Mormons' "Joe Lieberman" moment

ROM8,

Please specify exactly what I have written that is "deceptive" (untrue, inaccurate, wrong).

Anyone who researches it will find I have written only the truth, in context, accurately portrayed.

But YOU try to divert the point (we call that using "red herring" arguments).

My arguments showed clearly and factually that:

1) Mormon leaders will "lie for the Lord" (as demonstrated by their false report to congress regarding the practice of polygamy)

2) Mormon leaders will violate their own sacred scriptures (D&C 134) to mix religious influence with civil government in a way that denies other citizens of their equal rights under the law (Proposition 8). It is well-documented that the LDS Church was the deciding factor in Prop 8.

3) Mormon leaders have such cultish power over the members of their Church that they can (and did for Prop8) "command" their followers to deprive others of civil rights, and it is written clearly in their Temple oaths and covenants that members are expected to give all their possessions and use all their positions and opportunities ("everything with which the Lord has blessed you or may bless you") for the building up of the LDS Church. This includes oaths to give one's life for the building up of the LDS Church. That is an explicit oath regarding a willingness to "give one's life" (suicide) for the Church.

4) The LDS Temple ceremonies at the time Mitt Romney was "endowed" included graphic depictions of cutting one's throat, disemboweling oneself, and other acts of suicide as a penalty for revealing the secret oaths and failing to be faithful to them.

These are not lies. These are facts. These are not taken out of context. They are true, accurate, and reliable.

As such, your unsupported assertion that "nothing about Mormon beliefs in general, or Mormon temple ceremonies in particular, that would cause a Mormon public official to violate his or her oath of office" is just not true.

As I have shown, Mitt Romney and other temple Mormons have made explicit oaths and covenants of allegiance to their "Prophet" that take priority over their political responsibilities, civil government, civil law ("the philosophies of men" and "the evil world"), ethics, and common sense.

Finally, you (ignorantly) wrote: "I do give you credit for finally identifying your real motive..."

Nothing I wrote indicated I am a "proponent of same-sex marriage". That is your false assumption. My personal beliefs are irrelevant. What IS relevant is that you have provided NO arguments to counter anything I have reported about Mormonism and Mitt Romney.

We do NOT need a religious fanatic from a CULT in the Whitehouse.

@Vanka,
Well, first of all, the Mormon temple ceremonies can't be all that secret, now can they? I mean, people are all over the internet and television (and now this board) claiming to know their contents.

But more importantly, why is it that you and others on this board can only attack Mormons for what they used to do or believe? Let me make a suggestion. All you have to do is make friends with a Mormon and they will tell you what they really believe. Then you can let go of all of your silly misconceptions. They are just trying to follow the example of Jesus Christ with an emphasis on faith, family and service. That is what they believe.

It is true that committing oneself to the building up of the Kingdom of God is an important part of Mormonism (and the rest of biblical Christianity). However, you may rest assured that religious pluralism and self-determination are just as important.

The Mormon's 11th Article of Faith states that:

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

As for the presidential oath of office, a President need only pledge to faithfully defend the Constitution of the United States. Of that Constitution, Mormon scripture has this to say:

Doctrine and Covenants 101:77

"the laws and constitution of the people, which I have suffered to be established, and should be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh, according to just and holy principles."

Doctrine and Covenants 109:54

"Have mercy, O Lord, upon all the nations of the earth; have mercy upon the rulers of our land; may those principles, which were so honorably and nobly defended, namely, the Constitution of our land, by our fathers, be established forever."

So a Mormon President, at least as much as any other religous person, can uphold his oath of office without violating any other commitments he made to the Kingdom of God.

I'm sure you are relieved to here it.

The last thing we need is a POTUS who would "hasten the coming of the Lord".

Romney has made secret oaths. Faith is one thing. But oaths and loyalties that take priority above the United States of America and its Constitution are threats to the sovereignty of this nation.

When Mitt Romney went through the Mormon temple, he became "endowed". In order to become endowed, Mormons have to pass an interview (like a catechism for Catholics). The endowment ritual includes many things Mormons are not allowed to talk about outside of the Temples. These secret ("sacred") things include special promises and covenants Mormons make to the Church and to God. One of these "oaths" promises total and complete loyalty to the LDS Church and its leaders, including being willing to give all your possessions to the Church if needed.

The oath is something like this:

"Each of you bring your right arm to the square. You and each of you covenant and promise before God, angels, and these witnesses at this altar, ...that you do consecrate yourselves, your time, talents, and everything with which the Lord has blessed you, or with which he may bless you, to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, for the building up of the Kingdom of God on the earth and for the establishment of Zion."

They also promise:

"And as Jesus Christ has laid down his life for the redemption of mankind, so we should covenant to sacrifice all that we possess, even our own lives if necessary, in sustaining and defending the Kingdom of God (LDS Church)."

Mitt Romney has made this oath, and repeats this oath each time he returns to an LDS Temple.

For a POTUS to have made such a secret oath violates the oath of office of the POTUS. The POTUS must not have ANY higher loyalty than to the United States of America and Constitution.

"Endowed" Mormons should be automatically disqualified because of their secret oaths in their temples that place their loyalty to the LDS Church above their loyalty to the United States of America.

Back a few years ago when Mitt Romney became "endowed", Mormon temple oaths included "penalties" for breaking the oaths:

"We, and each of us, covenant and promise that we will not reveal any of the secrets of this, the first token of the Aaronic priesthood, with its accompanying name, sign or penalty. Should we do so, we agree that our throats be cut from ear to ear and our tongues torn out by their roots."

"The brethren and sisters will now stand, push back the seats, place the robe on the left shoulder, and receive the Second Token of the Aaronic Priesthood. We and each of us do covenant and promise that we will not reveal the secrets of this, the Second Token of the Aaronic Priesthood, with its accompanying name, sign, grip or penalty. Should we do so, we agree to have our breasts cut open and our hearts and vitals torn from our bodies and given to the birds of the air and the beasts of the field."

I am sorry. I could never vote for a Mormon. The religion is secretive and exclusioniary. The members feels they are superior. Case in point when they "saved" dead Holocaust victims. No dice. I would never want such people representing me in public office. No way.

@robertpoyourow:

"Why shouldn't a candidate's beliefs be subject to scrutiny?"

"Why are such discussions silenced when the adherent becomes a candidate?"

No valid reason whatever, Robert. In fact, due-diligence of the electorate _demands_ that beliefs be considered.

Who among us, would vote for followers of Jim Jones or David Koresh? A Scientologist? How about followers of snake-handling religions?

The notion that a self-proclaimed "church" or its associated beliefs are above scrutiny has empowered quacks and quackery for centuries - even here in the good 'ole USA.

Seek no counsel, religious or political, from quacks ...

While I appreciate that the Constitution specifies 'no religious test', I as an individual DO apply religious tests, as well as others, when evaluating who I will vote for. The raw fact of the matter is that some religious views, including those of many christian and christian-heritage denominations are incompatible with an inclusive, expansive view of democracy, or even an objectivist/scientific world view.

Faith can motivate people to do great things, but unfortunately, in today's social climate, I see too many people 'of faith' trying to rob others of the rights and freedoms that an inclusive/expansive view of the Constitution supports.

As someone else posted, at this point, since someone who openly professes NO faith can't get elected to major office in this country, I am forced to make the choice of the lesser of two evils. If a person is a professed member of a religious group with a known proclivity for exclusion and judgement in the name of God, they will NOT get my vote, regardless of their professed positions on the issues. The fundamental nature of Mormonism puts Romney in that category.

......\......|....../..........
............_..................
......-....(_).....-.........
...........................Sunshine On GOV'T!
....../......|......\.......
.
..
..
. . _________________
.. |VOTE: Mitt ROMNEY |
.. |YES YES! For: 2012+|
. .|_________________|
................. \../ ....................
.. . . v. . . . . || . . . . . . . . . . .
v . . . . . . . . || . . . . . . . . . . .
.. . . . . . . . . || . . . . .V . . . . . .
.. . . . . . . . . || . . . . . . . . . . .
.. . . . , . . . . ||. . . V. .

If others knew the Mormons I have known, they would thank their God to be so fortunate, as to have one qualified to be President.

The scriptures say: "By their fruits ye shall know them."

The fruits of Mormonism that I have seen are: law abiding, clean living, moral, patriotic, faithful, honest, upright, intelligent, and decent human beings; who love to serve God and their fellow man and are involved in a multitude of humanitarian causes worldwide.

There may be exceptions, but I'm sure the exceptions are not Mormons who "practice" their religion; just as there are "members" of all faiths who do not live according to beliefs. We don't define churches by their non-practicing members.

I think we could have much worse. In fact, I think we now have, and have had much worse.

If Hatch, Reid, Liebermann are your good examples; the we are in deep, deep doodoo! Each of these men is worse than the next and it is precisely their religions and what they did based on their religious beliefs that has made them undesirable, incompetent, and a disaster for the nation!

Is a Mormon goin to be able to carry in the Southern States. Baptist and Church of Christ have always taught they weren't christians and a Mormon is bad as a Moslem. Don't think in this Republican party/Tea party he can pull it off.

Why shouldn't a candidate's beliefs be subject to scrutiny? If policy options are shaped by religious beliefs, are subject to doctrinal fidelity, then why shouldn't the public be concerned? If the candidate believes in wildly implausible ideas, for which the candidate provides little distance or qualification, why shouldn't the public know? How wild are Mormonism's (or Islam's, or any religion, for that matter) tenets, and how closely does the candidate adhere to them? Do the elders channel God? Are the dead reconstituted with their spouses in their best, most aesthetic appearances somewhere else in the universe? Do humans become Gods? Was the founder an advocate of polygamy and open marriage? Was he a charlatan or a saint? Are these tenets essential elements of Mormon belief, or is Mormonism a bigger tent, and our candidate has distanced himself from the faith's 19th Century origins? We argue about religious beliefs often. Why are such discussions silenced when the adherent becomes a candidate?

Great comparison to Joe Lieberman's VP candidacy - the only difference is I would guess that in mainstream America, they don't know much between Orthodox and other Jewish denominations - to them, it was simply that he's "Jewish."

Mormonism stands out because, for one, most don't know what it is - it just sounds odd. It's easier to say that than "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." And "LDS" isn't widely understood either. (Spock calls LSD, LDS in an old Star Trek movie).

Mormonism has also been lambasted by the cottage industry of "anti-Mormons" in mainstream Christianity, and particularly, the evangelical and Baptist denominations. The aggressive proselytizing of Mormons threatens their strongholds, so it's only natural for them to make Mormons sounds like nut-jobs, which they have done very effectively.

Major population centers on the East Coast making up a majority of the electoral map are also more familiar with the Jewish faith than they are the Mormon faith. There are millions of voting Americans that simply have no clue what or who a Mormon is.

Interestingly, the anecdotal evidence I have gathered is that by and large, if you know a Mormon, you typically like them. So in my view, Huntsman's addition to the list of 2012 contenders only helps Mormons in their cause to be better understood.

Despite political diatribe by the uneducated…

Romney has successfully and profitably managed large businesses, created more private sector jobs and saved more private sector businesses (Domino’s Pizza & Staples, a few of many) than any other candidate. He knows and understands world economics.

He has succeeded at every job he has had. Yes, that’s right, he is not a “Career” Politician.

Funny. Half of MA loves what Romney did, the other half hate him, maybe because he left after completing only one term. Again, he has not been a “Career” Politician.

Yes, he worked as the MA governor for his entire term for FREE!!! Who would do that!?

MA had a huge deficit when he started, and he left MA with a surplus and balanced budget without raising taxes at the end of his term. Who has done that? He can't help it if they screwed up after he left.

Since states have their own rights as to how they operate, “Romneycare” never has been the same as “Obamacare”! MA’s super Democrat controlled legislature wanted desperately some kind of Universal Health care program. Romney, a republican, worked with them to create one that would work, similar to mandated auto insurance (what state allows you to legally drive without insurance?). It is estimated that 98% of the residents are now covered. Romney wanted the requirement that everyone should pay something towards it with no exceptions, and it was within projected budget, until Romney left and the state super Democrat controlled government made changes to the program and now it is costing them.

He compromised on some things in order to keep the state government working together and moving forward.

He turned around a struggling 2002 Winter Olympics and made it into one of the most profitable Olympics in history. And only took a $1 dollar salary. Who would do that!?

He is against federalization & big government. Believes in state’s rights.

He lives the example and believes in the importance of family.

He is for a strong military and believes the borders should be better protected.

The list of real positives is far greater than the supposed list of negatives.