« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Can we just deal with the Giant “Mormon” Elephant(s) in the room?

By: Justin Spagnolo (Diary)  |  September 23rd, 2011 at 08:32 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

This is not a religious diary, its not intended to get you to be sympathetic to Mormons from a religious or political perspective.  Pay attention though, you may learn something from this Perry Supporter.

You may or may not have had personal associations with a Mormon in your life… I have, I am one. I was raised in Utah (there’s a lot of Mormons there), I have lived in several states in my 31 years on earth and have had associations with people of all faiths, with a myriad of diverse backgrounds in both religion and politics.  Pushing aside arguments of bias, I have no problems telling others that when a Mormon lives by the tenets of their faith they are good citizens, good neighbors, dedicated servants of Jesus Christ(as our doctrine instructs), and a morally virtuous people.  I also find that to be true of most people who live by the peaceful tenets of their faith.  I make the “peaceful” distinction as throughout history religious zealots of many faiths have utilized religious dogma for their politics  and when politics are exhausted, they have utilized their dogma for justifying unjust warfare, tyranny, and/or terrorism.

I am a conservative.  I believe in Liberty.  I believe that God founded this nation, and through the chosen vessels of our founding fathers, this nation was formed to be a shining city on a hill.  I believe that the Constitution of our nation is an inspired rule of law debated, written, and signed, majorly, by virtuous men of God.  I believe this specific rule of law has the single most unifying and liberating effect for freedom than any other nation organized on earth and under God.  For all my ideology in American Politics, whether popular or unpopular, my personal faith shapes my views, and helps me to make decisions in my life.  Judge or Judge not… I know where I stand by what I know.

You may have heard that Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman Jr are also Mormons.  I can confirm, they are, by everything I’ve ever been taught to identify an “Active” Mormon.  Media memes aside… They’re Mormon.  Not all Mormons are aligned with every doctrine, thought, revelation, speculation or assumption… for the same reason that general Christianity has well over 1000 identified sectarian interpretive distinct denominations in the U.S. alone. I assume there are distinctions because everybody is learning and experiencing life at their own pace and in their own way.  It is clear to me though, that both Romney and Huntsman are aligned with the culture and distinguished doctrines of the religion that I myself practice, and yet… If you put me in the room with either of them, I think I would be in vehement disagreement with them on several issues when it comes to politics, which may or may not raise my blood pressure and cause me to say unpleasant things to them.

It’s not an indictment of their personal character, and I don’t condemn them in any degree of a religious nature.  I don’t think of them as “bad Mormons”* because I may disagree with their politics on some issues or with their record or their explanation of their records.  I don’t feel that I need to question their integrity solely because I disagree with their purview, or interpretation of the cause and effect of events, ideas, or policies that they have driven as governors or in the private sector.  Ideas have merit when they are implemented and sustained with a desired result.  I don’t have to question their integrity simply because I disagree with their desired results.  I do reserve the right to criticize the idea, and dissent by more than conscience by my vote, and every degree of influence I may have on the votes of others.

I have been a member of Redstate since January/February 2008.**  I came here as a Romney supporter back then (give me a break, I was 27 at the time, and was naive enough to assume Romney was a conservative, because he said so).  Redstate is a wonderful community.  I know of no other website on the web that provides a respectful conservative atmosphere where the members are able to contribute to the content and the discussion and are able to freely debate without bullying from site moderators (in spite of what the many of the banned may tell you, they were all banned for crossing the line too many times). I enjoy this community and all of its benefits, and I hope to continue my association with it.

If you’re still reading this please allow me to elaborate on the title.

With each GOP debate this year, and really ever since I’ve been on this site, comments have been made about the “Mormonism” factor for Romney, and sometimes Huntsman.  It doesn’t really bother me if their Mormonism(or mine for that matter) bothers you enough for you to not vote for them.  That is YOUR liberty in this great nation.  I would defend anyone’s right to make decisions by the dictates of their own conscience. In my view, we all have to live by the consequences of our decisions, and sometimes we all may have to live by the consequences of others decisions.  Which is why we have a rule of law, and we should always respect it, even if we don’t respect the common fool’s inability to choose the right.

So what is the Giant “Mormon” Elephant in the room for me?

I am calling upon Romney and Huntsman supporters that are whining about whether or not the “Mormon” factor may hurt them, to cease and desist with these types of diatribes.  It is what it is folks… deal with it.  As a Mormon I deal with it (and I’m not a politician), and I do it precisely because I’m a Mormon, and I believe what I believe.

As for those who care to bastardize my religious views with sweeping generalizations, I will continue to call you out for your ignorance.  Seriously, is it so hard to just ask a Mormon to clarify something for you rather than nullify anything relevant you have to say by the nature of your embarrassingly erroneous statements about our beliefs?  Just Sayin’.

*I don’t even think that about Harry Reid, although I think his politics are sorely misguided, and I’m curious if he plans to repent in this life for his role in Obamacare.
**I’m not sure ever since Management had Neil remove the “member since” feature to prevent dogpiling of new members that don’t get the culture of this site, and step into “it” with the wrong comment.

Tags: , , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • acat

    I’ve recommended this based on the 7th paragraph.

    I’m not sure if I know any Mormons in meatspace* and I don’t think I’d care any more than any of the Anglicans, Baptists, Catholics, Evangelicals, Seventh Day Adventists, etc.

    Mew

    * the big blue room, real life, the real world, etc.

    • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

      I’m not a cat person, present company excluded. Asthmatic with severe allergies to pet dander… thanks for the reco.

      • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

        More later in detail. Needed to make comment to “bookmark” it.

        • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

          I was trying to avoid going into the reasons I don’t support Romney… as I didn’t want this diary to turn into a Romney-Bot Spam feed.

    • freentn

      because he is a LIBERAL FLIP-FLOPPER. There is not a dimes worth of difference between Romney and BO and Hillary. They are all LIBERALS.

      I will vote for Anybody but Romney in the Republican Primary. In the unlikely event that Romney is the nominee, I may vote for an Independent.

      • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

        by voting for an independent in any scenario, although it may make you feel better by conscience… it totally invalidates the sensibilities of voting at all.

        if your “may vote for an independent” is some sort of veiled threat to ensure Romney doesn’t get the nomination… well I have a better solution… FIGHT for the candidate of your choice, become a Precinct Committeeman or Chair…

        See ColdWarrior.

      • ammy

        Education is the key here. Clearly you are not familiar with the stated objectives of Romney, Obama and Clinton.

        Your knowledge needs to match your passion.

  • Ann_W

    he absolutely deserves the kind of destruction we will see under four more years of Obama. The rest of us don’t, though.

    • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

      I for one don’t wish destruction on anyone… even the fools… it is their right… and it truly doesn’t bother me, not one iota…

      If Romney or Huntsman is the nominee, I will vote for them… but that’s a PRETTY BIG IF right now… personally I don’t care for working in the speculative assumptions margin.

      I’m going to support the person that is most conservative, and can win… I’m not gaga over Perry, some things he has said and some things he’s done bother me… but his record shows a proclivity for being decisive, conservative, and willing to listen to his base… oh yeah, and he wins elections.

      I’ll support Romney, after all other conservative options have been exhausted and have failed… but I probably won’t put up a bumper sticker if he’s the nominee.

      If I’m forced to vote for Huntsman, I’ll feel slightly less nauseous than I did when voting for McCain, and most of my conversations about him around the water cooler will start with “at least he’s not Obama…”

    • Darin_H

      Love the “Stop Whining” tag

      • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

        Thanks for the reco!

  • conservativecurmudgeon

    Everyone’s religious views are bastardized by sweeping generalizations. Sweeping generalizations are much easier than intensive educations, you see.

    It is extremely odd: As our culture slides further down the bank toward the landfill of “We-tolerate-even-the-intolerable”, where we embrace even the most putrid of situational ethics, we have become increasingly uptight and INtolerant of discussing —DISCUSSING– religion. We can talk about Chaz Bono’s bathroom habits in mixed company, but we can’t talk about Mormonism, and how it informs the world-view of a primary contender for the Presidency.

    Why is this? I have a LOT to learn about the LDS, and it sure seems if we can talk about Porn Star fashion, we can sure talk about THIS without causing the crowd to blanch.

    Every Mormon I have known and met –and I mean to a PERSON– have been magnificent human beings. As as an Up-To-The-Minute-Evangelical AofG-type (complete with all the Mega-Church Techno-Whiz-Bang-Stuff), I will say I have a lot of questions about the roots of the church.. But, so what? It’s the least of my concerns about the Mittster. I am more concerned that his first name is really “Willard” than I am that he is a Mormon. But, it HAS informed his world-view, and we should be able to carry on adult conversations about it. It shouldn’t be an Elephant in the room.

    The issue deserves to be a dust-bunny, and it can only shrink to it’s appropriate size when it’s properly aired out.

    • aesthete

      Nice to see another charismatic/Pentecostal at RS.

    • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

      He was named after J. Willard Marriott (George Romney’s best Friend)… “Mitt” was the nickname of his Dad’s cousin, quarterback for the Chicago Bears in 1925… (found it on his wikipedia page)…

      To me the “evangelicals won’t vote for a Mormon” issue is a red herring… completely and utterly useless, the bottom line for me is, you are who you are… if the people don’t want you, that’s there deal… it doesn’t really matter what their reasons are… you either win them over, or you don’t.

      As for sweeping generalizations… they don’t bother me… its the out and out right bastardizing out of ignorance at best, or lying with malicious intent at worst…

      On matters of faith and politics, go to the source, then observe their fruits… by their fruits ye shall know them right?

      I don’t think there is any problem with answering questions about your personal faith… but asking Romney to clarify church doctrine in the vain of understanding his ‘worldview’ is a bit of a stretch… As a society we don’t Catholic politicians to clarify the position of the Catholic church regarding the doctrine of non-Catholics going to hell or purgatory?…. No, we ask them relevant questions that have to do with relevant policies or legislation. We support them when their values align with ours…

      There is nothing ‘adult’ about suggesting Romney’s polygamist heritage should disqualify him because ‘that’s just weird”… but it’s funny to me when I hear a joke like “Ann Romney will be referred to as ‘The First Wife’ rather than ‘The First Lady’…”

      We all have some sense of humor… but ‘there’s a difference between light-hearted, and light-minded’ (a popular colloquial in mormon culture)

      • rightwingmom52

        I’d have to give any man who can manage a houseful of women a few extra points. On the other hand, he just might be insane.

        I can say that. I’m a woman, and a wife, and one’s who can be a little difficult from time to time.

        • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

          God Still chose Abraham, Issac, and Jacob to be prophets… and receivers of his covenant.

          I’m sorry it was too easy… and no polygamy is not currently practiced by Mormons (although there are splinter groups, that left us in 1890-1893, and have continued on in the practice), in our Sunday meetings today… we generally talk about how the Gospel can lead us to a more fulfilled family life based on the teachings of Christ… I have my own views on the subject of polygamy both biblical and the limited practice (it is estimated about 25%* of the total adult church membership where in a polygamist household at its peak of practice) among early Mormons… but that’s quite a long discussion for another day outside of this forum…

          *disputed by LDS scholars… but that’s the high mark.

          • naraht

            The highest number that I’ve seen is 20% and that was from an anti-mormon site. I’ve seen numbers from books published by Church members as low as 5%, but from the discussions I’ve heard, most people studying the church from that time period use 10% as a rule of thumb.

            It’s sort of like counting the Jews who died in the Holocaust, while people will get screamed at for using any number under a million, a scholar who uses 5.5 million won’t get a negative reaction from those using the more common number of 6 million. (At that point you start looking at whether to count those who died in the trains on the way or being transferred and how to count those in the camps for being both a Jew and a Socialist.)

          • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

            Its all in how you parse it; the number of adult males practicing may have been 5%… where if you if you consider individual women in a polygamous relationship… obviously at least 2:1… if your counting households only 3%…

            Does it matter? It was openly practiced, then under pressure of the government they ended the practice for fear of prosecution under the law, and the possibility of having other aspects of the faith.scrutinized by the government (most explicitly temple worship) …they had already experienced government sanctioned persecution in Missouri which is why they moved to Utah in the first place. To them the threat was real enough and temple worship could not be risked

          • naraht

            It all depends on counting percentage of men, women, households, adults and people…

            I’m not sure how there was any pressure over the fact that the LDS practiced some of their religion in Private. It isn’t like the UK where (I believe) that a marriage must be conducted in Public…

            However, I agree that there is a *great* lean toward public faith in the US. As best as I can tell, all of the religions really present in the US in any amount at the founding were definitely public (other than the confessional).

    • LiveStronger

      We needed to have a family conference here before we get hit with the left trying to push in the wedge between Romney and a lot of great Americans who just aren’t comfortable with the idea that the President of the United States might be a Latter-day Saint one day.

      • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

        And stop supporting squishy republicans like Romney and Huntsman…

        I’d rather just go at the “Left” with the biggest “Right” in our arsenal… and that’s certainly not these two.

        regardless of whether or not they’re Mormon… the point is… the “Mormon” can’t convince people “Mormons are Christians” is non-sequitur…

        If that’s their reason for not supporting Romney so be it… in the end if Romney doesn’t get the nomination then Romney didn’t do a good enough job of proving to voters that Romney won’t get in Romney’s way amidst all the flip flopping on political issues…

        When bigotry exists, it is extinguished by personal interaction. If Romney didn’t put so much dapper dan in his hair, he may not come off so plastic… just sayin’.

        • http://www.usdebateboard.com usdebateboard

          I don’t know anyone but lefties who think Mormons and evangelicals should be at each other’s throats.

          Unless this is another left wing talking point Romney is using against the GOP.

          If so, his bad.

          • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

            There is way too much evidence that there are some out there that simply won’t vote for a Mormon based on religious differences… and its a little naive if you think that there are not people actively engaged in the tit for tat over it… as if its going to settle the differences by an election… but they do so, and do so foolishly.

            Now does the MSM/Leftwing blogosphere exploit those differences?… YES THEY DO.

            They do it because DIVISION is a great tactic… and aside from politics, I don’t know if there is anything easier to get people to disagree about than religious differences.

            You’re darn tootin’ its a distraction… which is the point of the POST.

            And no, I don’t think Romney or Huntsman have ever played the victim card… in fact, I would assume they talk at length with staffers about avoiding the subject entirely…

            Unfortunately, there are good intentioned people out there, that are eating up the MSM/Leftwing meme.

    • perry4prez

      In this post I am presenting my reasons as to why I believe Romney’s religion is a fair issue in the primaries.

      To begin with religion in general is absolutely fair game. A Godly person is guided by his religion. It informs his judgment, guides his moral outlook and undergirds his decisions. This does not mean that a Catholic will do everything the Pope wants, or that Romney will do everything the LDS church asks of him. It means he will be guided by his beliefs. If you set aside your religion when making decisions, please tell, what moral criteria DO you use when making decisions? Flipping a coin?

      As I have described once before, there is a story about Winston Churchill in which he asked a socialite if she would sleep with him for $1. She answered “who do you take me for”. Churchill then asked is she would sleep with him for $1 million and she stammered “well, it depends.” Churchill then said “now I know what I take you for and we’re just negotiating your price”.

      I bet a lot of people on here would have issues with a Moslem President or a president from the Moonies or a Scientologist. If that is true then you have already conceded that religion is important and when it comes to discussions of Mormonism you are just negotiating price, i.e. whether Mormonism is close enough to mainstream Christianity to be acceptable. I think it is not.

      Let me first address some strawman arguments both for and against Mormonism:

      1. “Mormons are great neighbors” – yes they are. They lead very Godly and respectful lives and I have no problems with Mormons as neighbors. But we are electing a president (not a neighbor) who is both a political leader and a symbol of the US so it is important that his values be our values.

      2. Polygamy. This was a long time ago in Mormon history, I don’t think it’s relevant anymore.

      3. “How can you dislike the Mormon Tabernacle Choir”? – I don’t, I think their music is beautiful. That has nothing to do with whehter Mormons are Christians.

      4. “Mormons are great Republicans” – what about Harry Reid?

      5. “Mormons have the right to call themselves Christians if they want” – sure, we can’t shut anyone up because of the First Amendment. But that does not mean they are objectively justified in calling themselves Christians. Jewish people dislike Jews for Jesus on the grounds that someone who has accepted Jesus Christ as the Jewish messiah is Christian not Jewish. This is perfectly acceptable so why should it be any different for Mormons unless you have a double standard.

      I was recently reading about Syria a few years ago and learned that the Syrian president is not really a Moslem but belongs to an offshoot of Islam and calls himself a Moslem because the people would not accept him otherwise, now guess what, they’re rebelling.

      Mormonism embraces Jesus but Moslems do too, so do Bahais. These religions embrace Jesus Christ as a spiritual teacher but not as your personal savior. That means they are offshoots of Christianity but they are obviously not Christianity. Mormonism is no different, as I outline below many of its beliefs are very different from those of Christianity whether Catholic, Protestant or Orthodox.

      6. “The Constitution prohibits religious tests” – yes, the Constitution prohibits religious tests BY THE GOVERNMENT not individual voters.

      There are genuine objections to Mormonism namely:

      1. Mormons believe that God is flesh and blood and resides on or near a planet called Kolob. (The liturgy during the Endowment ceremony* even has the serpent in the Garden of Eden saying that he had tempted people to eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge on other words.) I am sorry, this is just not Christianity. Frankly this is what reminds me of Scientology, Raelism, and the “science fiction” religions.

      *We know about this thanks to the internet which of course is not accurate 100% of the time. But if it is wrong, how are we supposed to know otherwise? See my point about secrecy below.

      2. Mormons believe that the soul has existed eternally and that the Godly on earth can eventually evolve into gods themselves on other planets. This is not Christianity or even Islam, it is close to polytheism. And polytheism is very far from mainstream American culture. If Obama is too exotic for people because of his Indonesian elementary school why is this any different?

      3. The Mormon Church until 1978 taught that blacks were cursed and did not let them hold the priesthood. Yes this has changed but this was the state of affairs when Mitt Rommey had his endowment ceremony. I even read one article that said Romney cried on the day that the policy was changed although I do not know for sure whether this is true. And it’s convenient that the “revelation” admitting blacks to the priesthood came just after the civil rights era and when the Mormon Church realized it needed to expand into Africa and South America to keep growing.

      The old liturgy also referred to Christian ministers as agents of Satan, this is also very offensive. This was changed too but it was the liturgy when Mitt Romney had his endowment ceremony. If he disagreed with it why didn’t he say something then?

      4. Baptizing the dead. This is very offensive, mainstream Christianity teaches that each of us must make a personal decision as to whether to accept Jesus Christ as our savior, no one else can do it for us. It is especially offensive that the Mormon Church tried to baptize Holocaust victims as it dishonors their memory. THis is why I question Romney’s commitment to Israel.

      5. Secrecy. Mormons always say that they are pro-family, so how about letting families into WEDDING CEREMONIES instead of segregating off the family’s closest relatives who happen not to be Mormons? And in general Mormons are very secretive about the core tenets of their faith in particular the cosmological aspects of it. The Abrahamic religions are all very open about their faith regardless of whether they seek converts. If you want to learn about Judaism or Islam or Christianity you can do so openly but you can’t do the same thing about Mormonism. I have been to Jewish seders and even once to an iftar but you can’t even attend a Mormon WEDDING CEREMONY. How exclusionary is that!

      Every president until now (except Obama) has been very comfortable talking about his faith or at least does not have to be secret about it. The reason Obama is secret about it is because he was hiding Jeremiah Wright. As conservatives we believe in openness and transparency and the exclusion of everyone who doesn’t have a “temple recommend” is contrary to this. I have had quite enough of DC and Hollywood elites excluding the people from their deliberations and I don’t want this extended to religion.

      • aesthete

        as a characteristic by which to judge an untested candidate, it is less useful when evaluating a candidate with a record. You can pontificate all you like on the finer points of ethics, morality and whathaveyou of the various religions and sects in this country, but knowing that Huey Long and Jimmy Carter were Baptists is far less useful than being aware of the contents of their public record. Romney and Huntsman both have public records; why go looking in ancient texts when their works are available to us as a guide?

        As far as your genuine objections to Mormonism go, 1 and 2 are irrelevant to the Presidency. Even if they were, the point that you are trying to make (that Mormonism makes some very strange faith claims) is just as true of Christianity — or do you not consider it odd to believe that a Jewish carpenter who died 2000 years ago has any bearing on your afterlife, the central tenet of Christianity? (And if you want to make the case that it’s a “different” kind of strange, then it’s worth noting that bizarre offshoots of Christianity from whence Mormonism came were as much a part of the religious landscape of the 19th-century US as the Second Great Awakening.)

        3 is irrelevant and offensive, for the same reason that ascribing Jim Crow’s legislative achievements to southerners would be. Unless you have proof of Romney’s racism (and considering that George Romney’s history in the Civil Rights movement, I find that doubtful), then it’s a complete non-issue.

        4 is completely irrelevant, and paints a very misleading picture. Mormonism has always been philo-Semitic, both in doctrine and in practice. If you would like to point out specific places where Mormons or Mormonism as an institution have behaved badly towards Jews, then there’s a whole treasure trove of much worse incidents in Christianity’s past.

        5 is completely irrelevant. Mormons constitute a group of 1.3 million; if you’re alleging some sort of conspiracy among Mormons (or even among highly-placed Mormons), it’d have to be a well-kept one. At any rate, I could care less: many of our Founders were Free-Masons or belonged to other secretive organizations, and these fraternal orders do not appear to have prevented them from executing their duties to the US with full diligence and loyalty.

        FWIW, I have been hired, recommended, and befriended by many Mormons (comes with living in AZ): “temple recommends”, while extant, are highly exaggerated. A Mormon business owner is no more interested hiring an irresponsible and incompetent Jack Mormon over a “gentile” than the rest of us.

        • perry4prez

          @aesthete, thanks for your post. I want to respond to it.

          You answer my points about cosmology and polytheism by saying (1) they are irrelevant to the business of electing the President and (2) that Christianity makes bizarre claims.

          I have already posted at length as to why I believe they are relevant to the Presidency. A Christian president who knows he is accountable to God will not be a Tyrant. If you are already a god or can become one on another planet, what is to stop you from being a Tyrant? The President is also the symbol of our Nation as our head of state so he should also share mainstream values not polytheism.

          Also you haven’t addressed my point about Churchill, if you won’t accept a Scientologist or Moony as President because their views are too weird where do you draw the line?

          As to whether mainstream Christian views are weird I can only say that as a member of the faith community no they are not weird, we know they are right. It is about faith not objective proof. Having said that there is archeological proof that Jesus Christ lived in the Holy Land when the Bible says He did. There is no archeological proof that He ever visited North American Indians.

          Also even if you are an atheist you have to admit that Christianity (and Classical Civilization) have shaped our own Western Civilization. Ideas like the Resurrection are cultural archetypes for us, this is definitely not true of Mormon Cosmology.

          You also say that blaming Romney for the racism of the Mormon Church is like blaming southerners for slavery. But this is not accurate, no southerners today were alive during slavery but Mitt Romney was a church official when this doctrine was still practiced. It would be right to criticize actual southerners who owned Slaves. I took the liberty of googling the quote about him crying when it was repealed, apparently he is saying they were tears of joy. Who knows. But isn’t it a tiny bit suspicious that all these revelations occur whenever the Mormon Church’s PR efforts would benefit from them?

          The example of Mormons offending Jews is the one I gave, namely they are trying to baptize Holocaust victims. Holocaust victims died because they were Jews, they did not ask to become Mormons.

          Lastly I am not saying there is a conspiracy among Mormons but all I keep hearing is that “you are misrepresenting our faith” but of course there is limited official information coming out of the Church, if you ask to attend a Mormon service (even a RELATIVES WEDDING) you aren’t allowed to. If there is all this misrepresenting going on it should be easy to fix.

          • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

            @ Perry4Prez…
            Is it just POTUS that you’re concerned with Mormon’s serving in public office… or should Mormons not be able to represent Christians as Senators, or members of the House, or in a cabinet position in the Administration, are these positions not “SYMBOLIC” enough to count?

            So what you’re saying is you won’t vote for Romney if he does become the nominee because you fear he will become a Tyrant, due to your assumption that he hopes to follow Christ’s instruction to “be ye therefore perfect, as my Father in heaven which is perfect” Matthew 5:48?

            You clearly don’t understand our doctrine… it shows.

            Did non-Jews gain access to Solomon’s Temple? Our Temples are considered sacred and holy… we don’t even let all Mormons in… because to gain access, you must receive a Temple Recommend… There are specific moral requirements that you must live by… There are also specific covenants that you must be prepared to make. We consider them sacred, not secret, you can read about them in the scriptures, you can google them, which you have, and I am sure you’re quite confused… because a babe requires milk before meat. Without a foundational knowledge of what we believe, you couldn’t possibly understand our doctrine…

            So clearly it is easier for you to bastardize my beliefs, and convince yourself of the correctness of your beliefs… That’s you’re right/privilege… but in the mean time… we both agree who the best GOP candidate will be… and hopefully that will be enough for you and me to get along.

            @Aesthete…
            Excellent reply… Your willingness to stop ignorance shows you’re living by your faith… your contributions to this site shows the fruit of someone that cares about where this country is headed… As I said… it is the privilege of everyone to believe what they believe, and act accordingly… some cannot separate their arrogance from their ignorance… Thank God we live in the greatest Nation on earth… otherwise we wouldn’t be free to act or speak foolishly.

          • perry4prez

            @Justin_Spagnolo, you keep accusing me of not understanding Mormon doctrine, misrepresenting Mormon doctrine, being “confused” and bastardizing your beliefs. But (setting aside the issue of temple access) you never provide any examples of where I do this. So please enlighten me.

            Again, my understanding is that Mormon theology teaches the following

            1. God is flesh and blood and resides on or near a planet called Kolob.
            2. Humans on earth can evolve into gods on other planets.
            3. It is legitimate to baptize others without their consent.

            Please tell me whether or not you think these are fair descriptions of Mormon theology and if not how you would modify the description.

            And it is not adequate to say “a babe requires milk before meat, without the foundations you could not possibly understand our doctrine”. If I am mischaracterizing yiur doctrine ,EXPLAIN IT. The study of doctrine is what theology is all about and by taking this position you are effectively saying that theology is an illegitimate field of study except for Mormons.

            In science you are supposed to develop hypotheses and test them with data, if some scientist said “I don’t need peer review, without the foundations you could not possibly understand the brilliance of my work”…he would be laughed out of the room, what makes you think that theology is any different? The whole point of theology is that people are supposed to study Scripture and be able to draw conclusions about it.

            This BS about “only the select few know the truth” is typical of cults like Scientology (they make exactly the same argument) and I suspect it’s why many people are skeptical about Mormonism. And it makes Mormons look very arrogant.

            You also ask whether Gentiles could set foot in the Temple. This is a ridiculous analogy, the Temple no longer exists and it was one shrine only, people who aren’t Jews are more than welcome to attend synagogues and share in seders, etc. Have you ever heard of an interfaith service? In Catholicism all denominations can attend services, they just can’t share communion. In Mormonism you can’t set foot in ANY place of worship and you can’t attend the wedding of a close relative who converts to Morminism, this is insulting and offensive.

            As to why all this is important I have made a lot of points before but they all boil down to the point that the president should not be out of the mainstream. A man’s beliefs do affect how he thinks about things and how he acts. It is not adequate to ask about our president’s core beliefs and be told “you’re a babe in the woods and could not possibly understand without “foundations”.

          • ammy

            Please enlighten me in equal detail regarding the other candidates religion, given that the particulars of all religious doctrine is so relevant here. Or better yet, step back and look at lives lived. That is all I need to know about a candidates religion. Are they better people because of? does it teach moral truths? does it cause them to live by the ten commandments? Frankly, your hostility towards Mormons rises off the screen.

          • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)
          • perry4prez

            You still haven’t answered my question about the three areas of Mormon doctrine that are most troubling to me. Did I characterize them accurately or not and if not why not?

            I agree that when studying any religion the best place to start is with its own texts and exigesis so mormon.org is certainly a place to start. But you are poisoning the well by taking anything else off the table. It is not surprising that mormon.org would not publicize Mormonism’s more controversial doctrines.

          • perry4prez

            You still haven’t answered my question about the three areas of Mormon doctrine that are most troubling to me. Did I characterize them accurately or not and if not why not?

            If they have been mischaracterized it should be very easy to explain why in a few sentences.

            I agree that when studying any religion the best place to start is with its own texts and exigesis so mormon.org is certainly a place to start. But you are poisoning the well by taking anything else off the table. It is not surprising that mormon.org would not publicize Mormonism’s more controversial doctrines.

          • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

            Also,

            Search LDS.org We make available our entire library searchable… and if you can’t find something you’re looking for I’d be happy to oblige… mormon.org provides lots of information… but lds.org has plenty more…

            I started this diary with “this is not a religious diary”… I intend to keep it that way… I’m not about to thread on and on about religious differences… its simply not polite to waste Redstate’s bandwith… there are plenty of other forums you can go to, in order to get your definitions squared correctly.

          • perry4prez

            Here is what the Pearl of Great Price, as quoted on LDS.org, has to say on Kolob:

            “And thus there shall be the reckoning of the time of one planet above another, until thou come nigh unto Kolob, which Kolob is after the reckoning of the Lord?s time; which Kolob is set nigh unto the throne of God, to govern all those planets which belong to the same order as that upon which thou standest.”

            So in other words it supports exactly what I summarized in my first point about Mormon cosmology. Kolob is “set nigh under the throne of God” and governs “all those planets”.

            For obvious reasons the Mormon Church has not chosen to highlight this on mormon.org.

          • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

            clearly… you didn’t have intent to have things clarified… stop wasting bandwidth on Redstate… go practice your anti-religion elsewhere.

          • perry4prez

            If someone asks you to explain your position, explain it – don’t go and post a bunch of links and think that answers their question without further commentary.

            The bottom line is that I quoted directly from the site you pointed to (the official site of the Mormon Church) on the doctrine of Kolob. And if you look up “Kolob” in the glossary there it says exactly the same thing.

            If there is some context I’m missing, now’s the time.

          • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

            I gave you information, you came back here to gloat that “you were right”… about a definition that you claimed you wanted clarification on… so did you have pre-knowledge? This sure sounds like a veiled attempt at some pathetic Mormon Expose…. again not really the forum of this site, again, not really your strong suit…. if you’re going to troll don’t reveal your intent…

            Why don’t you write a diary about all your interpretations of Mormon Doctrine, and how this disqualifies Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman Jr. and any other Mormon from running for any public office… While you’re at it, reference all the material you can from the websites I’ve provided for you… then pretend it means something, pat yourself on the head, and go to sleep believing you did your duty as a ‘Christian’…. Yah, i’m sorry but you’re really not representing yourself very well…

            But hey man, that’s just like, my opinion.

          • http://theheartlander.wordpress.com/ heartlander

            A little flag was raised in my mind during one of the first debates when the issue of shari’a (Islamic law) came up. Herman Cain was attacked for comments he’d made, and Newt Gingrich impressively stood up in his defense. Santorum is also knowledgeable and passionate about stopping the growing influence of CAIR and other groups who: 1) financially support terrorist groups such as Hamas; and, 2) are working very hard to normalize and promote shari’a in the U.S., at the expense of the Constitution and our own rule of law.

            Don’t believe it? Then read Muslim Mafia and The Grand Jihad to understand how and why Islamists within the U.S. are arguably a greater threat to us than are terrorists overseas. Follow the blogs Creeping Sharia and Jihad Watch to keep updated on the latest progress of the sharia promoters’ “long march through the institutions” — through the media, universities, public schools, churches, government at all levels, and even the military.

            How are they able to do all this? By exploiting our First Amendment. Islam is a political ideology more than anything, but Islamists get away with all kinds of mischief because they claim the protective mantle of “freedom of religion.”

            OK, now, back to “the Mormon question.” The little red flag went up in my mind during the first debate when Mitt Romney took pains to assure everyone that he would never discriminate against anyone because of their religion, and that our First Amendment right to freedom of religion is a core American principle.

            He’s absolutely right. Freedom of religion is a core American priniciple — maybe even THE core American principle. The problem is that most Muslims do NOT conceive of religious freedom the way we do, and, their religion is also a complete, totalitarian political system, like Communism or Nazism. Most Americans are in the dark about this, thanks to the Islamic principles of taqiyya (lying to infidels in order to advance Islam) and kitman (misrepresenting or holding back certain things about Islam so as to hide one’s true intentions from the infidel).

            In other words, Muslims are able to exploit our guarantees of religious freedom in order to advance their political designs.

            Mormons, because of their relatively recent (1800s) experience of persecution in America, are particularly sensitive to issues of religious freedom, and particularly likely to identify and sympathize with Muslims and consequently to be suckered by Muslims’ self-serving paeans to “religious freedom.” There are even some things in common between the two religions: Both were founded centuries after Jesus Christ by men who said they’d received special, private revelations from God by way of an angel; both condoned polygamy, at least in the early days; both have concepts of the afterlife that are distinct from those of orthodox Christianity.

            Now, Glenn Beck is a Mormon, and he’s been very good at exposing the dangers to the U.S. from the Islamic world. But I got the distinct impression from Mitt Romney that his own life experience as a Mormon may make him less likely to recognize the mortal danger our society is in from the Islamist enemy within. (Note, not all Muslims are Islamists who want to replace our Constitution with shari’a — but many, possibly even most, are.) In other words, I fear that Romney’s Mormon background may predispose him to be slow to see the nature and the magnitude of the cultural and juridical war currently being waged by Islam within the borders of our country.

          • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

            Even though I’m not a fan of Romney or Huntsman… if they’re soft on foreign policies, and don’t understand the Jihadist threat… than that’s a personal issue… I do believe Romney went on and on in 2008 regarding the issue of Islam setting up a caliphate in the middle east, and took the time to blast Hillary Clinton during his campaign for some reason over the issue… its a vague memory. Not important.

            Mormons are not “sympathetic” to other religions, we’re “empathetic”. From our view the world and its religions have been corrupted… God sends prophets to end the corruption both pre and post the Savior’s life and ministry… due to the Abrahamic covenant, prophets were called from the house of Israel and were maintained in Semitic lines the same covenants that belonged to Noah, and the generations of patriarchal prophets before him all the way to Adam. Prior to Christ’s death he organized his church on the earth, and gave authority to the Apostles to bind things on earth as they are in heaven. They were warned that they would experience persecution… for many it led to their death. After the ascension Peter received a revelation that the Gospel should be taken to the gentiles… and so began the spread of Christianity.

            A very distinct doctrine of ours is we believe in the literal gathering of the lost ten tribes of Israel in the last days. We consider ourselves the protectors of the ushering in of the “dispensation of the fulness of times” wherein all events leading up to the Second Coming of Jesus Christ will be made manifest in our prophecies of both old and new. We view Israel (the country) as brothers in Israel (Jacob), from the house of Judah. We look forward to the fulfillment of prophecies from Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Micah, et al. with specific prophecies concerning the treatment of the world towards house of Israel.

            I do want to address however something you stated:

            He?s absolutely right. Freedom of religion is a core American priniciple ? maybe even THE core American principle. The problem is that most Muslims do NOT conceive of religious freedom the way we do, and, their religion is also a complete, totalitarian political system, like Communism or Nazism. Most Americans are in the dark about this, thanks to the Islamic principles of taqiyya (lying to infidels in order to advance Islam) and kitman (misrepresenting or holding back certain things about Islam so as to hide one?s true intentions from the infidel).

            -emphasis mine

            That is not lost on anyone that has studied history, Mormon or not.

            The issue is how exactly do we view religious freedom?

            The state really shouldn’t be involved in legislating anything regarding the repression of religious freedoms… however, when one is utilizing their “religious freedom” to impose on other citizens, this is no longer a matter of religious freedom, this is an issue of state sponsored domination.

            When we build our Temples, we go through the channels of state and local governments to get the zoning, building, and all other permits required. Our sites are chosen as a potential site, but we don’t necessarily build until we’ve done all we need to do… and we’re smart enough not to build next to a pig farmer for the smell alone :)

            In the 1880′s there certainly was no social security program, we took care of our own… so its clear the government felt a need to impose on the religious freedoms of early Mormon pioneers… when they passed a law, we conformed to the rule of law… herein lies the difference between the way we operate with respect to the governing body of the land, vs. attempting to overthrow the rule of law.

            As for “taqiyya (lying to infidels in order to advance Islam) and kitman (misrepresenting or holding back certain things about Islam so as to hide one?s true intentions from the infidel).”… There are some that could easily make that argument about Mormons (and some in this diary’s threads may presume this is our practice — I say such as clearly one individual in particular was trying to turn this into a discussion about me defining the faith of others both in and out of my faith)…

            We don’t hold back anything… we make quite clear where we stand… I think I’ve been extremely open regarding my personal faith, and my interpretation of things when people are asking for my personal take…

            If people want to believe something, they’re going to do it…

            However, as others have posted… Mormons are Pro-Semitic… 100%

            If anything the persecution we’ve endured as a heritage/people… has taught us to identify who are allies are and those whose objectives are meant to destroy.

            For more on this see our Articles of Faith an excerpt:

            10 We believe in the literal agathering of Israel and in the restoration of the Ten Tribes; that Zion (the New Jerusalem) will be built upon the American continent; that Christ will reign personally upon the earth; and, that the earth will be renewed and receive its paradisaical glory.

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

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

          • aesthete

            are just flat out ignorant.

            Joseph Smith adored the US Constitution, and explicitly based the ideal of “theodemocracy” around the notions embodied therein.

            All of the early church leaders were highly influenced by and spoke highly of the American government and America as a people and social compact.

            If anything, Mormons can be accused of being pro-American to a point that most Christian denominations would consider sacrilegious.

            While I have serious theological problems with their views on the US and in many other areas, there’s no doubt that Mormonism’s political leanings are towards classical liberalism in general and Americanism in specific.

          • acat

            I am not the Catholic candidate for President. I am the Democratic Party’s candidate for President, who happens also to be a Catholic.
            –JFK

            That was good enough in 1960, it’s good enough for this cat today.

            Mew

          • aesthete

            about this nonsense. The Pope himself could be running, and if he was the best candidate for the job I would vote for him. I don’t care if you’re a Satanist or a deacon; what I care about is where you stand on the issues, and if you’re a credible person who I can trust to do the things you say you’re going to do. To me, credibility is conveyed by past record. People say and believe that they’re all kinds of things — but when it comes right down to it, it’s what they *do* that matters. Balance the budget, kill terrorists, counterbalance China in the Orient, strengthen our position worldwide, increase freedom, and figure something out for Iran? I don’t care if you’re sacrificing chickens to the Earth Mother; you’ve got my vote.

          • CincoSolas_del_Bronx

            Yet believers also must stop expecting politicians to double as high priests of a false religion, an idolatrous religion, that substitutes real confessional communities for a generic moralism. Even where a candidate?s confession differs from our own, we have to ask what we?re looking for in our political leaders. Are we seeking an icon who will reassure us that even in a wildly pluralistic and relativistic society we are the ones in the right, safely ensconced in the walls of absolute truth? Or do we have the more modest goal of electing presidents who will eschew any messianic mantle and pursue policies that we believe are more likely to do more good than harm to the republic?s common good and the Constitution that they swear to uphold?

            Michael Horton, Out of the Horse’s Mouth

            (OT, but while I have you and acat in proximity, today’s Dilbert strip may give you both an unconsidered option in case Mitt stumbles …)

          • Bill S

            Not an hour ago I emailed Neil that I was just dying to front that Dilbert comic.

          • CincoSolas_del_Bronx

            he could build MudState.com !

          • aesthete

            on many theological issues. I draw a lot of inspiration from Calvinist thinkers. (BTW, I’ve been reading Michael Horton semi-regularly now thanks to you; he’s a good ‘un.)

            Love Dilbert.

          • CincoSolas_del_Bronx

            the equivalent of a modern Reformation of doctrine and praxis, Horton will be reckoned among the constellation of Packer, Schaeffer, Clowney, Sproul, Piper, Wells, Keller, White and others currently less visible–especially outside the West–who faithfully restored the transmission of the doctrines of grace to this generation.

            And please don’t take it personally if my mental images of acat and you, after yesterday, are replaced by … Wally and Dilbert!

          • kipling

            You have piqued my interest What is a good first book by Horton?

          • CincoSolas_del_Bronx

            with Horton’s broadcasts and articles than with his books, but Christless Christianity (2008) is probably his magnum opus to date. Poking around the broadcast and blog tabs at the site I linked above might be the best way to get your toes wet. I’d be happy to recommend/discuss more, but don’t want to impinge on the RS mods’ patience by treating their site as a theological clearinghouse–but feel free to ask them for my address if you want more info.

          • kipling

            I followed your link and read three of the blogs. Very enjoyable and informative. I agree a lot with his critique of modern evangelicalism.

            Thanks for the link. I look forward to reading further.

          • CincoSolas_del_Bronx

            and trust that you will be edified and encouraged.

          • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

            So… I’d be happy to discuss these things with you if you have real interest to learn more…

            You can always have missionaries come to you home to visit in person,… just go to www.mormon.org…

            You could also watch the General Conference of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints… it’s broadcast in hundreds of countries and languages… You can watch from the comfort of your own home what modern day Apostles and the Prophet have to say… We gather twice a year, it just so happens that this Saturday and Sunday we are gathering again. Check your local listings, or your cable guide for BYU television… If that’s not available to you, you can watch a live stream at www.lds.org, or www.byu.tv

            I honestly am not a spokesman for the Church, but I can tell you what I know from my perspective regarding our faith… I do not speak for all Mormons, and I certainly don’t speak for the Apostles or the Prophet, or Jesus Christ…

            I do get the sense that you or someone you know had someone that you/they were close to that got married in the Temple, and its clearly made you upset…

            To that end I can tell you that My wife and I were married in a Temple, we made a covenant before God that we would honor our marriage for eternity, No “death do you part” business… as such, a sacred event like that deserves privacy and an understanding of the covenant…

            You’re invited to any ward house or stake house, any meeting of any sort in our regular churches, EVERY single wardhouse, and stakehouse that has a sign outside says “Vistors Welcome”… you can join in on any activity, just walk inside, someone will introduce themselves to you…

            If its access you want… ask… go… do… but otherwise I have to assume your vain attempts to “expose” the Mormons… or any other religion that you’ve denigrated in these threads with your innuendos is just a pathetic whining of a dogma comparison chart… and if that’s what you think will get you closer to Christ… well my friend… I have to say, I think you’re selling your personal faith short… everything I’ve read in the Bible, and I’ve read it several times cover to cover, teaches me how to act and behave like Christ… even under Mormon Theology… there are no contradictions from my perspective, and with the eye of faith, I have prayed and fasted to know the truth by the power of the Holy Ghost…

            Which is why I am concerned for you… it seems as though you carry a deep seeded anger regarding our Temple Marriages… You seem to be angry that we don’t believe as you do… If you are concerned for us, bear witness to us, don’t tell us what we think, don’t attempt to explain to us what we believe… you don’t have to tell me how I’m wrong, just tell me how you’re right… find the common ground and build from there…

            Remember, It is possible that maybe someday you may find yourself on a metaphorical road to Damascus, and you will hear a light and see a voice and hear … “Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou, me?” Live your religion… don’t denigrate others…

            When it comes to politics, everything is fair game… but politics isn’t going to save your soul… it was politics and vehement hatred to someone that was not “doing away with the old law, but fulfilling it” with new doctrines not accepted by the pharisees, lawyers and doctors of the religious and political law.. that led to the Savior’s crucifixion.

            Tell me who you are, don’t take it upon yourself to tell me who I am not.

  • Remington_Steele

    I appreciate the frank discussion about this issue. I have no clue if Romney will be the next president, I’m pretty confident Huntsman won’t be. The fear of some evangelicals that Mormonism would be spread or validated by Romney being President is just as real yet as unfounded as JFK and Catholicism.

    • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

      If Mormonism continues to spread it will be the direct result of sending 50,000+ young missionaries annually into the world to spread the message door to door… which as a former missionary I can tell you that message has nothing whatsoever to do with American politics… Although when I was a missionary stationed in Thunder Bay Ontario during the spring of 2002… we did get an inordinate amount of questions from proud Canadians regarding ‘who won the war of 1812?’

      That was annoying.

      • Green_Lantern

        and I respond to them “and for your victory we let you have your own little money”. They love that. ;-)

        • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

          My usual response was developed over time…

          “Well it certainly wasn’t Canada that won that war, given that a bunch of British subjects get hopped up on cheap beer, and burned the White House in the middle of the night… resulting in a return to the same borders and re-establishing trade among Americans and the British, whom the Canadians were subjected under.”

  • wembeley

    I appreciate you bringing about this discussion.

    Personally I think a person’s relationship with God is and should be between him and God. If he chooses to open discussion then so be it but I fear that not everyone agrees with that and will not support Mitt because of his religion. Even though I’ve not seen any instance where he makes issue of his religion.

    Our religions may help to define our characters but they don’t necessarily define our politics. If that were the case, wouldn’t all of D.C. be satanists? :P

    • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

      Good intentions paved the way to hell. Which is why we should have less legislation and a smaller government.

      Thanks for your comment!

  • freentn

    He only carried 11 States, none in the South. I doubt that he will do any better in 2012. Southern Christian Conservatives simply will not vote for him.

    • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

      There are Southern Christian Conservatives that have voted for Romney… but you’re right, he can’t carry a majority of them to win the delegates he needs… so I agree with the implication to an extent.

  • harpsichord

    1. Global warming “correctness”
    2. Ethanol
    3. Waivers rather than REPEAL for Obamacare

    Are NOT fine with me. I can palate Romney, but I would rather not. And anyone who would vote for Obama or sit out because Romey is a Morman has a priorities and reality problem.

    • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

      Which is why for now I’m supporting Perry… but I’m looking for the most Conservative candidate that can win… If any other candidate can prove that to me they can turn the tide over Perry, and beat Romney… then more power to them… more specifically I find myself rooting for Cain while supporting Perry… Cain’s got a lot of ground to make up… when I say conservative, I mean conservative… not more libertarian than Romney… I really don’t think we should be having discussion about why we’re worried about being kept in the country by a border fence… right?

  • bonnman

    Is it true they don’t drink coffee as a religious belief? Cause that might be a deal breaker.

    • Jim Tomasik

      Now that we have them, can we really give beer summits up by electing a mormon president?

      • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

        nt.

        • Jim Tomasik

          jg

    • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

      We are advised to not coffee or tea as it was proscribed in the revelation known as the “Word of Wisdom”…We also don’t drink alcohol, smoke tobacco, or use addictive/harmful drugs without prescription… the other side is that we are also instructed to eat red meat sparingly, and maintain use of grain and vegetables for their correct purpose… all for the establishment of personal health in respect for the “Temple” or physical body God has given us… if we live by this “law” we are promised blessing of both a spiritual and temporal nature.

      Not all Mormons live by this… and adherence is a requirement for Temple (physical building) worship… (of which Romney and Hunstman as far as I can assume both hold recommends to enter into the Temple).

      • bonnman

        Now thats a problem.

        • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

          They always had a sober designated driver…

  • pm270x

    A Biblical Response to Mormons
    http://carm.org/biblical-response-to-mormons

    A Pastoral Response to Mormonism in the Public and Political Square
    http://zachmcintosh.com/2011/10/21/a-pastoral-response-to-mormonism-in-the-public-and-political-square/

    • mikeymike143

      mormons are christians with excellent family values. and the next president of the united states is going to be a mormon. and mitt sure is going to be much better that that marxist egomanic that occupies the white house now!!!!!!

    • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

      NT

  • Viet71

    Didn’t think much about his religion, because he was open and not evangelical about it.

    I’d trust him with anything. That’s about him as a person.

    What was he like? Wicked, raunchy sense of humor; lusted after women, but was seriously married. Tithed 10 percent. Didn’t drink. Wasn’t judgmental. Was completely open and accepting.

    Was he an exception? I’d say and hope not.

    • mikeymike143

      but that doesnt shock me. the mormons i know r quality people. when they tell you something, you can bank on it. :)

  • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

    with a few exceptions.

    Exception one, Scientology. This speaks to gullibility and sheer stupidity.

    exception two . Islam. Islam is not just a religion but a system of law and governance. they are really not separable. While I would like to give the benefit of the doubt to an Islamic candidate whom I agreed with, I am not sure if Islam has earned that trust yet in our nation.

    Certainly not like Mormonism which has been existing very successfully and peacefully in our nation for a long time.

  • Pingback: Google

  • Pingback: monkey payday

  • Pingback: Stop Bullying

  • Pingback: salsa

  • Pingback: any probs let me know

  • Pingback: job search

  • Pingback: gadgets

  • Pingback: Odometer Correction

  • Pingback: Home Made energy download

  • Pingback: nike free 3 running

  • Pingback: china investment in indonesia

  • Pingback: belstaff jackets

  • Pingback: buy from taobao

  • Pingback: Better sex

  • Pingback: Vigrx Review

  • Pingback: Apple Iphone 5 Giveaway

  • Pingback: Privacy remover

  • Pingback: sms gratis

  • Pingback: rabbit cages

  • Pingback: facbook jobs

  • Pingback: upmc insurance prices

  • Pingback: Garage Door Repair and Fireplace WA

  • Pingback: computer repair pittsburgh

  • Pingback: gotowanie

  • Pingback: Cheap Wedding Dresses Online

  • Pingback: lebron shoes

  • Pingback: designer mens shirts

  • Pingback: good read

  • Pingback: samsung chromebook review

  • Pingback: WarZ Items

  • Pingback: dubturbo review

  • Pingback: buy african mango

  • Pingback: how can I make money

  • Pingback: business in indonesia

  • Pingback: john thomas financial

  • Pingback: peliculas online

  • Pingback: here

  • Pingback: Compre e venda produtos de A a Z online e tenha uma loja como afiliado

  • Pingback: john thomas financial

  • Pingback: Click Here

  • Pingback: John thomas financial

  • Pingback: free bet offers

  • Pingback: virgin casino

  • Pingback: white bet casino

  • Pingback: vakantie oostenrijk

  • Pingback: hushållsservice

  • Pingback: strict diet

  • Pingback: harvard

  • Pingback: click here

  • Pingback: clean

  • Pingback: cheap height adjustable desk

  • Pingback: dkfjadlfk

  • Pingback: Capsule endoscopy

  • Pingback: Sherman Oaks Pilates

  • Pingback: Joe Francis

  • Pingback: Marijuana Hollywood

  • Pingback: nigGer

  • Pingback: I Need to Make Money Fast

  • Pingback: Big Island Snorkeling

  • Pingback: The North Face wholesale distributor

  • Pingback: lida ile zayiflama

  • Pingback: john thomas financial

  • Pingback: remedies tinnitus

  • Pingback: Site

  • Pingback: Tooth Whitening

  • Pingback: Tacoma WA Lawyer

  • Pingback: Commercial Cleaning Seattle

  • Pingback: abc blinds

  • Pingback: Ceremonial flag holders

  • Pingback: new forex robots

  • Pingback: https://maps.google.com/maps?ie=UTF8&cid=4756000391810019390&q=Pyramid+Electric&iwloc=A&gl=US&hl=en electrician seattle

  • Pingback: Where Can I Buy Green Coffee Bean Extract

  • Change Jar Conservative

    has to do (usually) with the Mormon candidate pushing Mormonism as simply a different brand of Christianity.

    So let me give the Evangelical point of view. (NOTE: I’m using the term “evangelical” here to mean Christians who believe the Bible is God’s word and because I couldn’t come up with a better term. Better terms probably exist).

    1) I don’t believe that Mormonism is a “sect” of Christianity simply because it adds an additional book of dogma. It is outside the sphere of Christianity regardless of it’s name. You are free to disagree with that, but that is how Mormonism is regarded by most evangelical Christians (There are additional theological issues around Christology, heaven, etc, but I’m trying to mostly focus on politics here).

    2) I don’t care a bit about that as far as supporting a candidate for any office.

    3) The issue that has turned myself and many other evangelicals off in previous political campaigns is when the Mormon candidate makes it an issue.

    For example, when Orrin Hatch was running for Prez, he pushed very hard for Christian support as a fellow Christian. When a Mormon candidate does this then they are asking Evangelicals to approve both of them as a candidate AND of their theology.

    And for many evangelicals, that is just NOT going to happen.

    CONCLUSION:
    As long as the Mormon candidates aren’t out there pushing Christians to vote for them as “fellow Christians” then there likely won’t be any issues with 99% of evangelical Christians supporting said Mormon.

    If a Mormon candidate makes it an issue then he is going to push evangelicals into a theological area and that is when it becomes thorny.

  • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

    Theological disagreements aside… and again that wasn’t the point of the post…

    You should recognize that although you believe that your views are more correct than anyone else… it doesn’t really give you the right to speak for Christ… does it? … you can distinguish the differences until the coming of Jesus Christ… and you may just do that…

    but that really doesn’t have any forbearance on your assertion that Mormon politicians should have to deny their personal beliefs in order to not offend mainstream Christians that believe Mormons are not Christians… in order to get their vote.

    As you said, that’s just NOT going to happen.

  • LiveStronger

    of people the right to call themselves what they want to call themselves.

    This is difficult for many Evangelical Christians that I know. It bothers them that Latter-day Saint Christians have the audacity to call themselves Christians. For some reason, it doesn’t bother them as much that Catholics call themselves Christians or that Orthodox Christians call themselves “Orthodox (true) Christians”.

    But the labeling issue remains a constant thorn in the side for many Evangelical Christians.

    Here’s how I deal with it. Although I don’t believe that any of these so-called “fundamentalist Mormons” that force teenage girls into marriage and live in fortified compounds are Mormon in any sense that I recognize, I would never correct one that called himself or herself a Mormon. It is their right to call themselves what they wish to call themselves.

    Does that dilute my definition of myself as a Mormon? Somewhat. But so does the existence of Mormons who lie, steal, murder, commit adultery, etc.

    Would you ever tell a Christian struggling with homosexuality that he was not allowed to call himself a Christian until he stopped practicing homosexuality? If so, that says more about how you define Christianity than how someone like, say, Jesus or the apostle Paul defined Christianity.

    Conclusion:

    Live and let live. Let Mormons call themselves Christians. You can find points of division if you choose to. Or you can find points of agreement and build the bridges which must be built to counter the wide and powerful push of nihilism and secularism in our culture.

  • ammy

    Not to sound too combative, but who gave you the authority to determine who is and is not a Christian? And is that attitude really in harmony with the teachings of Christ? Yes, there are theological differences between Mormons and other Christian groups – you’ll note I said other because as a Mormon everything we do is centered around striving to follow the teachings of Christ. From the hundreds of millions of dollars the church spends providing charitable work around the world, most of which goes to non-members, in order to further the work of caring for our brothers and sisters to the most basic lessons in Sunday School that are always centered in Christ’s teachings. Mormon candidates shouldn’t have to convince anyone of their religious beliefs, they should be able to be considered as a result of their positions on issues and the lives they lead. Mormons are like other religious groups, made up of different individuals who are striving to do the best they can and succeeding to various degrees. Evangelicals do themselves no favor when they presume to be the voice of Christ in determining who is and is not a Christian. If you think a candidate is the best choice vote for him, if not, don’t. But please hold the religious prejudice.

  • acat

    Where do you place Catholics?

    Like the Mormons, there are some extra books in their bibles, and some oddities in their church history.

    Are they also outside the sphere?

    Just a curious cat.

    Mew

  • freentn

    for a very informative post.

  • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

    I can see you may be sensitive about this…

    But the point of the diary is: He can haz his cheezburgar. If he’s got reservations based on his limited understanding of our doctrines… let him… if he has vast amounts of knowledge regarding our doctrines, and still feels the way he does… that’s his prerogative…

    In the end we’ll all account for what we know, and what we did with our knowledge…

    I don’t think elections will effect the outcome of God’s plan… it is however, our opportunity to fight for what we believe… even if we come of as pompous jerks.

  • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

    let’s not get into equivocations here…

    you don’t need to go down that rabbit hole…

    By their fruits ye shall know them… Politically or Religiously…

    James defined pure religion…

    Christ stated you could hang the law and prophets on the 2 great commandments…

    So even if CJC’s assertion may have some logical leaps in it that we disagree with… I’m not about to suggest he doesn’t Love as God intended… that’s between him and the Lord… If someone feels chastening us on our incorrectness (as they see it) is tough love, allow them… and by their “other” fruits, ye shall know them…

  • naraht

    A member of Jews for Jesus applied to be a Chaplain in the US Military, when after objections by Jews including various Jewish Chaplains, the Chief Chaplain determined that this person could not wear the symbol that the Jewish Chaplains wear and that he should instead wear a cross…

  • youngsterz

    than Romney, and definitely more conservative than Huntsman. Then again, most Mormons (and most conservatives) are too smart to ever want to be a full-time politician. Seriously, why would you want to swim in that sewer?

    Most Mormons are fiscal conservatives who believe in personal responsibility. Limited government, followed by high degrees of voluntary charity.

    Mormons consider themselves Christians. Some other Christians don’t consider Mormons Christian. So what? The irony here is that any Christian who would disparage anyone who is at least trying to be a good person finds themselves being UN-Christian. It’s a beautiful thing, and will help sort it all out in the end.

    The key thing that we can all agree on is that Obama must go, along with as many other liberal progressives as we can vote out, and we need to move Washington as far back to the right as we can in 2012. Will we ever make it a completely conservative congress? No, but we need the pendulum to get as far back right as we can. ANY of the leading candidates would be a vast improvement over what we have now.

    Most conservative Mormons, Evangelicals, Catholics, and gay three-eyed purple Martian conservatives can agree that we will wholeheartedly support whoever comes out of the GOP primary. They are all vastly imperfect but well-intentioned candidates and I appreciate their willingness to suffer the slings and arrows along the way.

  • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

    Although I’ve never met a gay three-eyed purple Martian conservative before…

    I still would do my best to vet the candidate and if they meet the criteria of most conservative individual that can win the election and dead Martian girls don’t crop up or the candidate is not caught with a live Martian boy then it may be possible in some zany universe that candidate might best represent me… but I think hyperbolic silly hypothetical situations are rare and it may be senseless to discuss the merits of our attention.

    Fact is if you don’t feel represented by someone you don’t need to become the “boogeyman” voting bloc that ruined the plans of that Martian for world domination or political office whichever the case may be.

  • Green_Lantern

    but I must tell you. It is a HUGE issue with many Protestants. Many Protestants think Mormons believe really, really crazy things. There are many, many websites of people that have left the faith. Claims are made of similarities with Scientology.

    I have cousins that are Mormons, have been close with them my whole life. I have read a whooooole lot about Joseph Smith and the beginnings of Mormonism, from both friendly and unfriendly sources.

    People think it’s crazy, I’m just sayin’. They wonder about the decision-making process of someone who believes something that they think is so crazy.

    Please note that I do not claim to be one of the aforementioned Protestants, and also make no assertions of craziness myself. I don’t actually think it’s more or less crazy than anything else. But while we’re talking about elephants I want to speak freely.

  • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

    That is the point. Its not an issue for me… call me crazy… ;) call Romney and Huntsman crazy… but don’t suggest they should “back off” their beliefs and at the same time don’t make boogeyman out of Protestants or evangelicals if neither candidate can’t get their campaign to gain traction… we’re not voting for pastor in chief.

  • freentn

    of the vote in 2008. He only carried 11 States, none in the South. Southern Christian Conservatives simply will not vote for him.

  • Change Jar Conservative

    People can always choose there titles.

    And christ will sort out who are His.

    My point was to explain when in the conversation the label becomes an issue for politicians.

    Hatch didn’t understand when it happened to him.

    ?ou were trying to give a morman point of view which I appreciate.

    I was trying to give you an evangelical point of view in return as to where the diaconnect occurs on the other side of the fence.

  • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

    Hatch knew why he “caught hell” for claiming to be a Christian, I dare say I don’t know a Mormon that hasn’t at some point in their life…

    I understand the label issue… to some the label is more important than the fruits… and I dare say those will “catch hell” too ;)

    I don’t like hearing evangelicals or protestants speak for all evangelicals or protestants…

    I certainly don’t speak for all Mormons…

    The point I was making is… if you want to speak in superlatives… that’s your prerogative…

    And no I didn’t mean the “pompous jerk” comment about you specifically… it was actually a self-reference in the context of telling Ammy that we should fight for what we believe… which is PRECISELY why i don’t take personal offense to comments about my faith… and the potential to turn off voters… what I do get riled up about is the suggestion that somehow the “Anti-Mormon Boogeyman League” is out there destroying a Mormon candidate’s ability to get elected… its offensive to me to suggest that people who disagree with me on theology, must somehow be a political enemy of mine, even though we agree on the issues and policies…. that’s pathetically vain…

  • ammy

    Thanks so much for your earlier kind words, ahem. Actually, rather than being sensitive about the issue, I just think it’s time for some straight talk. I am not out to convert or not convert – I expressed my opinion as did you and don’t think it justifies name calling. There are unusual things about the early establishment of Mormonism and yes, if you don’t know much about the church it is easier to believe the misinformation fed to a lot of evangelicals and protestants. That’s too bad.
    I don’t care about Perry’s religion – I care that he can’t formulate a coherent sentence and is not anywhere close to the conservative he claims to be. I love Santorum and Cain and don’t believe either can beat Obama. I think Romney can and so am supporting him. His religion is irrelevant – it didn’t factor into his record of success at Bain Capital, his success at the SLC Olympics or his record for good and bad as Governor of Mass. There is no perfect husband, wife, blogger or Presidential candidate. Embrace imperfection and pomposity
    celebrate diversity of opinions and approaches. It won’t hurt.

  • Green_Lantern

    and I appreciate your openness. I don’t think people who believe their religions are crazy at all. You are right though, if you believe in it, don’t back off. People should be proud of their beliefs.

  • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

    I think you’re fooling yourself when you subscribe to the ‘electability’ argument. If that is your reason for supporting Romney then good luck trying to get people to take you seriously.

    As for Perry’s conservative credibility, look at his record. Its clear that you have not considered the last great orator that became President on personality gave us the worst economy since the great depression, waged class warfare, gave us obamacare, and has fouled up our foreign policy so bad he’s set the middle east back 60 years, and has practically told our enemies were open season for currency wars, terrorism, and policy reversal including greater trade imbalances, all while taking part in crony capitalism and quite possibly has frauded tax payers.

    Don’t cheapen your candidate with electability arguments…

  • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

    N/t

  • ammy

    I completely agree with your assessment of Obama. I am not supporting Romney because I consider him a great orator. I am not opposing Perry because he is not – clearly. But there is a difference between being a great orator and being able to compose a complete coherent sentence defending your positions. He made the choices I would think he could credibly defend them. I’m going with the republican strategist who tweeted during the previous debate that watching Perry struggle to compose a coherent sentence in defense of his position was like watching a chimp playing with a locked suitcase (paraphrased). In addition, I have done some reading and while I like some of his positions I don’t others. Also, the crony capitalism bothers me a lot. I don’t care about what he “said” about SS – some of which I agree with.

    But if you are going to dismiss the electability argument – I’ll use your line on you – I can’t think of why anyone would take you seriously. Of course it’s an issue. The Republicans real opponent will be the msm and then Obama. Whoever we choose, they will try to eviscerate, however, some have been giving them more help than they should. In addition, I’m also looking at who would “make” a good president. In that category – I’ll take Romney all day long. It took Reagan three tries, some of these candidates need more time – Cain for example. Perry – frankly, I don’t think there’s enough time in the world. He was handed a get out of jail free card and has managed to handcuff himself to the worst of John McCain and George Bush simultaneously. I think Texas and Perry are a good match – I think Perry should go back to Texas and kiss the ground because he is most definitely not ready for the bright lights of DC. They would eat him up but before that could happen, Obama would eat his lunch during a series of debates that would have conservatives everywhere throwing their shoes at their tvs. You don’t have to take this seriously, but you should.

  • dapala

    First, I would say that I will vote for Romney if he is the nominee. However, there are some inconvenient truths the writer left out regarding Mormons. I;ve lived in the state for almost 30 years so I think I know a bit about the LDS.

    It is a fact that polygamy is still practiced in Utah. Though the active participants may be considered by some as outliers- they are certainly well tolerated by mainstrem mormons as they have done little to nothing to stop the practice.

    Though the church’s offical position is that it does not practice polygamy, you then have to ask your self why their flagship university, BYU, is still named after a church leader with 50+ wives.

    It is only within the last 20 years that mormons even wanted to be considered “chrisitians”. They were always mormons prior to recent history.

    If mormons are “christians”, then why do they send missionaries to Texas, Italy to try and “convert” Catholics and Baptists?

    LDS, including Romney, believe that their church leader is a Prophet of God. Devout LDS will do whatever the Prophet tells them to do. Unlike Hunstman, Romney has never stated that he would part ways with his faith if there was a conflict in office with what the Prophet told him and the US Constitution.

    An one last historical tidbit, who knew, but LDS believe that Jesus was visiting Mexico and Central America at the time of our founding fathers.

  • Change Jar Conservative

    Because when someone tries to engage and explain their point of view as I have, one gets attacked.

  • naraht

    Brigham Young was still a prophet of the Church, nothing in the 1890 OD 1 or other later efforts to get rid of Polygamy indicated the Brigham Young had been wrong for being Polygamous.

    And the fact that men can be sealed to more than one woman (after the death of a first wife for example) indicates that the Latter Day Saints still believe in Polygamy, just not on earth.

    There are lots of other non-Latter Day Saint Groups that send missionaries down to South America to convert Catholics, would you exclude all of those groups from being Christian?

    I’ve never seen *anything* indicating that Latter Day Saints believe that Jesus visited the new world after the death of Moroni. (420AD) References please.

    The LDS church backed the recent effort to raise the minimum legal age of marriage in Utah from 14 to 16. This will make it easier for Utah law enforcement to go after Polygamous groups.

  • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

    The only “inconvenient truth” here is that you’ve lived for 30 years next door to Mormons, and what you claim we believe couldn’t be more wrong. Why don’t you just ask them?

    This forum isn’t about me clarifying what at best are your ignorant assertions, and at worse willful distortion of the facts for purpose of Trolling or otherwise…

    But that others may know how you operate, and in the spirit of openness…:
    Polygamy is still practiced in Utah, but not by members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, we excommunicate for that, its not in line with what we practice in the tiniest degree. I stated upthread that there are splinter groups, and they may consider themselves as “Mormon”, but they’re not mainstream, and their views are not the views of any LDS including Romney, and Huntsman. As for your assertion of “tolerance”… Last I checked it’s not any church’s place to govern or enforce the laws of the state or nation… so I’m not sure what you expect the LDS church to do there… as for the polygamist faith, we’re tolerant of all faiths… but its as weird for me as any other LDS to meet a polygamist… I’ve met 2 ex-polygamists(they ran away from their family) in Utah in all my time there… those that practice it, tend to keep to themselves.

    I’m a Univ of Utah fan not a BYU fan… but I can tell you that in Utah, Brigham Young is celebrated not only as the second prophet of The Church of Jesus Christ, he was also the state’s first governor. BYU is church sponsored, and a private school. Instead of asking yourself, here’s a novel idea… Ask them.

    We’ve been taught since Joseph Smith joined the church by our church leadership to do all things in Christ… So I don’t know where you get your “20″ years estimate from…

    We send missionaries all over the world, we hope to “convert” all unto Christ… We clearly believe we have more revelation to share with the world concerning Christ…

    LDS do in fact believe we have a Prophet of God on the earth today, his name is Thomas S. Monson, we believe is a prophet in every sense of the word, just like every prophet in the Old Testament, down to the apostleship after Christ ascended to heaven… Go learn what he has to say if you dare ;) You better believe Romney and Huntsman would take his advice… but you should know that unlike the issues of Europe prior to the 16th century where the church had sovereign influence… believe me when I tell you, Thomas S. Monson is not interested in running some sort of puppet show with POTUS… his influence would be no different than Billy Graham on an evangelical, or the Pope on a catholic… There simply is nothing in our beliefs that are in conflict with the U.S. Constitution.

    “at the time of our founding fathers”… is news to me….

    Yes, we believe that in roughly 34 a.d. after he left the apostles after his resurrection, that he came to visit the people of the Americas… and no, there’s no specification as to where in the Americas that took place… you can read all about it in the Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ… This is what we took Jesus Christ as meaning when he stated “Other sheep I have which are not of this fold, and them too I must bring.”

  • perry4prez

    The sending of missionaries to Catholic countries does not say anything about whether Mormons are Christians since other Christian denominations do the same thing.

    Having said that one litmus test is whether other Christian denominations accept LDS baptisms when a Mormon wants to convert. The Catholic church does not accept Mormon baptisms and converts from Mormonism to Catholicism must be re-baptized. The same is true of other denominations (Southern Baptists, Methodists). The Vatican expressly said this was because the Mormon concept of God was too different from the Catholic concept to allow LDS baptisms to qualify.

  • naraht

    Instead of “Nothing after 420AD”, it should be nothing between 420AD and the Sacred Grove.

  • perry4prez

    My understanding is that Mormons believe Christ visited ancient America after the Resurrection not during the time of the Founding Fathers.

    Again having said that the responses miss the point. There is real historical and archeological evidence of Christ’s presence in the Holy Land. Where is the archeological evidence that Christ ever visited the Americas or that Native Americans are descended from the Israelites?

  • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

    which is why you must like Romney’s piss poor excuses as to WHY he EVER got involved in a healthcare overhaul in MA.

    I don’t care what his reasons were… it was a bad idea… trying to improve on 8-9% (his number) of uninsured by mandating registration with an insurance carrier in the exchange, or paying fees for noncompliance…. IS A BAD— NON-CONSERVATIVE approach.

    Where is the Liberty? Where is the choice?

    Now I know you’re not suggesting Perry is “unelectable”… that’s just pathetic… care to look at the poll numbers again? do you also care to explain why the polls at this stage don’t matter for Romney, but they do for Perry?

    What “Crony Capitalism” are you referring to when speaking of Perry? I sure hope you’re not referring to the TOTAL of $6000 he received from MERCK ever… as if it somehow became a back scratcher for him to support his Gardasil Executive Order… So would you care to elaborate on what you meant there?

    Chimps and suitcases would provide us more liberty than someone who with good intentions tries to fix things… and then makes them worse…

    I’m not anti-Romney… I’m just for Perry at the moment… but I’d support Cain, Gingrich, or Gary Johnson before I supported Romney in a primary vote…

    If Romney is the nominee, I’ll vote for him… but as a conservative, I’m not all that excited about supporting Romney…

    If Romney can’t get through the primary of his own party, how do you expect him to do better against Obama?

    The point of this diary isn’t to lampoon Romney or Huntsman… its to help people like you understand that Mormonism isn’t why conservatives are rejecting them… and if it is… oh well, that’s the life of choosing an unpopular path… and then running for public office based on popularity.

  • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

    don’t assume you have to educate me on religious differences…

    Even if I find that its pathetically vain to not be able to vote for someone not of your faith and ideology… doesn’t give me the right to complain that you didn’t vote for my candidate…

    I’ve stated pretty clearly in the diary and in these threads that people are entitled to vote their conscience… they’re entitled to voice their dissent… they’re even entitled to spat off falsehoods, and distort the truth…

    It doesn’t mean they won’t get challenged. It also doesn’t mean that anything will be resolved based on these types of exchanges regarding religious differences…

    It is what it is… but make no mistake, I’m trying to persuade others to be more sensible about the issue, on both sides of the coin.

    I don’t see others putting themselves out there on the issue like I am… I’m taking heat from both sides both in this diary/forum/site… as well as among friends, family, and colleagues… but I’m not afraid to speak out on these I deem important, nor hold my ground when others seek to challenge my assumptions or beliefs…

    I personally enjoy learning from other people’s perspectives… and learning which of my views are weak when hearing some form of criticism…

    Attacked or not… you don’t hear me whining.

  • acat

    someone who learned about Mormons by watching a couple seasons of “Big Love”.

    I could, of course, be mistaken….

    Polygamy has some inherent sociological problems that, sooner or later, the Mormon church would have had to address eventually. As problems go, that one’s pretty weak.

    Mew

  • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

    but given this is the one and ONLY comment this poster has put up on Redstate… it looks like either a lefty trolling with knowledge of the exact things to say to derail the conversation… or they’re a Mormon hater…

    As for the polygamous side of Mormonism… its my personal belief that God never intended for it to run for long… as for the sociological… very hard to tell, it was a different day and age, some of it was marriage in name only, some of it was for the purpose of raising up the children in a passed brother’s name, some in providing for widows and children where the patriarch died young, but at the same time it was mostly harmonious for those that practiced… partly because of the religious aspects of what they called “plural families”… Brigham Young was a divorcee. Only once… out of 56… that’s got to take some degree of family harmony.

    I don’t think I could be a part of it, but not many men did have a part in it… just those that received an invitation by revelation… with it being sanctioned by church leaders… not all were sanctioned by church leaders… mind you the practice ended in 1893… but some moved to Canada , Alberta, and some moved to Chihuahau, Mexico… to avoid prosecution under the law that congress had passed previous to that time, and continued to practice… then the official declarations were proclaimed, and it ended the practice.

    Orson Pratt (member of the Twelve Apostles) debated Chaplain of the U.S. Senate Dr. J.P. Newman in 1870 publicly on the matter, and it was published in nationwide newspapers… that’s an interesting read, as you hear the justifications from a participant in the practice. I think you can read the whole thing on google books…

  • Kyle-MI

    Official Lutheran doctrine is that the Pope is an antichrist. On the other hand, compared to some of the very liberal theology of some of the mainline denominations, I feel much closer to some Catholics than some of the more iffy Protestants. I know of one Lutheran pastor who was asked if there would be Catholics in heaven. He replied, “Yes, and there will be some Lutherans there as well.”

    I think at some point you do have to draw a line and say you may want to call yourself something but that doesn’t mean it if the truth. It is the spiritual equivalent of the whole RINO argument. Who really is a Republican (or conservative) and who is not? If everyone calls themselves conservative without any reference to any definition, then the term looses its meaning. It is also true with the term Christian. On top of that it is not just a term, it refers to part of God. It is not so easy to just adopt a new term to describe the situation. There is a reason some are very protective about it, not necessarily out of self righteousness.

    Having said all of that, I do not have a problem voting for a Mormon. If fact I voted for Romney in the last presidential primary. I would vote for a Muslim if they agreed with the political policies and philosophy I believe are right for this country.

  • ammy

    Despite what I’m sure are the very best of intentions you haven’t helped me understand anything about mormon or anti-mormon sentiment regarding Romney (don’t care about Huntsman.) I never said that religion is the reason conservatives are rejecting them, you raised the issue not me.

    And despite your efforts to dismiss out of hand the issue of electability – it’s more relevant than religion. I understand that a lot of conservatives are having issues with Romney. I don’t understand why his health care plan in Mass is one of them. If you understood the process involved in the meat of the bill and it’s passage, then you would know that much of the bill reflects the liberal legislatures wishes and not his. That said, Mass is a blue state and they wanted this legislation. If they don’t like it they can get rid of it. It’s a very different proposition with Obamacare. I agree with the idea that the states are where we find out what does and doesn’t work. Texas and Mass couldn’t be more different and that what makes the US of A so cool, choices.

    I think the Repubs have a good field. I love Cain and Santorum, and like Gingrich. None of them will beat Obama. Romney was the candidate Obama least wanted to run against in ’07 – that hasn’t changed. Back to the electability issue – are you really saying that with a straight face? It’s the middle who will decide the election and Romney appeals to that constituency.
    What’s so difficult about that?

  • naraht

    If Jews who are currently Chaplains get to choose who is considered a Jew in the US Military, why shouldn’t the same apply to whether or not Chrisitians who are currently Chaplains get to choose whether the LDS are or not.

  • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

    However, the distinction apparently is the “Messianistic Judaism” Even in Israel, Messiah Jews, are not given right of return citizenry… its precisely because they believe in the notion that Jesus is the Messiah… and that’s offensive to Jews.

    Whereas, Mormons and Christian alike both believe that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah, or The Christ. Everything else is dogmatic interpretation… If Mormons believed that the Jesus was merely a prophet… then I would agree with you… Christians have a case… but we don’t… We follow the life of Jesus Christ, the God of the Old and New Testaments… We also believe that same God visited the people of the American Continent after he visited his apostles in Jersalem… We believe he’s a God of all his children, and that he visited many other nations… we have our record The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ… Read it… I dare you… find cause to suggest we don’t believe in Christ… but until you read it… remain silent on the subject or prove your ignorance.

  • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

    of a Supreme Court Justice… Not the religious attitude of a GOP primary candidate but your broad use really doesn’t matter… because if a GOP candidate has the correct conservative attitude… then I believe we should support them… their religious beliefs may shape their political attitude… but as I’ve pointed out…

    Harry Reid, Mitt Romney, and Jon Huntsman Jr., and myself all share the same religion… but we all have different political views in varying degrees…. I agree with Romney/Huntsman maybe 80% of the time… why should I support them if I agree with Perry 92% of the time? (and by the way, I don’t know how to quantify that… but it helps to illustrate that I agree more with Perry than I do Huntsman or Romney…)

    The litmus test applies… only on politics, not on religion… you’re adding a stratified variable that has less relevance to the political record of the individuals.

    But hey, you come to your conclusion, I come to mine… I don’t agree with you methodology… but that’s life… sometimes we don’t agree on the how, even if we agree on the who.

  • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

    People like you who support Romney based on “electability” when he’s facing “electability” issues in his OWN primary…

    If he wins the nomination… then you can argue electability. Until then… its a moot point.

  • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

    You nailed it…

    I’ve said in other threads… “By their fruits ye shall know them…”

    Which is why although I agree with Romney/Huntsman/Reid/Hatch/Lee/Flake/ et al (Mormons of high political office)… I don’t always agree with their policies, or political positions…

    Show me some fruit that says conservative to me… if I’m with you I’m with you… if I disagree with you… you’re going to have to prove to me you’re the most conservative in the race… if you can’t… then i’m not going to support you…

    but that’s just my process.

  • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

    in 1820, we believe God the Father, and Jesus Christ visited the 14 year old Joseph Smith in what we consider a sacred grove of Trees in upstate New York near Palmyra Township. SO I suppose that’s close to the time of the Founding Fathers…

    As for utilizing Archeological evidence as an argument… that’s treading dangerous ground.on matters of Faith… speak to secular archeologists of the middle east, and they may argue the point you’re making… nonetheless, there are archeologists that are looking at the links both LDS and non-LDS… there may be some interesting pieces of evidence… but not all evidence is proof positive either way… circumstantial or otherwise…

    Faith is Faith… I don’t need archeology to prove-disprove my beliefs… I have the Holy Ghost to bear witness to me that Jesus is the Christ.

  • kmpesq

    I sympathize with the rejection, in some quarters, of Mormons from the Christian faith. You see, I am a Roman Catholic. There are far too many who would reject a Catholic as easily as they would a Mormon, because we have the Pope as the head of our church. Yet, I would remind some of my evangelical friends that John Paul II is often credited for the demise of the Soviet Union as much as President Reagan and Lady Thatcher.

    I have known a few Mormons in my life and I echo the sentiments expressed by many that, to a person, they are very good people, fiscally conservative, strong family values types. I have never known a Mormon to be prejudiced or discriminatory in any way. As to any problems I may have with tenents of the Mormon faith, the fact is that none of us KNOW the truth. We all have our own, individual beliefs as to what is true, but none of know empirically what is true. Here’s the thing though. None of us will know the truth until the day GOD calls us home. So, at best, religion is faith based upon the probability that there is a GOD who meets out justice in HIS way. For any of us to act as though we KNOW the answers of the infinite is a bit presumptuous.

    As to the two candidates of the Mormon faith, I like Romney. He seems to be a good family man, who has a head for business. Were he to be the nominee, I would fully support him. I have more of a problem with Huntsman, because I see him as more the opportunist than Romney. Even though I don’t like Zero, he is still the President and for Huntsman to be plotting against the President, while serving as his Ambassador is just slimy. However, my preference is for Herman Cain, but this preference has nothing to do with religion and has every thing to do with the man. I just believe that Herman Cain would make a better President.

    The bottom line is that, regardless of one’s faith, we must be committed to ending the reign of Zero. Were he to have another four years, he will likely be able to stack the court with a majority of his fellow Marxists and it won’t matter whom you pray to, because all religious faith in entities other than the government may very well be eliminated. Folks, please keep your eyes on the prize, as those on the other side are counting on us to be at each other’s throats and are likely fomenting the divide.

  • ammy

    That’s nonsense, at best. Electability is the issue before, during and after the primary. Because that where all of this is headed, the general. So prior to the general, electability has to be relevant.

    However, that is not the primary reason I am supporting Romney. I believe he would be a good President, that he has the intellect, background and experience to dig in and get our financials on the right track. I also think he is an honorable man (and yes, I agree he has flip flopped).

    As far as conservative chops, he is as conservative as Perry. As for flip-flopping – Perry started out a democrat. Perry is liberal on immigration and has other problems aside from his inability to speak English. If he gets the nomination, I will vote for him – heck right now, I’d vote for Jimmy Carter over Obama and that’s saying a lot.

    But I am not going for the most conservative candidate so that when he’s Sharron Angled in the election I can puff out my chest and say that I held to my beliefs. My belief is that 4 more years of O will be catastrophic.

  • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

    I appreciate your words, I agree with you on Jean Paul II (what a tremendously wonderful human being, and Pope)… I quite enjoy learning about Catholicism from both a historical and theological viewpoint. Its fascinating to me how much they preserved for the world concerning Christianity and its history. My beliefs are STRONGLY convicted by witness of the Holy Ghost, but that’s just me… I am QUITE certain that many Christians of all types will be invited to the heaven that Mormonism describes… I await the time in which, as Paul wrote to the Ephesians {4:13-16};

    13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

    14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;

    15 But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:

    16 From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love.

    I recognize Paul is speaking to the body of the early Christian Apostolic Church which Christ organized by his 12 apostles… I do believe that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, is the restoration of that original church to the earth… and to that extent we may disagree… but the words here to me are transcendent for all Christian denominations… as it suggests, that we are all growing into that knowledge and faith in unity… I look forward to the day that Christ returns to sort out this mess {I mean the world that mankind has become}.

    I align with you 100% on your assessment of Romney and Huntsman… and quite possibly Cain…

    On the issues, there are plus and minuses for me between Perry and Cain, that ultimately I side with Perry… but they are not significant enough for me to not support Cain… if Perry implodes(via Bachmann style)… I’ll likely jump ship… there are at least 4 maybe 5 candidates so far declared, and maybe 1 or 2 that might declare, that may make a difference regarding whom I support… but Romney and Huntsman remain lower tier for me as the primary goes… it may be because I know too much about their political records… and as the diary suggests… HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THEIR FAITH.

  • naraht

    I consider the Church to have been in transition in regards to Polygamy form 1890 (with Official Declaration 1) to the 1905 requested resignations of John W. Taylor and Matthias F. Crowley from the Quorum of the 12 Apostles over the issue. During those 15 years, the hierachy of the church really didn’t speak with one voice on the issue. After 1905 it did.

  • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

    fair enough…

    but no matter what you argue… electability is a moot point if you can’t win the nomination…

  • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

    n/t..