As a Mormon…
I won’t vote for Romney unless he wins the Nomination.

When you stated yesterday in “We’re Fighting Over Two Guys and Neither Side Thinks the Other Can Win”

“? not the Democrats, but the media to the extent it can be separated from the Obama Machine ? will spend six months creeping out independent suburban voters about Mormons, holy underwear, Kolob, postmortem baptism, and views on black people…”

This was a correct observation. I know you weren’t being malicious. I understand that you were mentioning these items as they have been mentioned by the media already.

I am with you, I think that the media will have some pretty despicable motives in trying to “expose” Mormonism… and it’s nothing that Mormons haven’t dealt with before… However, I think it’s entirely unfair to expect the Republican base to defend Mormonism from any sort of doctrinal stance, let alone acknowledge it as acceptable form of Christianity… Republicans and Democrats just simply aren’t ready for that debate, if they were, it would be a sign of the times.

For every word breathed about Mormonism as a means to discredit and disqualify Romney for public office, it should be equally noted that it also discredits and disqualifies Harry Reid. End of the argument, but not end of the discussion, because the discussion is really the aim, its all about stirring those emotions, and the Media doesn’t care about their hypocrisy… so as I said before… You are correct.

Therein lies the problem, to the drive-by Mormon that saw that post… they’re going to be offended at face value, because they’re going to feel misrepresented regarding their very real and deeply devoted personal faith.

I recognize that your Presbyterian doctrine may differ with my Mormon Doctrine… but generally I think you and I agree on the most important points of doctrine that Christ and his apostles laid out for all of us regarding salvation… and that ought to be more unifying than it is divisive.

So take it with a grain of salt, the following is meant to point out why there’s some sensitivity… not that you should give a rip, but hey… in the least, someone might read this and perhaps change their perceptions…

First Mormon “views on black people” is a canard, its divisive to suggest we have ‘views on black people’ that differ from any child of God and their path to salvation. The issue that is brought up is regarding the bestowing of priesthood authority, this was not a doctrinal issue, it was an issue of practice. And the freedom to practice religion freely was something that the United States was perfectly intent on confiscating Mormon properties, and stripping The Church of its non-profit status, as well as dismantling the right to worship how where or what we may…as it was with polygamy. In spite of what some apologists and some antagonists have tried to explain or muddle regarding Priesthood and black people… its no longer an issue is it? So what’s the point of bringing it up other than for the purpose of race baiting?

It may be somewhat crude to a Mormon to hear the obfuscation of “holy underwear”, as the sacred beliefs associated with the garments that Temple worshiping Mormons wear both within the symbolism of their Faith in Jesus Christ and by their personal covenants made with the Father… you might understand why Mormons, all politics aside, might be sensitive to an off the cuff reference of “holy underwear”.

“Postmortem Baptism”

First “postmortem baptism” is incorrect, it implies that we’re digging up graves and throwing embalmed bodies into the water… “Proxy Baptism for the Dead” is much more accurate. Wherein a name is read, and a living person is baptized as a proxy physical body for one that has died. The acceptance of that baptism is still a choice, and nothing in Mormon theology ever suggests that God will force people to accept anything done in their behalf, including the Atonement itself. So the “creepy” business is a little oversold. Then there’s this:
1 Corinthians 15:29 King James Version
Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?

Tell me how any doctor of the bible can parse this without acknowledging that Paul recognized the practice was done among early Christians, and yet, he never condemned it. This is one doctrine that to me shows the relevance of revealed religion in Mormonism, and its claim to a restoration. But I digress, this isn’t a theological debate, is it?

As for Kolob, again, it’s mentioned in 5 versus in all of our Scripture, what we know, It’s a celestial body in the universe that represents the nearness of Christ to the Father, and one day on Kolob is like unto 1000 years on earth in the revolutions of the celestial body. We really don’t know anything else beyond what we’re told by modern day prophets and apostles, but that hasn’t stopped speculation as to the symbolic meaning.

The mention of Kolob is really starting in the middle rather than the beginning of our doctrines…you may as well start halfway through Leviticus and ignore Genesis… simply put, one has to recognize the importance of having prophets and apostles ordained with the authority of the priesthood long before having a discussion on the merits of accepting Kolob’s existence as a reality.

Yes, I’m a Mormon. I don’t think anybody will get to heaven without being baptized by the proper Authority, and that puts me at odds with LOTS of people from a theological standpoint. So what, so be it…

But in your defense… I must be a bigot too… because I think it is foolish to deny the accuracy of your statement in the context of a political election. The defamation and the mudslinging that will happen with great hypocrisy will not be stopped…

As Brother Brigham Young said… “The devils don’t kick and cuff their own”… I wouldn’t expect anything less from folks that are desperate to conflate religion with politics for political gain on either side of the aisle.

I’m rooting for Newt, but I’m not backing him yet… I want to see him sharpen his lead, and show that the ebb and flow of our primary process isn’t just kicking and screaming over Romney… I see no benefit in going all in with someone to spite another, until the choice is limited to an ultimatum.

I’m not convinced Romney will do any worse or better than Newt in the general, and I’m outright rebelling against the “electability” arguments, but neither of them really represent me… and for that I’m willing to do a protest vote in the primary… but when it comes to the general… I’m all in for the nominee.