“They pointed out, however, that all candidates have aspects of their biographies that can be beneficial or not, depending on the audience.”

I think this point could be made even better by noting that there are probably a fair number of Mormons who will vote for Romney because he is a Mormon. Not all, certainly, but probaly not none either. The interesting questions are what percentage and is that percent higher or lower than the Evangelicals who won’t.

As Allah says, we will probably never know those numbers. But until we do, this whole issue seems to me to be mere paranoia and ultimately plays into the hands of big media, who love to make conservatives and evangelicals look small-minded.

But aside from that, what on earth does section 132 have to do with anything? Why would we remove it? The practice is overridden by official declaration 2. And that is church wide–no polygamists are allowed anywhere in the church, worldwide, even in countries that allow it.

I am sorry that you seem to think that the state overrules your religion though. Nice way to represent Lutheranism.

sign a proclamation claiming he is the voice of God? Congress would run him out of the WH before the day was out.

Limerick on November 28, 2007 at 12:08 PM

Disregarding what Vanceone is rambling about. I get it, Limerick, good point. This is the point I was making (with an example that I said was unlikely). Following a living prophet I consider dangerous. You have a leader that has two masters…the Church and the State. Which one does he follow? He followed the Church when he was 31 and blacks were denied privileges afforded to whites. Historically, faith groups who follow “seers” or people who talk to God that give them commands, have not had the best record. I am playing the odds, what religion, with a walking talking prophet, has not ended up in ruin?

Vanceone on November 28, 2007 at 1:52 PM

And no where did I say the LDS wanted “political Power” that is a lie and fear mongering. What I was attempting to show, is with a living prophet, Mitt may have to make a choice (as in pre 1978). I never said “execute his orders”, I am saying he has to make a choice. All choices are not so blatant, nor known to the public.
And was that (http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/132) 132 number 60-63 concerning multiple marriages? That is also in your D & C (oops, why was the left in?). He can argue and point to 134 (just don’t tell them to read 132), and the people will understand…and then he can call them fear mongers for asking.
You can ignore or point to whatever D & C you want and weasel your way out of a statement. Remember your motto “as it is properly interpreted”, and proper means a Mormon official.
Anyway, I used one example, it was an example to ask the question…Which master does Mitt serve? And would he turn his back on his faith to lead the nation?
Rudy answered it…
Quit playing the victim card. It is a legitimate question.
What’s amazing is I use a hypothetical and you go berserk, I use actual quotes and you get angry at me for quoting your prophets. You are the one throwing out names, calling people fear mongers, stating “I don’t have a clue”, generally making disparaging remarks. I have kept it civil with you, not personal. (BuyDanish I had to put in her place, she like you begin crossing the line). Argue the point, calling me names doesn’t make you right.

Your hypothetical that President Hinckley would suddenly try to prevent Mormons from being in the military is simply, totally absurd. It is literally insane. The LDS church encourages patriotism; we have chaplains, and in fact have had a history of supporting the military (sometimes because we had to have one ourselves to protect our right to worship from people like you).

If anything, the LDS church would be getting knocked for supporting the military too strongly by people like AllahPundit, as contradicting the whole “turn the other cheek” bit.

Here’s a clue, right2bright. I know you don’t have one, and won’t accept one, but it’s here anyway: the LDS church believes in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates; and in obeying, honoring and sustaining the law. That’s one of our articles of faith. We believe that the Constitution was ordained by God Himself, including the 1st amendment.

Here is Section 134 of the Doctrine and Covenants; this is the guiding LDS scripture on relations with government. What, exactly, would you disagree with in that scripture? Remember, it was promulgated while slavery was still legal. And slavery is STILL legal in many places.

For your fearmongering scenario of “President Hinckley would rule the US by diktat, as Romney will just execute Hinckley’s orders!!!!” I challenge you to demonstrate from history since Utah was admitted to the US where the LDS church has ever taken political power and tried to further the LDS church over anyone else. We strongly believe in the Render to Caesar the things that are Caesars.

The candidate I will choose will be the one who exhibits the most integrity and trustworthiness. Since I love America and it provides even now the best greatest sanctuary for my Christianity I need to find the one who will not dissolve America or participate in forcing the multicultural society upon us that would inevitably fragment as all cultures are given equal time including those that despise liberty

In that culture I include the leftist priest whose desire to share his neighbor’s perceived wealth with everyone outside our borders makes him a warrior for open borders. Huckabee is not a priest but I see him wearing the uniform. In that ‘share the nation, share the jobs’ philosophy is a hard core jealousy and coldness that denies the mandate to not covet they neighbor’s property

The second, and last, caption showed what the three boys in the car looked like, and guess what?

I dunno, but were they carrying a Mister Microphone?

“Hey, good lookin’, we’ll be back to pick you up later!”

saint kansas on November 28, 2007 at 11:57 AM

No, guess again.

Although that was an interesting take.

Never go hunting with just one Mormon; always take at least two. Why? Two Mormons will keep an eye on each other. Just one Mormon will drink all your beer.

right2bright on November 28, 2007 at 10:04 AM

Thanks for the response. I guess my next question is this…
Do you believe Mitt Romney, as President of the United States, would go in front of a camera, or sign a proclamation claiming he is the voice of God? Congress would run him out of the WH before the day was out.

The second, and last, caption showed what the three boys in the car looked like, and guess what?

I dunno, but were they carrying a Mister Microphone?

“Hey, good lookin’, we’ll be back to pick you up later!”

The first caption showed three “ugly” girls walking down the street. One was real fat, one was real real bony skinny and one had a whole bunch of pimples. There were the “voices” of three guys driving by in a car, making fun of them and saying that they should not be allowed to be seen in public.

The second, and last, caption showed what the three boys in the car looked like, and guess what?

I thought it brilliant. I’m sure it’s just too sophisticated fer ya.

Ah, my bad. I didn’t realize it was humor. I read it as cynical complaint.

Give me a break. That’s pretty lame.

Spirit of 1776 on November 28, 2007 at 11:03 AM

I thought it brilliant. I’m sure it’s just too sophisticated fer ya.

Quit foolin’ around now and DO SOMETHIN’!

Give me a break. That’s pretty lame.

For crying out loud, when did conservatives get so blasted defeatist? Keep this up and Zombie Reagan will come and kick some sense into the lot of you.

Slublog on November 28, 2007 at 10:32 AM

Heh, he might need to, however I’d recommend he start with the GOP leadership first. Those guys need some sense smacked into them worse than anybody else.

As for the rest, yeah, it oughta be talked about. Both the concerns about what it says basing votes on the dude’s church instead of his policy(policy that I’m not wildly impressed by either BTW), and what this issue will bring to the table nationally should he be the nominee.

A powerful man, but not a prophet.

No, he’s much more powerful than a prophet. He’s the vicar of Christ and considered infallible when speaking ex cathedra on Catholic doctrine.

I may be a lapsed Catholic, but I remember some of what I was taught.

You know, why bother with an election at all. Let’s just coronate Hillary Clinton and be done with it.

Slublog on November 28, 2007 at 10:32 AM

Well, it looks like Mitt might very well be headed for the nomination. Convince me that he has a chance in Hades to win the general–I doubt you can. And if not Mitt, any of them. I was feeling pretty confident about Rudy’s lock on the nomination and chance for success in the general for quite awhile, but I’m seeing now that Mitt’s buy-the-early-states strategy is proving to be more effective than I thought it would be, and social cons’ stubborn opposition to Rudy is stronger than I anticipated as well. I am losing faith in the system if it’s a matter of the nomination simply going to the highest bidder focusing heavily on a few small states. (Plus, we just have a crappy crop of candidates this time around.)

I would be thrilled to feel even a smidgen of optimism at this point. I still have a small desperate hope, but not optimism.

The frontrunner in Iowa is in peril…
Allahpundit on November 28, 2007 at 9:08 AM

Quit foolin’ around now and DO SOMETHIN’!

No other religion has a living Prophet who speaks for God, I consider that a potential conflict, and dangerous.

Really?

Slublog on November 28, 2007 at 10:07 AM

I thought you knew religion, the pope is no prophet.

… The Pope, as Bishop of Rome and successor of Peter, is the visible and perpetual foundation of unity among the bishops and among Christ’s faithful….

his role is to lead the church through the trials of time and the issues it presents; the pope’s job is to interpret and apply scripture to the issues the world is faced with today.

All official Catholic documents…a far cry from speaking for God on earth. Yeah, I know your out it he “interprets”, but that is reviewed by clergy (bishops as pointed out) and his people, he does not “speak” with the tongue of God. He organizes church doctrine.
A powerful man, but not a prophet.

For crying out loud, when did conservatives get so blasted defeatist?

I don’t know about defeatist, but I got really pessimistic around the time I started reading Allahpundit!

Seriously though, I think we have a good shot at it. I’m still lost on who I want the candidate to be who goes up against her. There are things I like, and dislike about each one of them. I think the state I would be eligible to vote in (California) goes on Super Duper Tuesday, if I remember correctly.

If Rudy gets the R nomination, he won’t win.

Were doomed.

Mitt has no chance in the world against her.

You know, why bother with an election at all. Let’s just coronate Hillary Clinton and be done with it.

For crying out loud, when did conservatives get so blasted defeatist? Keep this up and Zombie Reagan will come and kick some sense into the lot of you.

If Rudy gets the R nomination, he won’t win.

ThackerAgency on November 28, 2007 at 10:18 AM

Well, Mitt certainly won’t come anywhere close if he’s our nominee. Did you even look at the poll numbers Allah posted? Mitt may succeed in buying the early states (at extremely great cost), but most of the rest of the country still doesn’t even know who he is. Uneducated voters in the rest of the country may follow Iowa, NH, et al like lemmings, assuming the early state voters know something they don’t, and nominate Mitt out of ignorance. But Mitt can’t buy the votes of the entire country, which is what he’d need to do to win the general. Hillary has far more money than Mitt does, even if he spends his entire personal fortune. And she can get more from China any time she wants. And she can use our children’s and grandchildren’s future earnings to buy votes with socialist entitlement programs. Mitt has no chance in the world against her.

I’m tellin’ ya, his interest in this infighting as a socio-religious phenomenon far surpasses his political interests at this point in the game.

I’d bet an iPhone on that.

saint kansas on November 28, 2007 at 10:19 AM

I can see it.