All Comments (27)

JH-
You may what to read an interesting book that would answer some of your questions:

"When Salt Lake City Calls" by Rocky Halse

I found it very helpful...and surprising !!

:

I wish someone could explain to me, in a intelligent way, why there is so much focus on Mr. Romney's Religion? What does that have to do with being President? Is there any event in the last 100 years that would make someone think that a Mormon President would, or even could, effect the country in a way that would be considered contrary or against the common citizen? America is ruled by the people and for the people, if we as a people do not agree with something that our leaders do or say we simply remove them.

I am confused as to why this would be any different if a person in the Mormon faith was holding the office of President. My experience with Mormons has shown me that they have solid values and are the most honest and trustworthy people that I know. Would that type of person not make a great President?

I feel that the issue may be that if a Mormon was elected as President, the highest office in the land, that all of a sudden Mormonsim would be legitimate and this scares to many so called Christians. Even though there are over 10 million members of this so called PAGAN cult. It is amazing to me that anyone could think that there are 10 million people in this world that could be duped into believing something that so many call evil or against Christianity.

JD1:

I agree that Dr. Flake does a good job. I just felt that this post went a bit far in expressing her personal political views is all. This is 'On Faith' not 'On Politics'. But perhaps with a Mormon presidential candidate the two come together.

I had not realized that Michael Otterson's role and Dr. Flake's role wer significantly different. My apologies if my comment was too harsh.

JD1:

I agree that Dr. Flake does a good job. I just felt that this post went a bit far in expressing her personal political views is all. This is 'On Faith' not 'On Politics'. But perhaps with a Mormon presidential candidate the two come together.

I had not realized that Michael Otterson's role and Dr. Flake's role wer significantly different. My apologies if my comment was too harsh.

"It is also interesting to me that you show you political stripes so proudly when you are representing a politically neutral church."

Dr. Flake is not representing the church, she is representing herself. She is a Mormon and a Democrat. She displays both proudly, which is perfectly appropriate. Go to Michael Otterson's thread if you want someone representing the church. Personally, I think Kathleen Flake's is the most intelligent and witty post on the panel. She does the rest of us Mormons a service.

Best,

Jd1

Another thing about Romney - he's in tight with the guys from Blackwater. One of his advisors is Cofer Black, the former CIA CT head who is now a VP of Blackwater.

Talk about lying down with dogs and getting fleas!

JoeT,

As far as I know, the answer has not survived history. The point was that for all of Franklin's success, he still died.

As will you, as will all of us. Instead of tickling your fancy with fictitious historical accounts, Whitefield and I are imploring you to delve into the mystery of the new birth.

Canyon: and what, pray tell, was Franklin's reply to Whitfield (whom I do not recognize as among our founding fathers)?

Sister Flake:

It may be interesting to note that the last two democrats to with the office of the President of the United States were from the south and were not ashamed of their protestent background. There may be a pattern there.

It is also interesting to me that you show you political stripes so proudly when you are representing a politically neutral church.

It's possible that I'd rather have the lying, cheating, corporate toadie SOB in the White House rather than any other save Ron Paul, who's *wrong* but at least admits it's *him,*

But, Eight years we'll have lived under Bush and his threats of hurting us for political points.

Romney made promises of 'tolerance,' and he chose to hurt a lot of people I know.

Maybe some will go ahead and see that as a positive factor, cause it's queers he hurt.

But I lay this out: He promised, or at best prevaricated, and he lied.

If he'll do it once, he'll do it to anyone.

This Clinton thing was 'about the lies,' right?

Even if he looks so pretty with his squeaky-clean family portraits on Lake Winnepausaukee.

I''d also say, if you can actually look that hard, 'Values voters,' you might notice some other things about other candidates.

But Romney went out of his way to hurt *my* family, and I *will* point it out.

He didn't have to do that. Especially not with that plastic grin. Gods. East Coast. Have a face, already.

I will also note I have no trust for any other GOP candidate, either, but, as we found out with 'It's not about me being fixated on CLinton getting head,'

Well... Romney screwed the gays, and he screwed women.

If it's about lying, he already did it to himself, din't he?

Or does that not count when Guy Smiley is talking 'Family Values?'

We could do worse, but, frankly, by that measure everyone seems to be on,

He hurt and betrayed innocent people.

He's a liar and betrayer.

Period.

Some things don't slide on Beacon Hill.

Period.

"My take on Romney's supposed flip-flops:"

No. Actual flip-flops. I heard the wet smack when the flop hit the pavement.

You kind of notice this when someone comes to Pride promising to respect you, then at first opportunity trotsout an overtly-racist law from the nineteen-teens that no one even *knew* about to try and invalidate your marriage in violation of the 'Full Faith and Credit' clause of the Constitution.

Forget about it.

Pro-choice?

He said he was pro-choice to get in power for his corporate buddies, and the moment someone offered him a better deal?

Flop-smack. Now it's not about 'choice,' a 'change of heart' that says, 'Gee, if the GOP will let me enforce certain of my religious ways, I'll go ahead and do it!'

Forget about it. All I can say is, at least a Mormon probably won't be able to round my people up and shoot em. Or will he. Who knows.

As a Bostonian, I say: Zero trust.

Zero.

If Madison thought it wrong to have a Chaplain in the Congress, he certainly couldn't stop Jefferson from preaching there.

As I said, you are brainwashed and you like it.

Whitefield to Franklin:

I find that you grow more and more famous in the learned world. As you have made a pretty considerable progress in the mysteries of electricity, I would now humbly recommend to your diligent unprejudiced pursuit and study the mystery of the new birth. It is a most important, interesting study, and, when mastered, will richly repay you for all your pains. One, at whose bar we are shortly to appear, has solemnly declared that, without it, "We cannot enter in the kingdom of heaven."

Canyon: If I am brainwashed, I don't know by whom. I subscribe to no one in particular except my own reading and interpretation. I have a degree in philosophy from Yale, and took classes from the foremost theologian in the country at the time, Yaroslav Pelikan, who wrote the multivolume history of christian doctrine from the death of christ to Vatican II. I'm a lapsed Catholic, and was in Opus Dei to boot. I pretty much cover the landscape. I have no doubt the founding fathers made many statements of a religious nature, but as you yourself note, they were Deistic in nature, not exactly Jesus as our lord and saviour. and as for revisionism, I think it was Madison who thought it was wrong to have a chaplain for the Congress, and it's clearly the evangelicals who think this is an officially christian nation who are way ahead on the revisionism.

JoeT...you're brainwashed and you like it.

Ben Fanklin was a good friend of George Whitefield and saw the merits of his preaching. Thomas Jefferson was a member of an Episcopalian church for the majority of his lifetime. Their works, which you haven't read, read very religiously, albeit it is unclear if Jefferson ever repented and placed his faith in Jesus Christ. Some of Franklin's last speaches sound very Christian and very reverant to Christ, in which case I have the greatest hope that he came to repentance before he died.

The best part about the revisionists being so ignorant to history and making up lies about the Founding Fathers is that it causes research to be done on them and we come to know the truth. We know that Jefferson wrote a gospel tract, about Jesus Christ, for use in Native American evangelism...sounds like he saw the merits too.

Of course we can't convince you of this because you're brainswashed and you like it.

Diderot: thanks, I had forgotten the attribution. as a lapsed catholic myself, I can only think of the Kennedy speech with its reference to the right not to attend church at all. My problem with Romney is that he was trying to tell evangelicals he is just as christian as they are (which is a lie from the latter's point of view that he hopes isn't exposed), and that he hates secularist believers, atheists (need not apply to be jurists), and separation of church and state as much as they do, and at the same time try to sound to non-evangelicals as if he respects the constitution and everyone's rights. Such is the divide in this country that with enough coded language you can almost pull that off.

The cult is insidious.

CS,

Interesting that you would bring up "Animal Farm" in the discussion about Mitt Romney. If I recall correctly, once the animals gained their freedom, the pigs made it their own little dictatorship. The famous line is that "all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others." That's the way it is with religion in this country. Believers and non-believers are nominally equal. However, some believers are more equal than others.

Oh, and Dr. Flake - you know what happens when you lie down with dogs? You get FLEAS! Good commentary!

...said, incidentally, by the late Senator (and appreciably devout Catholic) Pat Moynihan...

Canyon: our founding fathers did not subscribe to Jesus in any way, shape or form. it's simply not possible to read Jefferson, Adams or Franklin, just to get started, and conclude other than that they hated organized religion. Their view of rights is that they came from natural law, which is often described as Deism, which means that nature itself is god.

It's been said that anyone is entitled to their own opinion, they're just not entitled to their own facts.

My take on Romney's supposed flip-flops:

My husband and I both share nearly identical positions on abortion. We think it is wrong to use abortion as an irresponsible form of birth control, but that it is permissible in the cases of rape and incest (the victim did not choose her situation) and it is permissible when the life of the mother is in jeopardy. That said, we do feel compassion for those teenage girls who don't think for a minute about consequesnces and who find themselves in trouble and terrified. While I still think it wrong for them to choose abortion instead of adoption, I don't think the pricetag of teenage folly should be death in the hands of a back-alley abortionist. So for those few reasons we'd like abortion to be available.

The funny thing is, my husband considers himself pro-choice and I consider myself pro-life. But it's the same position.

Now, take Romney. His position on abortion was NEVER the one-size-fits-all version that media simpltons like to pidgeon-hole people into. The media would have you believe that you either believe in all abortions all the time for any reason OR you believe in no abortions ever for any reason. Since Romney never fit their pre-fab mold, any offcial act was likely to perceived as a flip-flop.

On gay rights, I think it is the gay rights movement that made the flip-flop, by changing the bar and changing the definition of gay rights. Romney campaigned on rights in the workplace -- not gay marriage, which was not even on the table back then. I think Romney has the high ground here. It is the gay movement that steadily pushed the limits, and demanded that others push their limits as well.

So, Romney saw that the limits of these issues were steadily being moved and took a stand. I don't think HIS positions on any of these issues are any different than they ever were.

Btw, while I'm ranting.

He's no Jack Kennedy.

Anyway, I appreciate the sentiment, Ms. Flake, I'm just steaming-mad at the man right now. Pretending his brand of theocracy is 'diversity' after turning on Massachusetts that way. The 'definition of marriage' he saw fit to drag out a forgotten and overtly-racist law to 'defend,' I've just found out, involved *my partner* making sacrifices I didn't know about, *for me* because apparently what that was based on wasn't good enough for us to get fair treatment under the law.

In Massachusetts, the word for this feeling is 'Ripsh**.'

Forget about claiming diversity. He looked at us with his Guy Smiley face and *screwed us* for his religious views. Admittedly, we'll get no better from any other GOP candidate, but he's got nothing to do with diversity or goodness.

He's said his religion wouldn't get in the way before, and it didn't come down that way. The fact it's the same view as the rest of the GOP candidates is irrelevant.

False flag.

I mean... Get it, Ma'am?

He's a pro-corporate Bible-beating Republican. 'The Left' was off the table before he shook off the Utah dust of the Olympic committee that was his only qualification when they brought him in to govern Massachusetts.

He ought to stick to *corporate* pandering if he wants to get elected, because his Religious Right pandering ain't gonna impress anyone new.

If Romney's attempt to ingratiate Mormons with the other Christian theocrats falls on its face, I assure you, Ma'am, twill have nothing to do with the Left, save that criticism equally-directed against the other GOP candidates simply won't be *heard* by the Christian Right.

It's, umm, the Right, ...they'll vote their bigotry and self-interest, then call liberal Democrats the 'bigots' for not voting for another theocrat in someone else's party.

It's just how it goes.

Romney isn't about religious diversity, he just wants a piece of the theocracy.

I like the fact that Romney tried to condemn people that don't know or stand in what they believe, when in recent years he's flip-flopped on abortion, same-sex marriage, and gays in the military. He is jettisoning his beliefs in order to gain the world.

The inherent trouble with his speach is the constant referal to liberty, referencing it to the Founding Fathers and the country. They founded the liberty of the nation on the liberty they had found in Jesus Christ.

Mormons do not have this liberty, and thus cannot appreciate, understand, or continue to maintain American liberty. In George Orwell's "Animal Farm", the animals held fast to their freedom even in their absolute bondage.

Nothing is more clear in America's bondage than the desperate and boisterous call of, "We are free!" Nothing is more clear in Mitt Romney's bondage than his desperate and boisterous call, "every single human being is a child of God."

Not if you have ever told a lie. If you have told a lie, you have given your soul to the devil (You don't even get to say, "I'd sell my soul for...") and the Bible calls you a child who is of his father's desires, for he is a liar, and the father of lies. (John 8:44)

Romney's idolatry in his following of baal-jesus, a created, impotent, man-god proves who his owner is. He is doing the will of the devil by spreading this idolatry and calling out, peace, peace between God and man, when there is no peace. Romney's god would not send anyone to Hell, the main reason is because he doesn't exist. Romney has created a god in his image, one which he is comfortable with and one that works for him. Be assured that no idolater has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ or of God.

For the captives, slaves to sin, dead in their transgressions; liberty is an idea which they can only dream of. It is something they have never felt nor possessed, and therefore cannot understand.

The Founding Fathers that Romney references knew this, but they knew first the captivity of the devil, but by the grace of God, they came to the liberty of Christ. They knew that Jesus Christ, the eternal, coexistent, coequal, Son of God, had paid the ransom for their life. They were owned by the devil and could do nothing to purchase themselves out of this bondage, their sins held them and they were doomed for disobeying their parents, creating their own representation of God, stealing, no matter how petty, lust, hatred without provocation, and coveting. But Christ lived a perfect life and willingly gave Himself up to die on the cross so that His blood could wash these sins away and that many would be purchased out of their spiritual bondage to eternal liberty.

When they repented of their sins and placed their trust in Jesus Christ, they were born of the Spirit. They were originally children of the devil, but they were adopted into the family of God. They were captives, but they were liberated.

They became members of the church of Jesus Christ, which He purchased with His own blood. The Mormon Church is not so bought, because they are trying to purchase this church themselves with their works. George Whitefield, a friend of the Founding Fathers, summed up the difference between the heretical Mormon Church and the grace of Jesus Christ, "Works! Works! A man get to Heaven by works? I'd as soon climb to the moon on a rope of sand."

The Apostle Paul tells us how we are saved, "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God, not by works, so that no one can boast." - Ephesians 2:8-9

James tells us that you can tell someone is saved by their works, not by their profession of faith. Romney was a proponent of babycide, he didn't understand the sanctity or symbolism of marriage, he didn't understand the damage that homosexuals in the military would cause. He has changed his opinion, and that is good, but he was a Mormon when he believed these evil things, and he is a Mormon now. There was no rebirth, there was no change of heart, and there was no conversion.

Beloved, when you repent and place your faith in Jesus Christ, your sinful heart which drinks iniquity like water will be replaced with a heart for God that thirsts after righteousness. Things you used to love which God hates, you will now hate, and things of God which you used to hate, you will now love.

"Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new." - 2 Corinthians 5:17

This is not Mitt Romney, and if he becomes president in his spiritual captivity, you can be assured that he will be about his father's business.

He must even prove himself an ally of those who pray to a variety of gods that evangelists will be expelled from the inner sanctum and outer courts of American government. From their lips to God’s ears, may it be so.

So Mote it Be!

terra )o(