than any other Mormon lie, this undermines Christ's atonement, which is the most sacred doctrine of the Bible. Mormons usually equate salvation with resurrection. Likewise, they refer to eternal life as "exaltation." I did both while teaching prospective converts. I relished the church's third Article of Faith, which claims, "through the atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel."

Trying to bridge the doctrinal divide between Mormons and Christians, I emphasized that salvation is by grace "after all we can do" (2 Nephi 25:23). What classic Mormon double-talk. Unmistakably, the Bible says eternal life is a gift from God (Romans 5:15; 6:23) to those who believe in Christ (John 6:47), call upon Him (Romans 10:13) and receive Him as Lord and Savior (John 1:12). Contrary to Mormon dogma, this gift cannot be awarded meritoriously.

Equally clear is that salvation results from God's grace through each believer's faith, not from obeying a checklist of laws and ordinances (Ephesians 2:8-9; 2 Timothy 1:9; Titus 3:5). All who confess Christ and believe in Him from the heart shall be saved (Romans 10:8-13).

Most Mormons know little about imputed righteousness — and neither did I during my mission. Essentially, as Christians know, the Lord credits believers with His perfect righteousness and charges their transgressions to His sinless spiritual "account." Paul explains this doctrine masterfully in Romans 4 and 2 Corinthians 5:18-21.

When teaching the Mormon gospel, though, I emphatically denied imputed righteousness, which is the essence of the atonement. I stressed that eternal life is earned by perfect obedience to all gospel laws and ordinances. Yet the Bible says that "there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not" (Ecclesiastes 7:20). As the Psalmist writes: "They are all gone aside. They are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one" (Psalm 14:3; compare Romans 3:10-18).

How many Mormons perfectly obey all gospel laws? None. As the Bible asserts, even the church's current prophet can't keep God's laws thoroughly enough to merit heaven (1 John 1:8). And if he can't, how can anyone else?

8. People Can Become Gods
Given its explosive nature, this tenet was rarely shared with prospective converts. Missionaries try to entice people into Mormonism gradually, and presenting the doctrine of plural gods is seldom the best way. Several contacts learned the concept from their pastors or read about it on their own, but it was new to most prospects.

"Our Father in heaven loves us so much," I often said, parroting our lesson script, "that He provided a plan [Mormonism] for us to become like him." I didn't mention that Mormon godhood includes spirit procreation throughout eternity. Neither did I hint that the Mormon God was formerly a mortal man, had lived on an earth like ours, and had earned salvation through good works. However, such polytheism strips God of glory and sovereignty. No wonder the Bible condemns it so strongly. When discussing plural gods on my mission, I sidestepped Isaiah 44:8 whenever possible. "Is there a God beside me?" the passage reads. "Yea, there is no God; I know not any." Other verses amply testify that only one God exists in the universe (Deuteronomy 4:35, 39; 6:4; Isaiah 43:10-11; 45:21-23).

When confronted with these scriptures as a missionary, I usually countered with, "Those verses mean we worship only one God, that there's only one God to us." And if that failed, I lied further: "The Bible isn't clear on this subject. Fortunately, the Lord told Joseph Smith that mortals can become gods." Smith might have had a revelation, but not from God.

9. You're Born Again By Becoming a Mormon
One of my favorite missionary scriptures was John 3:5. "Verily, verily I say unto you," the Savior explains, "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." To Mormon missionaries everywhere, being born of water means baptism into the Mormon Church. Birth of the Spirit refers to the gift of the Holy Ghost, allegedly bestowed after baptism.

Unfortunately, during my mission, I didn't know what it means to be born again. I completely misinterpreted Paul's declaration that "if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new" (2 Corinthians 5:17; compare Galatians 6:15). According to the Bible, believers in Christ are reborn spiritually as sons and daughters of God (John 1:12; 1 John 3:1-2). They experience a complete Christian conversion of mind and heart. Membership in a church organization might foster social activity and fellowship, but it's not spiritual rebirth.

10. Temple Marriage is Required for Eternal Life
I participated in well over 100 Mormon temple ceremonies from 1975 to 1982, including my own marriage in 1977. Based heavily on freemasonry, temple rites are the church's most carefully guarded secrets. And "celestial marriage," which supposedly weds men and women eternally, is probably the most important temple ordinance. While a missionary, I frequently told prospects they needed temple marriage to gain eternal life.

Yet the Lord says marriage between men and women is irrelevant to the hereafter. "The children of this age marry, and are given in marriage," He declares. "But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage… for they are equal unto the angels...." (Luke 20:34-36.)

The Bible does teach eternal marriage, but not the Mormon version. The union is between Christ, the Bridegroom, and His collective body of believers, who are the bride (Matthew 25:1-13; John 3:29; Romans 7:4; 2 Corinthians 11:2).

False Testimony
I close with a few words about "testimony," which is a missionary's emergency cord. When I couldn't rebut an antagonistic statement scripturally, I fell back on my testimony. For instance, while proselyting in Grand Forks, North Dakota, I was once asked where the Bible mentions the secret undergarments Mormons wear. Caught off guard, I admitted that the Bible says nothing about them. I could merely testify that God revealed the need for these garments through living prophets. But my testimony wasn't based on scripture or other hard evidence. Rather, it was founded on personal revelation, which is extremely subjective. Essentially, my testimony was nothing more than a good feeling about the church and its teachings. In Mormon parlance, it was a "burning in the bosom." But burning or not, it wasn't from God.

If you're a Christian, I urge you to "earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints" (Jude 3). That faith, the pathway to heaven, is found only in the biblical Jesus (John 14:6). But if you're a Mormon, it's time to prayerfully re-examine your beliefs. Do you know you have everlasting life? No. Can you obey all the commandments perfectly and earn a place in heaven? You can't.

I regret the many lies I told during my Mormon mission. When I received Christ, though, I confessed them (and my other sins) and received His forgiveness (1 John 1:9; Colossians 1:13-14). "He that heareth my word," Christ assures us, "and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life" (John 5:24).

Posted by Loren Franck | December 5, 2007 9:41 PM

One problem I have with a Mormon as president is that Mormons believe that God now speaks through a man (the current head of the LDS church) who they consider to be a modern day "prophet" of God. They believe that this man is infallible - at least when he says he is speaking in his "prophet" capacity.

Now no one other than Mormons believe this man is really a prophet of God. But we all know what great harm has been done in the past by those who have followed the instructions of someone they believed was speaking with God's authority who really was not doing so. Think Jim Jones.

If a crazy man falsely claiming to be "God's prophet" told Mitt Romney - who believes this crazy man really is God's prophet - to fire nukes at Russia Romney, being the good Mormon that he is, would probably do it.

Posted by Michael Satterlee | December 5, 2007 10:05 PM

Here is an article on Mormon theology from third party (Mormon side of argument)

http://beehivestandardweekly.com/articles/162/1/Answering-the-Romney-Theology-Problem

Posted by nvlawyer | December 5, 2007 11:00 PM

Michael: The Bible says to look at the fruits to know what kind of tree it is. One might actually listen to or read the teachings of current Mormon prophets to know whether one could realistically be the next Jim Jones.

Current messages from the prophet are about faith, repentence, service, and prayer, not politics or creating Armageddon. In fact, one of the few times in recent history that something was said about nukes, President Kimball (a few decades ago) was of the opinion that Utah desert was not the most desireable place in his view for hosting the moveable ICBMs, which the government was then contemplating. Hardly "crazy" individuals, if you took the time to read first hand materials.

Also, since the days of deliverance from past persecutions, LDS leadership has been scrupulous about not dabbling in politics or even appearing to influence LDS government officials.

LDS teachings also consistently tell members never to follow anything or anyone "blindly", but to reason things out and seek the guidance and confirmation of the Holy Ghost, as did the Christians of old. (James 1:5)

Most importantly, I encourage you to look at Romney's record as the Governor of Massachusetts. A person's history is the best indicator of future behavior, rather than paranoid speculation.

Posted by Donna Ramos | December 6, 2007 2:47 PM

http://www.ExposeRomney.com

Mitt Romney is fortunate that few non-Mormon Americans know anything about his religion and this speech did little to correct that.

Google "ExposeRomney" or "Eternal Progression" or "Brigham Young comments on blacks" or "The Mormon Wildcard" to find out what he's hoping slips past you.

Most religions require faith and I'm not saying that Romney wouldn't make a good manager, but he's clearly been deceptive to the point that even the political pundits know he's lying about specifics.

Do you honestly thing the Evangelicals would vote for him if they understood the Mormon concept of "Eternal Progression"?

Would people of color vote for him if they knew his religion associated dark skin with sin and punishment?

Would secularists vote for him if they knew a famous Mormon saying was "When the prophet speaks, the thinking [i.e. your thinking] is done."

Before you say I'm bigoted, look up what the Mormon religion says in its scriptures about other religions - In the official Mormon scriptures, which Mormons are taught to be the WORD OF GOD, it states, "All other religions are an abomination in God's eyes." Now how's that for tolerance.

If you think his speech told you he's an independent thinker, well think again.

Posted by Editor, ExposeRomney.com (Washington DC) | December 6, 2007 7:01 PM

I read this whole blog from beginning to end, here are my thoughts. I am not voting for Romney because I don't see how someone can seperate their faith from who they are. You pick a faith because you believe it is good and right and it defines you. All the Mormons on this blog scream intolerance and paranoia and we're all ignorant, as soon as any criticism comes their way. Apparently Loren Franck understands Mormonism first hand, as does the poster named expose Romney. I know of people who are missionaries to Mormons and I have heard their accounts. Mormons were quite good at being intolerant in their communities when an evangelical came to live among them. I too am educated enough to believe that you should go to the source and not just rely on 3rd party. So I have listened to Mormons and read their publications and don't agree with them, however they belong in America just like I do. Remember this, a candidate will say and make promises yet he gets bounced out by the Senate and the House and lobbyists and other politicians and the media.

Posted by Shawn | December 7, 2007 12:15 AM

Donna,

All well and good.

But my point was that if your "Prophet" is not really a prophet (and he is not), if he is only an ordinary man falsely claiming to be a prophet (and he is), regardless of how sane he has behaved in the past, with the onset of dementia, Alzheimer's disease or some other newly acquired mental illness, he could make some nutty proclamation. And if Romney is a good Mormon who follows the axiom, "When our prophet speaks our thinking is done," the world could be in real danger. That's why we should never elect as president a Mormon, or for that matter a Catholic, or a member of any other sect which teaches that some earthly man now speaks for God.

Posted by Michael Satterlee | December 7, 2007 8:04 AM

Michael, thank you for clarifying your position.

Seems to me that you are now claiming to speak for God, since you are so certain that you know who isn't a prophet, and only God himself would know that information. ;-)

I have no such fears regarding either the prophet of our church or the Pope because:
1) listening to these individuals speak, I can sense that neither would wish injury to anyone, even in their dotage, and
2) neither leads in isolation, but have leadership around them, watching over them and also the churches should they grow infirm.

I once heard one of our presidents speak who was in an early stage of dementia. His message was no more "dangerous" than "God bless ya, and the devil miss ya" which he enjoyed repeating numerous times. The leaders who accompanied him, nevertheless, treated him with dignity and kindness, which to me was the greater message. If that is crazy, then I would wish more of us to be "crazy".

In my opinion, the world has nothing to fear from individuals whose character has been moderated and refined by the Gospel of Jesus Christ and who have taken the Holy Ghost or the Spirit of Christ as their guide.

I fear more individuals who make blanket judgments based upon limited understanding or the lack thereof, and who then promote irrational fears.

Posted by Donna Ramos | December 8, 2007 5:02 PM