Vanceone on December 5, 2007 at 12:41 PM

This is your idea of an honest Mormon? I already stated that Huck is disqualified if he runs as a minister.
Remember my quote “you can’t serve two masters”? Please show some integrity. I am consistent.
You have quite an imagination, I never said he took orders (could you show me that?), my question still stands.
Allegiance to his prophet over the U.S., or the U.S. over his prophet? (keep in mind he already made that choice with disallowing blacks the status that Mitt could obtain).

Does your canonized policy provide for polygamy? Section 132? (number 61 & 62).
Brian David Mitchell ( a prophet), Elizabeth Smart’s abductor, was following the principles embraced by Joseph Smith and later Brigham Young. Please, be honest in your faith. You may find it repugnant, but Smith and Young found it right in Gods eyes.
Your church is right in turning their back on this abhorrent policy (Hinckley states that that Mormons do not practice it), Smith was run out of Missouri for such a thing, but then I question…why do they keep it as canonized law? Why not just say Smith and Young were wrong. As long as it is there,it can become a “vision” again.
And as for your feigned “we are LDS, not Mormons”, tell your official website managers to remove the word Mormon. They seem to interchange the LDS with the word Mormon.
More “victim”….we are not Mormons, don’t insult us? (you might want them to remove your official website…mormon.org)

I do not want to seem PREDJUDICED or anything like that. God forgive me if I have!!!!!

jeanie on December 5, 2007 at 10:40 AM

Let me get this right:
Liberals want to take our money and open the borders
Conservatives want to starve people, and protect big business
or
Sears are overpriced
Wal-mart wants to destroy the U.S. with offshore products
or
Mary Kay products are run by greedy people
Shacklee are a front for some religious group
or
do you see how that works? I receive something from MoveOn and I toss it and say they are idiots…that makes me prejudice?

I’m sorry, but what, other than bigotry, can you call that? There’s no proof that LDS doctrines are harmful for society (rather the reverse), unlike some legitimate concerns for Muslim candidates. There’s no evidence that even if right2brights nightmare becomes true and the LDS church DID “issue orders to the president” that those orders would harm anyone.

I’d be far more worried about Huckabee’s explicit “Vote for me, I’m a Christian pastor” bit. He really admits he talks to God, and will govern based on that. Isn’t that sort of “cutting out the middleman” as it were? Right2bright, let me see you bashing Huckabee far, far more than Romney, since your main concern is much more of a concern with Huck than Romney.

And Huck’s “conversations with God” make him liberal, it appears. Which, to me, is far more frightening than some fantasy that the LDS church is salivating at the thought of somehow controlling the government.

As I mentioned before it is because of competition.

Given that evangelicals love evangelizing in Roman Catholic nations, this is the worst kind of hypocrisy. What goes around, comes around.

Yeah, that’s what I’ve always thought. I went to Catholic school for 12 years and I don’t recall ever comparing “our” bible to anyone else’s bible. They made us study a thing called catechism in the lower grades. The meaning of certain bible passages in high school. The only comment I remember hearing about other religions was in 6th grade. “A person doesn’t have to be Catholic to go to heaven”. That’s it.

jaime on December 4, 2007 at 8:23 PM

The Catechism is essetinally a reinforcement of Biblical teaching which includes references to various theological councils, authors, etc. It is designed as a neccesary enhancement to and keystone sumary of the Bible.

As a general rule, Catholics don’t tend to waste time comparing our Bible to that of the Protestants, it’s just a background numerical fact that doesn’t get much play because it doesn’t have much theological or moral usefullness. Now, as to the content of the books which protestants are missing, that does get mentioned, but most don’t specifically reference which book it is and whether or not the KJV lacks it.

I am 95% sure I am not going to vote for Mitt Romney in the primaries, and that has nothing to do with the fact that he is Mormon. The reason I am probably not going to vote for him is the documented flip-flopping on issues.

Bottom line, I vote for people based on their stances on issues important to me, not on their religion. If I voted based on a candidate’s religion, I would vote for Mike Huckabee, as we are from the same denomination. However, I am 100% sure I am not voting for him.

Fred Thompson’s support comes from those who agree with his consistently conservative platform that is well documented and readily available for all to consider.

Neither Fred nor his campaign veer off the consistently conservative course.

Mentally healthy and well balanced Americans resent divisive campaigns supplanted by mere emotion vs. logic and wisdom.

Is the speech tonight or tomorrow?

saiga on December 5, 2007 at 10:18 AM

Thursday morning

Note that there is no definition of “bias” that was allegedly found by the survey – it’s completely meaningless without one.

Geer noted that Romney’s address, scheduled for Dec. 5 at the George H. W. Bush Presidential Library, is not without risks.

Is the speech tonight or tomorrow?

Mitt is running for President, not some kind of LDS Pope.

MB4 on December 4, 2007 at 10:45 PM

I agree, but for the first time, that I know of, we have someone running for office that has a sworn allegiance to a “living Prophet”. Can you say for sure that he would choose the U.S. over his Prophet if the two were in conflict?
And what evidence?
(remember at 31 he accepted that blacks were second class Mormon citizens, unworthy of being the same stature as him, of course his beliefs changed when his prophet said “it” changed)

It is the dogmatic Mormon doctrines that non-Mormons hate.

Truth be told, it is the young members themselves who resent the very Mormon things that separate them from whatever is the most powerful and popular to be–BUT their resentment is counter-balanced by their gratitude for being “special”.

That Mormons, Baptists and Muslims exhibit great faith is the virtue for which God blesses. But God admonishes his children to be WISE, not foolish, and Jesus himself showed and spoke God’s will for humanity. Evangelicals do not presume anything beyond what God revealed in the holy Bible. However, Mormons and Muslims BOTH REQUIRE passage to god via a prophet that fulfills the warning of what to beware as deceiving and false in nature.

Stating facts candidly is not anti-truth, only anti-ignorance or anti-bigotry or anti-deception.

The faith element significance is in a PERSONAL life. Manipulating the faith of the innocent for greed is a fate worse than death. So Romney had better beware in his TH. TX Aggie “speech” that won’t discuss Mormonism. Mormons do have great faith, but they do not have the monopoly on great faith, and that they place their faith in the arm of man is their own doing. It is Mitt, himself, who WANTS to discuss his church without addressing Mormonism. Nothing new. Mormon families are no better, no worse than any other denomination’s families. Mormon families are strictly structured in heirarchy wherein any deviance is wrong; to be different is wrong in that world.

There is nothing incriminating in seeing through a false ploy. Perhaps we will see how how sophisticated such smart and wealthy Mormons like Mitt are he simultaneously expresses pride in his very heritage that he eschews. During the European Enlightenment, such convoluted logic was regarded as insanity. Parade your dear family as your platform; rather than respect THEIR privacy; and further mold their existence for your own power-grab within your pyramid of godhoodliness. We understand. That does not mean that we agree to embrace a two-faced forked-tongue politician who cries foul over his essence being exposed. Actually, though, it won’t be that America votes against Mitt the Mormon. IF Mitt is the Republican ticket, it will be his esoteric tight-assed manners against WORKING CITIZENS that tip the undecided vote for the Democrat. True, Mitt will carry the Mormon vote just as Hillary will carry the hard womens lib vote and Obama will carry the black supremist vote. The associative element of WHO votes for the candidate and WHY they vote for a candidate influences the undecided.

As per Buy Danish’s mirror image,

Open up the vault. Obviously “protesting in mass” and so forth is hyperbole, but the deeply held anti-Mormon sentiment is impossible to ignore. All of this occurred way before the Huckster’s ascendancy and it came mostly from Fred supporters.

You blame Fred Thompson supporters for anti-Mormon sentiment. Refrain from incriminating logic. You refer to anti-Mormon-ISM, not anti-you-or-I sentiment. Keep that distinction clear. That Mormons attack any scrutiny with the battle cry of “anti-Mormon persecution” will not hold water.

Outlander on December 5, 2007 at 9:13 AM

Heh.

The study, I thought, was dubious to begin with, not giving the questions asked, or the methodology, just calling it an “internet poll.”

This moves toward sealing it for me.

It appears that at least two of the study’s authors, Brett Benson and Jennifer Merolla, have Mormon connections. Brett Benson is a graduate of Brigham Young University, which has an enrollment of more than 90% Mormons. It is therefore reasonable to suspect Benson is himself Mormon. Jennifer Merolla is a Duke graduate, but her university – Claremont Graduate University – recently received $5 million to start a Mormon studies center.

That’s not to say that their study is not fully legitimate. I haven’t really looked at it carefully and can’t say for sure. But what I am saying is that we should be careful to look at the study with some skepticism.

P.S. I used to work for NIKE.

MB4 on December 4, 2007 at 7:38 PM

Then you do have a sole.

Do you question their morality, or suitableness for public office? Do you feel you can trust them to make moral decisions as evangelicals would?

paulsur on December 4, 2007 at 10:37 PM

Is there a problem with how Mitt Romney has led his life? Are you better than him? This sort of holier-than-thou thinking is a huge turnoff.

What is weird to me is that from the comments on this thread from MB4, Vanceone and others, you would think that evangelicals are out there protesting in mass, on television infomercials half hour after half hour, and preaching from the pulpit (and street corner), that Mormons are bad and Mitt Romney is worse. I just don’t see it.

nailinmyeye on December 5, 2007 at 4:03 AM

Open up the vault. Obviously “protesting in mass” and so forth is hyperbole, but the deeply held anti-Mormon sentiment is impossible to ignore. All of this occurred way before the Huckster’s ascendancy and it came mostly from Fred supporters.

Vote for me in 2008! I mow my own lawn!

As president, I very likely will upgrade my push mower to a riding mower.

If it is a John Deere, you have my vote. And, think about John Deere subsidies for all Americans, and that will seal it.

As president, I very likely will upgrade my push mower to a riding mower.

Though I imagine I won’t have much say about Secret Service agents flanking my riding mower with their riding mowers as I lap the White House.

Do you question their morality, or suitableness for public office? Do you feel you can trust them to make moral decisions as evangelicals would?

paulsur on December 4, 2007 at 10:37 PM

Read my comments on this thread. I’ve never questioned Romney’s morality, or fitness for public office.

What is weird to me is that from the comments on this thread from MB4, Vanceone and others, you would think that evangelicals are out there protesting in mass, on television infomercials half hour after half hour, and preaching from the pulpit (and street corner), that Mormons are bad and Mitt Romney is worse. I just don’t see it.