Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Monday, April 02, 2007
Taggart Romney :: Townhall.com Columnist
Why I Think You Should Vote For My Dad
by Taggart Romney
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


Like a lot of kids, I grew up thinking my Dad was Superman. And like most kids, in my teenage years, my view of him changed from Superman to Supernerd. But by age 16, I realized that my earlier view, though not totally realistic, was a lot closer to the truth. We continued to have occasional disagreements, and we still do. But I've come to realize how extraordinarily lucky I am to have Mitt Romney as my father. I also think that if elected, he would be one of our nation's most remarkable presidents.

I'll never forget one weekday sometime during July 1986 (burned in my memory as a magic year for a crazy Boston sports fan, with the Celtics, Patriots, and Red Sox all making it to the championship games). I went fishing in an old row boat in Buzzard's Bay on Cape Cod. I threw the anchor overboard and dropped my fishing line. After catching a few fish, I realized I hadn't tied the anchor to the front of the boat.

I returned to the house with my fish and sheepishly informed my Dad, who had company from work at the house, that I had lost the anchor. He told me to go back out and find it. I told him something along the lines of, "That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard – I can't find an anchor on the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean."

Now my instinct as a parent of three would be to send my kid to his room for talking to me that way and then make him work to pay off a new anchor. His reaction was different. He excused himself from his friends, got dressed in his bathing suit, grabbed a snorkel mask, and took me down to the beach with him. For 45 minutes we rowed back and forth, putting our faces into the water to see if we could find the anchor. Amazingly, we did.

I learned three lessons that day. The first is that my Dad really is pretty frugal. There isn't much that bothers him more than wasting money. The second is that my Dad honestly believes he can overcome any challenge with enough hard work and ingenuity. And third, I learned that my Dad cares for me enough to spend his day looking for an anchor in the Atlantic Ocean. He didn't care so much about finding the anchor as he did about teaching me the first two lessons – being wise with money and not letting anything stand in my way.

I've seen that pattern repeat itself dozens of times in his life – at the Olympics, as Governor of Massachusetts, as a successful businessman, and as a father and husband.

When I vote for a Congressman or a Senator, I want someone who is going to be a strong representative for my conservative values. A thinker. A legislator.

But when I vote for President, I also want a doer. No-nonsense. Pragmatic. Proven. Someone who will be able to react quickly to any crises that arise, someone I trust to safeguard my family from threats abroad and threats from within.

I've seen my Dad in action, not just in one crisis, but in dozens. I don't think there is a person alive in whom I'm more confident in placing my trust.

Take a look back to 2002. That was the year he put on an incredible Winter Olympics with a $100M surplus (right after 9/11, and despite a major scandal that almost ruined the games before he took them over), won as a Republican Governor in an overwhelmingly Democratic state, and turned a $3B budget deficit into a surplus without raising taxes.

I recognize that all of that wouldn't matter so much if he were on the wrong side of the issues. We should want someone who not only will lead, but will lead us in the right direction.

Ask yourself who you want leading our nation over the next decade as we face the following challenges: a Jihadist enemy intent on destroying our way of life; liberal elites and activist judges attempting to break down the social values and norms that have existed for centuries; an exploding immigration problem; a serious threat to our status as economic and military superpower from Asia; a looming energy crisis; out-of-control spending in Washington.

What kind of person should we want to be leading our nation at this time of challenge and opportunity? The answer seems obvious – we want someone strong; someone who recognizes our challenges and is willing to deal with them head on; a fiscal conservative; a social conservative; someone whose personal integrity and moral values are unquestioned; someone who has been tested; someone who isn't a career politician; and someone who will get the job done.

There is only one person I believe can do all of that. There's no question that I'm biased—I love my Dad. But my love hasn't blinded me. Like Lincoln in 1860, Roosevelt in 1901, and Reagan in 1980, Mitt Romney is the right leader at the right time for our great nation. He may not be Superman. But he's close enough for me.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

Tagg Romney serves as a senior advisor and surrogate for his father in the Mitt Romney for President Exploratory Committee.

Be the first to read Tagg Romney's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

Good Luck!
He'll need it. Especially in the South.

What a nice story
I'm gonna puke.

This is what Townhall publishes?

How about some meat to go with the overcooked vegetables?

Great Story
I thought the opening anecdote was great. Really illustrated to me how tenacious Romney is, even over trivial things. Good luck to Mitt!

Maybe, he is Superman!
Having read the story of the 2002 Winter Olympics, I conclude that perhaps he is Superman. It was an incredible feat. Without reading the entire story, it's difficult to appreciate the magnitude of what he accomplished. One may not like his politics, but it's difficult to say he's not smart.

At the end of the day, however, to have the respect of your children, well... that makes everything else sweeter.

Almost speechless
It's nice and all. I mean, it's the man's son.

Now, what is Townhall doing carrying this? My nephew wrote a story about what he did on his Christmas vacation. I wonder if I should submit it to Townhall.

A guy by the name of Manfredo...
...complains about a guy by the name of Taggart!And not only that,but accuses him of loving Hitler!

You just can't make this stuff up!

Mitt Romney
Great article! I firmly believe in the saying that if a man shows himself faithful in the small things, he will be faithful in the big things. This article shows once more that Mitt Romney is faithful as father and husband and has been faithful to do his best in business and politics. He thinks outside the box. I trust him more than any other presidential contender with our country

Wow, I was going to vote for
Mitt but now I am gonna vote for MY DAD instead! Let's hear it for Dads!

My wife is right (she usually is)...
My wife warned me not to get so excited about Mitt's candidacy because of all the cinics out there. From some of the comments on this article so far, I see she is right. I suppose some of those people believe he has intentionally positioned himself to run for the presidency and that the things he did for his family, or to save floundering corporations, or turn around the Olympics or get Massachusetts out of debt were just so much hype.

I guess it really is hard for some people to believe that Mitt is a real person who loves his children and grandchildren and wants a better country for them. A good person who has proven he *can* handle difficult problems and still care about people. I hope people will see this article for what it is and believe that such a person exists.

I believe it, and that’s why I’m voting for Mitt.

A President Romney? Nope but Veep, yes
I like Mitt. I've not seen too much other than articles of how he's flipped from proGay to anti-same sex marriage.

Bradley
For a good discussion of Romney's so-called flip-flops, see:

http://www.evangelicalsformitt.org/massresistance/therealtruth.pdf
http://www.evangelicalsformitt.org/massleaders/massleaders.pdf

He's always been for gay rights and always been for marriage between a man and a woman only. It sounds contradictory, and maybe it is, but it's not a case of flipping.

RINO
Why should I vote for a RINO?
Tancredo in '08!

The only monogamous candidate!
Seems like all the wags and pundits always point out that of all the R candidates Mitt is the only one who has had only one wife!

RINO
My vote will go to the candidate who has read and understands "The Constitution" and the "Bill of Rights." A person who doesn't understand
"...the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" then they do not know enough to be The President. Romney is just another of the many RINO's threatening the American way of life.

MY 2 CENTS
GIMME A BREAK

Liberty
I'm with you on this one. Whoever let this piece in should be horsewhipped.

I repeat - GIMME A BREAK

Guarding Your Constitution
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=M2FiNjU1ZGY5Y2NiY2EyOWIyY2Q2ZWUyNmJlZmQ2NzE=

"Crane asked if Romney believed the president should have the authority to arrest U.S. citizens with no review. Romney said he would want to hear the pros and cons from smart lawyers before he made up his mind."

If nominated,
Mitt romney will get my vote because:
1, He is a moral, family man
2. He is first of all an astute businessman and not a long term politician. I want fiscal responsibility.
3. Although I do not share his religion he is a man of faith. For those fearful of a Mormon, consider that Carter and Clinton did not make us all Baptists not did GWB make us Methodists. A man who is not true to whatever faith he holds will not gain my faith in him. The secular and faithless members of Congress will not suddenly overturn the Constitution on the point of extablishing a national religion - the energy needed for overturning the Constitution will be saved for something that furthers their personal
careers and agendas.

One wife only and a son who loves him
Romney has only one wife and his children respect him.

I guess you could call it cynical. I call it disgusting when some people are so sick that respect for parents is considered but why should I be surprised.

TV shows show parents who are stupid and grandparents who shouldn't be tolerated but locked up somewhere.

It really is time for a change.

Romney
is not the worst candidate running, and that makes him almost the best. He's way better than Lady Giulianni and McCrazy.

Unfortunately, as a Southerner, I just can't bring myself to vote for a non-Southerner I've never seen in a cowboy hat.

But I'll make an exception...
for Duncan Hunter.

Emotions
Campaigns are about feelings. Yes I know it is quaint but Romney is right on the positions and is now using the same approach to the campaign as the guru who runs Obama. This is a necessary approach in the long run. Good start.

An empty suit...
I like Mitt, I really do. But anyone who thinks he is a conservative need to think again. I live in Tax-achusetts. The land of the Duke (a good job at a good wage as long as you are related to someone at the turnpike authority). when the Mittster ran for the Senate, he tried to out-liberal Fat-boy. Yeah, like that is going to work. Then he wins coveted office in the statehouse only because he opponent is a complete incompetent at running an campaign. He has yet to show up for the job. Reading the tea leaves, he books it out of a job he never really wanted in the first place (to his credit, he never took a paycheck, but boy his staff love that extra kiss in the mail) and leaves it to Muffy to face an angry moonbat electorate.
This guy is NOT a conservative. He's not even a liberal. He is a very nice guy who also will say anything to the current audience in order to get some votes. Sorry Tagg, but your pop is a political huckster. Voter beware.

He's what we need?
You left out his ability to mimic Spanish phrases, even if his doesn't understand the context. But is was a noble effort at pandering, so he gets an A for trying.

Your Dad is precisely what we need, someone who is intent on giving away the birthright of my children.

Tag your it.

Semper Fi

Single Issue yourself to Hillary
It's no surprise we've lost the congress and are on our way to handing to democrats the presidency too. I'm no Romney expert but the fact this guy is so easily dismissed by his own party is amazing.

Good job Townhall
What a nice article by a neutral observer! In an age of partisan politics, its nice to see an unbiased article..NOT!

showmesomelogic...
Actually, what is amazing to me is that this guy is actually taken seriously in the first place. How desperate are we as a movement that we are actually thinking of Mitt as a conservative? If it comes down to the big three, I will hold my nose, wear diapers and pull the lever for Da-Mayor or psycho-John. Mitt showed his stuff in Massachusetts and it was pretty sad.

I once threw my frisbee
and it went really far and I couldn't find it but lo and behold, my old dog Mutt soon came trotting back with that old frizbee in his mouth. If you ever had a dog like that I sure wish you'd toss a vote Mutt's way.

April Fools?
Is this just a bad April Fools joke or the lamest political ploy ever?

Vote for my Daddy; he's the best.(?)

Thanks Tag. You just showed me why Daddy is a dud.

Show me the logic
If this nation ceases to exist, where's the logic? If my children have no better opportunity in life than to be a wage slave for some multinational, show me the logic. If I served as an active duty/reserve Marine Officer from 1982-2003 and spent a year and a half of my life overseas in service to my country to enable feckless politicians to make merchandise of my country, show me the logic.

Single issue myself to Hillary? Are you kidding?
Rudy has no regard for the rights of the most innocent and helpless among us, regardless of length of gestation. In context, this is very similar to the short shrift that Dred Scott received at the hands of the Supreme Court, show me the logic. Rudy thinks the 2nd Amendment was inserted into the Bill of Rights to placate the "Hunting Lobby" (ditto the eight year interlude between 41 and 43). Rudy's views on the sovereignty of this nation seem more in line with former Mexican President Vicente Fox's. Rudy is both aesthetically and folically challenged; Hillary has hair.

Do you think I am going to cast my vote for some clown who will take us to the same place as a democrat because of their party label, no. No one is getting my vote because they might have stylistic differences with a democrat. Only, and I mean only, someone who understands that the citizenry of this nation deserve first consideration will garner my vote. We are a generous nation, as well we should be, but we are throwing out the baby with the bath water.

You want logic, two decades as a Marine makes me fairly comfortable with the idea that I owe none of these RINO stalwarts even the faintest consideration.

Semper Fi

presidential qualities
i don't mean to be offenseive but, i cannot vote for someone that belives that jesus christ and satan are spiritual children of god (lower case 'g' because the LDS 'god' is a man that has attained god status and not God the creator of the universe).

Tag? MItt?
Are these the names we want for the future children of America? Maybe it’s just a personal issue (my name is Lyndon, I was born 1968) but I think it’s something to consider. And his flip-flopping is legendary - Diane, Rebecca, Diane, Rebecca. Make up your mind man!

Kathy
Where in our Constitution does it say the government has the power to tell us who we can marry?

I don't understand why people are homosexual, but I've come to understand they did not choose to be that way. Why would they? They are shunned by society and consequently many take anti-depressants to deal with everyday life. I've met many homosexauls and for the most part they are hardworking responsible people just like everyone else. For whatever reason they are wired differently. Who am I to judge them? I'm sure there are people who think I'm a wacky gun nut.

Give them a break, would the world really end if two guys decided to get married?

Good man--but
Mitt Romney is an exceptional person. He was a good governor of Mass. and is very articulate and quick upstairs.

But--I think he hurt himself badly when accepting any kind of endorsement from Jeb Bush. This country does not need any more of the Bushes. They have brought this country to its knees by allowing it to be invaded by Mexico, sending our productive capacity overseas, and working to send money from our Social Security fund to illegal immigrants from Mexico.

On this alone they all should have been arrested and thrown in jail. So why would Mitt Romney want to be associated with them in any way---unless he agrees with them!

Does he...?

Good Point Lydia
As my father Calvin, and his father Grover used to say - “You either face things head-on or meet them on the other end.”

Dear Taggart
UMMMM HOW ABOUT NO!

I didn't even read your pathetic article. I just scrolled down to the comments section.

I was a Masschusetts citizen for almost all the time your Dad was governor. I remember the joy in his face as he scrambled for the closest pen to sign gun control bills.

NO F'N WAY!!!

Mitt Romney fails the Bill of Rights test. When I compare Mitt Romney's past actions and core political principles to the Bill of Rights, he fails.

No Mitt, not now, not ever. He lost his chance to support and defend the entire Constitution when he was governor and he failed miserably.

Hunter, Paul or Tancredo...

You know... The three candidates for 2008 who are getting the least press-time. Yeah them...

Marc
http://www.SaveTheGuns.com

Success against great odds
I'm not so quick to dismiss Romney. He has shown a unique capacity to navigate some bewideringly complex political and business challenges.
There is NO candidate who can put perfect credentials (conservative or otherwise) on the table. Reagan was a divorcee AND a Hollywood actor, for crying out loud. Yet, I would love to see some measure of Ronald Reagan's optimism and conviction and perserverance return to Washington.
It is way too early to dismiss Romney. It is way too early to place heavy bets on any percieved front runner.

Response to Marine
First of all, thank you for your service. I mean that sincerely not gratuitisly.

You and I don't disagree about a lot of what you wrote. My point is, you give examples of why Rudy isn't your choice, I agree with you about his position on abortion and gun control. In this entire thread, I have read very few specific points about Romney. He's dismissed out of hand when the positions of higher profile candidates (like Rudy) are at least known. Which of Romney's positions bother you so much.

Frankly, you just sound frustrated like a lot of the rest of us. You can call me a wage slave but I call it a job that provides very well for my family. I don't have the same "they're all bad until proven otherwise" that you do. I haven't found my perfect candidate but at least I'm willing to understand they're positions before I decide if they're a better alternative to the socialist/pacifist on the democratic side. With that crew, I know my nightmares will come true and I know my family won't be safe.

on second thought…
I can forgive Mitt for having trouble deciding between two women - his forfathers never faced that dilema.

SaveTheGuns
I certainly like your style and enjoy your posts.

Safe?
Was a nine year old little boy named Jordin Paulder safe when an illegal alien from Honduras murdered him in a fashion that not even the most depraved Hollywood screenwriter could imagine last June? You cannot make this sort of thing up.
Read about it at http://www.immigrationshumancost.org .

Therein, is contained a whole (but far from complete) roster of folks who would very likely be alive if it were not for the presence of our guests.

As far as being a wage slave is concerned, when one of the world's richest men lobbies congress for unlimited H-1b visas so he can pay people likely half of what pays Americans; well, you tell me if there is any end to corporate greed. Unfortunately, there is no end of craven politicains who are willing to enable their corporate masters, and at whose expense?

All I know is that Mitt Romney went to South Florida to do some pandering, I mean campaigning, and ended up quoting Castro to a crowd who, it could be argued, share no loss of love for Fidel, humanitarian that he is.

As for the rest of Mitt's legislative accomplishments or his policy postitions, they have been pretty well chronicled by other posters. Furthermore, I obviously cannot know what his intentions are, but who has endorsed him is telling enough.

Comparing Rudy to Hillary is simply a vehicle to illustrate how our "annointed" choices for a Republican Presidential nominee in 2008 really do not differ more than a dime's worth from any likely Democratic nominee; about three cents by today's standard, even adjusting for inflation.

In the end, and beyond contestation, every thing else is academic if this nation does not endure as a vibrant, independent state.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, which is a good thing because we never know what pearl of wisdom we might glean from someone else's experience.

It is simply my opinion that having no other choice than someone who talks out of both sides of their mouth is no choice at all. When I hear someone who echoes the Preamble to the Constitution, for instance, then I'll maybe believe I have someone whom I can entrust with my vote. Thank you for your response.

A great article
Everyone here thinks that Townhall is a shill for Mitt. Here is another article that is worth reading, especially for those against Mitt.
http://www.newsmax.com/romney/?promo_code=2A89-1&s=lh
You can't blame Townhall for this one.

Poor Excuses
Tagg, Mitt - silly names. Is that the best you can do to discredit him? Poor examples of persuasion.

Who cares about this letter? Oh, I don't know... perhaps it might be important to people to see that his family supports him. That does count you know. People are looking for family values in this country, and Giuliani's getting slammed with his familial problems. Is America that hypocritical and cynical...

"We want someone who stands for family values!"

"He's a pathetic loser because his son wrote an article supporting him!"

No wonder Republicans are slipping. They can't stand for anything.

Can we really authenticate Mass. "citizen" claims about Romney with this media? Ah, the beauty of blogging. It's all too anonymous.

Let's talk about Rudy. His son doesn't support him, in fact, he hates him. Let's vote for Rudy! He passed gun control laws in New York City. Let's vote for him! Pro-gay marriage and abortion? You bet. Let's vote for him! Anybody but Romney.

Anyone want to explain why? Manfredo Tancredo IV probably has it right with the Mormon thing (biggot). Did you graduate from school with that kind of logic? Let's use it on you, shall we? You use the silly name "Manfredo" which shows your lack of imagination. You associate yourself with Tancredo so that means you agree with his positions - which means that Tancredo also is a religious biggot and mocks Romney for his name. You seem to know a lot about Hitler, or you talk about him a lot, so that means that you are a secret admirer of him and wish Tancredo would unite all Neo-Nazis and establish the New Reich and propose the final solution to America's problems... exterminate all Mormons.

Very childish, "Manfredo." Your ideas are also ruining conservatism.

Ronnieeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
Where is Ronald Reagan now when we need him so desperately?

WTF
no worries peeps! whoever the corporate giants want in will get in! You guys must honestly still think your vote counts. Suckers!

A Surplus of Clever Cynicism
The world seems to have an overabundance of people who go out of their way to devise clever "put downs" of others. If you want to make an issue-based argument against a candidate, fine. If you just get a kick out of slamming a son who has good things to say about his father and feels he can add to the public's understanding of the character of a viable presidential candidate--then I think you are acting like a lazy jerk.

Bias
So, I guess everyone that writes a positive article is a shill for Mitt? This attitude shows a closed mind. Even though I am for Mitt I read all of the alticles for his competition, and weigh the merits of the candidate. After all, who knows who I will be supporting in the general.

What a bunch of trolls...
What’s in a name? If all detractors can ridicule is your unique name and they turn your virtues into an epithet, if they try to use misinformation about your beliefs, then you must be doing everything right. Mindless mob violence is still alive in this country. I always liked the term “mindless nabobs of negativity” even though the author had a funny name.

I like Mitt! The DNC calls him “smooth talking Mitt”. See what I mean?

Kathy
Your 'facts' about Romney allowing gay marriage are incorrect. Take a look at:

http://www.evangelicalsformitt.org/front_page/mitt_romney_chose_gay_marriage.php

and

http://www.evangelicalsformitt.org/massresistance/therealtruth.pdf
http://www.evangelicalsformitt.org/massleaders/massleaders.pdf

to get the real facts about Romney's fight for traditional marriage in Massachusetts

jetpilot...
...wouldn't recognize truth if it came up and smacked him. Of course, truth rarely acts that way. So, hopefully no one else on this tread will believe jetpilot's lies. He discredited himself right off the bat by saying there are no black Mormons.

For those who want to see some very talented black Mormons, just watch the Mormon Tabernacle Choir each week. The evidence is there.

The rest of jetpilot's post is just regular old religious biggotry and needs to be banned from the site.

Works for me
This story is completely consistent with the Mitt Romney I'm familiar with. Of the "Big 3", he is the only one worthy of consideration as a conservative Republican. Let's give him a chance. Enough with Rudy and McCain already! We need to talk about Republican ideas and values and candidates who live them.

Jet Pilot
Can you spell bigot?

Ever hear of Gladys Night? How about all of the missionaries serving in Africa. They must be looking for white people to convert.

People are individules, and yes, some in Utah can be a closed society. I am LDS and moved to UT. Guess what, I wasn't one of them either.

One thing you will NEVER see in an LDS service is anyone slamming another religion. Most "christian" religions have sermons on how evil othewr religions are. I once dated the daughter of a Nazerine minister and while attending their church with her saw a traveling "specialist" preach nothing but lies about my religion. Slam it if you like, but at least be accurate.

Dear Taggart
Thank you for your heart warming story about your Dad. I think is it very important for our National Leaders to first be leaders in their own families (both Guiliani and McCain are failures at home).

However, your Dad has done things that are very troubling for Conservatives:
1. Immigration - His website is vague. Does he believe Illegals should leave the U.S. first and get in line behind all the people waiting to get in legally? Would he support jail time for company executives who hire illegals?
2. Abortion - How does a Mormon like Mitt who grew up in the LDS Church believe that the taking of innocent life should be legal? How does a smart (top of his class) Harvard Lawyer defend legalizing the taking of innocent life?
Or was he pro-choice because you have to be to get elected in Mass.?
3. 2nd Amendment - Does Mitt support the individual right to bear arms? Why did he sign gun control laws in Mass.? Was it just to get elected in Mass.?
4. Gay Marriage - How does a Mormon like Mitt who grew up in the LDS Church support Gay Rights even more than Ted Kennedy? Why didn't you use your power of Office to force the Legislature to act to create a new law first before you changed the Marriage licenses/

Please ask you Dad to explain these 4 troubling problems to you and then write a new TH column next week explaining his answers.

Thank you. Looking forward to another column.

To Jetpilot
You have been hanging out in the wrong crowds. You are wrong on all counts.

I will just make one point. There are hundreds of thousands of black Mormons in the USA, Brazil, Africa and around the world. See BlackLDS.org to see for yourself.

US citizens are a minority in the LDS Church.

As for sociability, we are often disappointed that people feel uncomfortable spending time with us. We still have a lot of long time friends that are not Mormons.

Try talking to Mormons. You may like them.

Bobinator - what about the First Vision?
According to Joseph Smith's First Vision:
"I was answered that I must join none of them [Christian churches], for they were all awrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an ABOMINATION in his sight; that those professors were all CORRUPT; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof."

So Mormons founded their religion on the teaching that ALL of the existing Christian churches were teaching creeds that were an ABOMINATION in God's sight and ALL of the preachers were CORRUPT!

Mormon Doctrine (the book) calls the Catholic Church the "great harlot" in the Bible.

Sounds like Mormons have some explaining to do here.

Thank you G W Bush
Thanks for the link.

Brett
1) This isn't the place for an argument about theology.
2) If all of the churches wern't "wrong" why would there be a need to restore Christ's original church back on the Earth?
3) We still don't preach in sunday anything negative about other religions.
4) Mormon Doctorine is not a "church publication", it is the writings of a member, Prominent, but a member none the less, and his personal interpretation on different things.
5) As far as corruption and "lacking power", Christian churches in general have a paid ministry, and just where do they receive the authority to minister in Christ's name? Theology school? In the LDS church there are no paid ministers, and those in authority do not apply, they are called. See the difference?

George W Bush
I disagree with Mitt on this issue. Out of curiosity, how many viable GOP candidates do not support an "assault whepon" ban? For that matter which candidate is with you on every issue?

There is no candidate outside of myself that I agree with 100% of the time, and my fundraising didn't go too well this quarter.

GWB
Sorry, weapon. I am a product of the CA public school system.

Kathy
I went to the website you linked to. I can appreciate why you feel the way you do. However, I will always default to freedom. There are people who would say my love of firearms is potentially dangerous to children, or immoral. Some would argue my right to own firearms is not guaranteed by the Constitution. I've been shooting for over 20 years and have never harmed a soul. Just like me most homosexuals are responsible also. Should I lose my right to own firearms because some nut decided to shoot up a school? Some people would say yes. They would be wrong.

I do not believe the Constitution is a living, breathing document. Some people do and the results have been catastrophic. We cannot pick and choose which rights we want foisted on others. The Constitution is not the bible or any other religous document.

I know I will never change your mind and that is fine, but the path you are treading is a dangerous one. All I am saying is be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.

Sounds like another uniter, not a ...
"liberal elites and activist judges attempting to break down the social values and norms that have existed for centuries"???

Actually, I think most serious liberals and most activist judges are actually trying to APPLY social values and norms that have existed for centuries. You know, stuff like tolerance, love, turning the other cheek, stewardship... Where Republicans, the party of the mega-corporation, get off calling Democrats "elites" is a stupefying feat of sleight of hand. Hopefully, you're Dad won't alienate his own home state of Massachussetts by bandying about this same old, tired rhetoric. Then again, hopefully he will!

The boat anchor story is not bad, though, and you're filial support is admirable.

Mitt Romney
"No Success in life is more important than a failure at home" Mitt Romney has evidently done a great job at home and in his professional career. He is the type of role model as a leader the majority of Americans yearn for. I would be proud to salute a President Romney.

John S. Maine

Bobinator
1) Why not? Since Mitt is a Mormon.
2) So you agree that ALL of the Christian Churches were an ABOMINATION and CORRUPT?
3) Except you teach it in Sunday School and teach the FIRST VISION to your children. And your missionaries teach this as why there was a need to restore the "TRUE" church.
4) Mormon Doctrine was written by LDS Apostle Bruce McConkie who was considered the most knowledgeable scriptorian in the LDS Church.
5) Based on your argument (which I do not agree with), the Catholic Church has the authority and history on their side. I am not a Catholic.
As for the LDS church has "no paid ministers", who is paying for the housing of the LDS Prophet?

Nuns take a vow of poverty. Does this make them uncorruptible? No.
Was Joseph Smith uncorrupted when he started the LDS church?

Taggart Romney
Has anyone besides me noticed the opposition to Rommney cannot seem to post anything besides sarcasm? No logical, make-sense, intelligent, or interesting retorts?

Hmmmm....I wonder why that is??? Nevermind, I think I know.

Romney has a very good historical record politically, he is everything his son claims him to be; smart, intelligent, a good family man, frugal, and a good decision-maker. These are things we desperately need in a President. I feel he is one of the best of the lot who will run in 2008.

C~Pearl
So Pearl what is Romney's position on the following:

1. Immigration
2. Abortion
3. 2nd Amendment
4. Gay Marriage

If you are unaware, Romney has flip-flopped on these issues. So conservatives are very nervous that he could just be another nice politician who fails to secure our borders, gives citizenship to illegal invaders, takes away our 2nd amendment freedom to defend ourselves, and allows homosexual marriage because he is too nice to stand up against the MSM (one of Bush's major problems).

Explain to us how a Mormon like Mitt who grew up in the LDS Church believes that the taking of innocent life should be legal? How does a smart (top of his class) Harvard Lawyer defend legalizing the taking of innocent life? Or was he pro-choice because you have to be to get elected in Mass.?

So Pearl, you must be a Mormon since you are taking the "Mormons are victims of bigotry" approach to the debate here. Most of the people on TH are tired of RINOs and Mitt smells like a RINO. Mitt needs to explain his flip-flopping if he wants the support of Conservatives.

If he dismisses us, without explaining HIS record, he can't complain when he loses in the Primary or the General election.


Just another rino
Mitt Romney is a Rino, there is no debating that.
So if you are willing to elect a "moral" man and forgive his votes for more entitlements or for gun control then he's your guy. The best choice if you love freedom is Ron Paul.

At least now I understand his love of anchor babies.

I could vote for Romney if
I could vote for Romney if he can explain his Mass. record and his previous statements when he ran for Senator against Ted Kennedy.

I believe people can change; however, how old was he when he ran against Kennedy. I am sure he was over 40. He knew better.

How does a Mormon (who generally are staunch pro-lifers except Mitt and his mother) support the right to abortion as LAW? Mormons are taught in Sunday School that the taking of an innocent life is murder. So where was Mitt in Sunday School? He graduated from Harvard Law School at the top of his class, so he wasn't stupid, He KNEW it was an innocent baby in the womb.

Only social liberals justify the convience of the Mother over the LIFE of the baby.



Magic Underwear?
So THAT explains it. She was Mormon!

So Brett
It is obvious you are against Mitt. So who are you for and why?

Why I gave this essay two stars
I like Romney better than the other two major candidates, but if I were a high school English teacher, I would have given this essay a C or below. The lost anchor story is the principle reason you think we should vote for you dad? Come on! Every kid has a story like that. You make passing reference to his successes, but such qualifications should be the bulk of an essay like this. This essay is patronizing in its assumption that we cant take realy policy arguments and we need some stupid story about an anchor. This stuff may work for the Obama crowd, but not for Townhall readers.

Just Think!
In the last 150 these people called the Mormon have gone from just a few to millions. Have worked hard enough to become a 1st class church even tho almost every one in this world has thought the worse of us and we just keep loving every one enough to help with the worst disasters, to give food to you no matter what you believe. So having a Pres.that believes in working out our problems, saving money and caring about all would be a great Pres.

For all you complainers...
JustPaul- your postings are pure ad hominem...calling Romney a "dud" adds nothing to the topic. Don't complain about the article when your comments can't trump it.

Greggpj- Mitt Romney IS conservative. He takes a very hard stance against liberals and has made it clear that they simply have the WRONG take on where this country is to go. You also forget that in YOUR state of MA, he had nothing to work with in legislature but a bunch of liberals. Considering those circumstances, that makes him a great candidate because guess what our house and congress majority is? You got it.

Giuliani - endorses PRO CHOICE. Don't complain about Romney's conservatism if you plan on voting for Giuliani.

McCain - he aligns himself right with liberals when it comes to IMMIGRATION. He is all about amnesty and open borders. Romney is opposite. As a matter of fact, he would be one of the few in Washington that won't pander to industry, votes and liberals on the immigration subject. Why? Because Romney is not driven by $ and he's not driven by politics. He's a Washington outsider. Can you say the same for McCain?

Marine and Pat in NC...loved your comments! You make a lot of sense, Marine!

Kathy
You are simply wrong and the record will show that Mitt Romney was on the forefront OPPOSING gay marriage in MA. He was simply outnumbered against a VERY liberal legislature. He took a firm stance against it. To say that he was a proponent of gay marriage is just simply ignorance of the record.

darthhiddeous77
I would love to refute and correct your religious accusations of why you can't vote for Mitt Romney as president, but may I remind you that you are not voting for a pastor...you're voting for President! Do you ever read about Massachusetts complaining that Mitt was a horrible governor because his view on Jesus Christ is so different than the rest of the state? Does Nevada complain about Harry Reid because of his Mormon views???? NEVER. It simply does not get in the way and you Mormon haters have to get past this.

I suppose you would have never voted for the handful of Jewish presidents we've had because they didn't view Jesus as the Son of God, right? Let's leave religion to religion and politics to politics.

Secondly, this is not a forum for religious discussion.

Thirdly, I'm sure that Barrack Obama and Clinton are much more closely aligned to your view of Jesus Christ...so do you plan on voting for them?

Guys and Gals...get past the religion bit. The more you debate it, the more it takes off the real focus of defeating a liberal candidate running for president. We can't let this issue play the smoke screen for the real WAR! Wake Up!

gunlock bill
It is waaaay to early to choose a candidate.
NOW is the time for questions and ANSWERS.

So far the best ANSWERS to conservative questions have come from Duncan Hunter.

However, I am willing to listen to explainations from Mitt. If he can convince that YES he was a LIBERAL, but NOW he sees HE was wrong on supporting ABORTION on demand, then I will consider him. Right now, I don't know that we can trust him anymore than McCain.

I will not vore for Rudy or McCain.

Maybe Tancredo or Thompson are acceptable when I read their ANSWERS to tough conservative questions.

Right Said Fred
Right, Fred...we should not vote for Mitt becaus his name is so silly. Barack is much more appropriate right?

And did you see Mitt's perfect hairstyle? My gosh...it's alarming.

I hope you're being sarcastic because your comment wreaks of red herring. It's no different than soccer mom's voting for a candidate because he's more handsome.

If you can't get passed Mitt's flipping (because he has NOT flopped...i.e. gone BACK on his secondary stance) then you must have had problems with Reagan's flipping as well?


Funny names?
Taggart....I don't know the "real" story of the origin of the name, but when I hear Taggart, I think of Dagny - the heroine of Ayn Rand's outstanding conversative philosophical treatise, Atlas Shrugged. If that is, indeed, the origin, it speaks volumes about the core beliefs of the Romney family, and cements my decision to give him my full support.

Dr. North
I don't see Romney's acceptance of Jeb Bush's endorsement as a hinderance. Look at the possible advantages:

1) Those concerned that he's not a real conservative can see that he's endorsed by conservatives

2) Mitt's biggest struggle challenge is getting his name and platform out. He needs the media coverage that Clinton and Obama are getting and this is another small step in that direction.

3) Florida is a very important state in elections as you know...and Romney deserves as much backing from the south as he can get. Especially since so many southern Christians can't seem to get it through their thick skulls that religion is only a VERY small piece of the puzzle.

grow up
I am a little surprised at the juvenile nature of many of the comments on this thread. The point is to engage the text, not ignore it or dismiss it as irrelevant. Everything is relevant for a mind that is open to being taught. Many of the comments suggest that readers are simply reflecting back opinions they have already formed, showing no evidence they have learned anything new. The mean digs show ignorance, ill breading, and an inability to discuss civility with one’s opponents. I pity an unreflective electorate.

For me, the post raises some interesting questions.

1. Family. What do family members have to tell us about a candidate that media or pundits cannot? What are the implications of looking to family for assistance in determining the reliability of a candidate? Should voters trust a boy who loves his Dad, as Tagg evidently does, more than one who has rifts with him, as appears to be the case with Rudy’s son? Are family opinions more “real” than other views?

2. Character. What does the story of the lost anchor teach us about Mitt’s character? The Tagg piece seems to be operating under the assumption that a story from 1986, taking place long before Mitt ran for public office, tells us something important about the man that a story taking place after 1994 might not. Since the 2002 Olympics put the same character traits on display—Mitt’s fiscal conservatism, hard work, accountability, etc—the anchor story seems to suggest the same values operated in the Matt across time. What does that imply? Does it revise the flip-flopping debate in any way?

3. Privacy. The story makes an important point about privacy and the difference between private views and public views. In the story of the lost anchor, Mitt’s private views are on display. He is accountable to no one but himself and the several guests he leaves behind at the house for a time. He is free to act on his private moral views. And, connecting the lost anchor story to the Olympics, those private fiscal principles are consistently represented from one decade to the next. The son’s message seems to be that in private the father is consistent in his fiscal views and here is a man who can be counted on.

But the story implicitly challenges the notion that private views are the same as public views and that politicians have the same freedom in public that they do in private. A public office holder is not like the man who can go down to the lake and look for a lost anchor whenever he chooses. He is not always free to exercise his private views. Beholden to the electorate, he carries out their will, not his own. He speaks the will of the collective, not the individual. This being the case, it is no wonder that public statements of elected officials do not always match the private views of those same officials, or that officials say one thing in public contexts that they do not say in private ones.

This last point is relevant to the social views of the public at large, which have quite obviously shifted to the right over the last decades. But therein lies the difficulty. If we do not allow our leaders the privilege of shifting their views to match a public shift, have we not consigned the leader to irrelevancy and refused them the option of carrying out our will? If the polity as a whole has shift to the right, how can we refuse the same privilege of elected officials who represent us?

Romney and Mormonism
Mormons are fine people with a high ethical standard. But I'm not sure yet that I can vote for a Mormon. And I usually don't weigh the religious faith of candidates.

So, why my concern? Mormonism is an aggressive religion that promotes some quite wild fairy tales. (Sorry about that - but true.) Anyone who can accept buried gold plates, 'reformed Egyptian', a scripture filled with silly pseudo-history, etc, etc - and a faith that declares all other religion 'an abomination' - well, anyone who can accept such foolishness may not be equipped to be president. Besides, I hate to give Mormonism any boost that it might derive from having one of their number in the White House.

I have to give that more thought.

I can't believe...
some of you people are complaining about this article because it's so biased...since when did Townhall start publishing unbiased articles? I'm not sure what so many of you are reading here, but at some point you have to realize that this is a conservative website! I'm a conservative and our country deserves MORE of these so called 'unbiased' articles and websites getting out to the populace. If you guys want neutered, unbiased articles, read Sports Illustrated. I'm looking for someone with a backbone and a stance on an issue.

Townhall...thank you for trying to counterbalance the liberal media!

This debate is a complete waste of time!
Everyone knows he will not make it past the primary and if he is as smart as he is thought to be, he will not waste any of his money trying to win the nomination. Especialy considering his current ratings in the polls.

Newt in '08!

If no Newt, then Fred will do!

Roy...
think about it some more...while it's important to weigh a candidates values (and religion is certainly one of them) you must at a certain point realize that religion is a small piece of the puzzle.

Has the Methodist sect pushed in your face since Bush was president? Did Judaism get pushed in your face with Jewish presidents? Ctholicism and Kennedy? How about Massachusetts when Romney was governor? Has Salt Lake been moved to Boston since "one of their number" was put in office?

Many conservatives do not share Romney’s Mormon faith, but his faith should be viewed by social conservatives as a good sign, not as a matter of concern. The Mormon religion is profoundly conservative in its support for life, family, and marriage. Thus, Romney’s religion reinforces, his conservatism. All people of faith believe that the best public officials are those with God, not man, at the center of their lives. Would you prefer to see Hillary or Barack in office instead? They probably align much closer to your Christian view on religion.

It cannot be forgotten, however, that this is also a political question, a matter of practical choices. And what are these choices? Senator John McCain and Mayor Rudy Giuliani are the other leading candidates for the Republican nomination. Barring the unlikely emergence of some conservative alternative in the next few months, the choice will be between Giuliani, McCain, and Romney. While both Giuliani and McCain would be vastly superior to any of the prospective Democrats, there are serious questions about the policy positions of both, and not just on social conservative issues.

A Mormon on abortion
People in politics try to make big general issues which are entirely black or white and abortion is no exception. Unfortunately for the abortion issue, neither side is a correct choice. But you say, “There is no such thing as a little bit pregnant.” True, but that is not the choice to be made by a man or a woman. The choices to be made are a spectrum of black to gray to white because every situation is different.

The first choice is whether to obey the law as it is written, and to Mormons there is no doubt. We promise to obey the law of the land. We are also counseled to participate in changing unjust laws.

In Civics 101 we learned that there are local ordinances, state laws and Federal laws made by legislative bodies and enforced by executive bodies. A mayor or governor would enforce laws made by people in the local vicinity. A president and congress make and enforce laws pertaining to the entire nation reserving to the states those responsibilities of local issue like gambling, prostitution, marriage and at one time slavery. Do not confuse yourselves that a Governor would take a different stance than a President. Also do not assume that what a Governor believes in his heart is possible with a legislature hell bent on a different agenda. The Executive branch has a veto but it only goes so far in controlling legislation.

The guiding principle of why we are here on this planet is: We are here to make correct choices of our own free will, not through coercion or threat of death. We are being judged by how we obey the laws of God and how we care for each other. In the state of Utah there are enough Mormon votes to make tobacco, alcohol and caffeine completely unavailable to everybody. Utahans have made alcohol a little inconvenient so that you have to declare your intention to consume, but it is not illegal. It is not very expensive either. The sale of alcohol is regulated and distributed by the state. It is everybody’s choice as to whether to use alcohol or not. We do not force our standards on others.

According to our Prophet, “It is a very sad thing to know that a potential mother would end the life of a child out of convenience.” There are many couples who would love to raise that child. There are cases however that difficult decisions need to be made such as choosing between the life of the mother and the child.

OK, here is where I get to the gray area and where Mitt and I may or may not agree, but then I am not running for president. If a decision is made to terminate a pregnancy then only the mother/father can make that decision and there must always be provided a safe, legal way to do it. A doctor should not be prosecuted for following the needs of his patient. It is incumbent on whichever level of government and interested citizen/neighbors to educate the potential mother to avoid this procedure and help the anxious mother to make a non punitive decision.

Do not be so smug as to accuse Mitt of flip flopping on this issue. I have listened to him explain his position on several occasions and he has been consistent in this area according to his position in office. Roe v Wade has been around for a generation. Be careful. The courts take years to sort out new legislation. Avoid abortion if you can but leave a compassionate choice if the need arises. The big lie about abortion is that there is a black and white solution for all cases. It should not be a political party litmus test. It requires the wisdom of Solomon whether you are a Democrat or Republican.

I don't care that he is a Mormon
I do care that he wants to ban what he considers to be assault weapons.

I also would like to his stance on the managed trade agreements such as NAFTA, CAFTA, OMAN, GATT.

Add to that, I would like to know if he has the intestinal fortitude to admit the state of our fiscal well-being, or lack thereof and then tell us what he plans to do about it.

Then, I would like to know his stance on open borders and the North American Union that is being built as I am typing.

That will do as a start.

Boise Boy
Which Mormon Prophet said that? Hinckley?
Is the Mormon Prophet saying only that it is a very sad thing when a mother kills her unborn child out of convience? Or is it a SIN like murder that could lead to eternal death?


CaballeroKid - Romney pro-choice Mormon
Explain to us how Romney could be a pro-life Mormon and yet he made campaign statements when running for Senator that he supported a women's right to choose in Mass..

I thought Mormons thought Abortion was the murder of an innocent life and is therefore a Sin that could lead to eternal death.

Correct me if I am wrong.




Brent
I love your comments.

I'm not going to defend the positin that the Mormon church never says anything bad about other churches. As you've pointed out, that's just not true. But I will say you're making it sound much worse than it is.

True, Mormons beleive other religions are heretical. There's no denying that. Other words for heretical would be "abominable" or "corrupt." I (as a Mormon) reserve the right to have great feelings toward members of other religions while still thinking they are heretics, and I expect nothing less from adherents to other religions. If they didn't think I was a heretic, I'd say they don't even understand their own religion. And even though I consider other faiths heretical, I consider them great allies in the war against secularism and in the war for the sould of America. In truth, I see us as fighting on the same side.

Furthermore, bringing "Mormon Doctrine" in isn't quite fair. McKonkie was censured for the book, especially that part, and the statement was taken out of subsequent editions. McKonkie had some unusual views that aren't by any stretch of the imagination shared by his fellow Mormons, or his fellow church leaders.


Abortion
Brett and others...
The abortion debate has been getting out of hand for a long time. I am adopted, and am quite glad that my mom didn't abort me. My issue though is this, Women do indeed have the right to choose what to do with their bodies. End of the story. That right includes the right to say NO. Abortion is not the cause of the problem, promiscuity is. Abortion is a way to get out of the consequences of the decision previously made. We see this not only in this debate, but in every area of our society. We need to try to promote correct choices, by allowing people to bear the responsibility for poor ones. This will create the incentive for people to take more responsibility for their own lives.

To Caballerokid - about Mormonism
In the first place, Methodism is not a 'sect' but a denomination, the third largest in the USA. George W embraced Methodism because Laura is a strong Methodist. It is a big tent. Hillary also is a Methodist. So is Edwards. So were Mondale, McGovern. Etc. Then again, so are a bunch of conservatives, among them Zell Miller.

There have been no Jewish presidents. No, Kennedy did not push Catholicism. He was a rotten Catholic. Even Jackie said that. Someone who violates his marriage vows over and over and over again to commit adultery with numerous women can't be all that good a Catholic.

Back to Mormonism. They view other groups as heretical. Most other Christians today - well, reasonable ones - agree to disagree without tossing around charges of others being 'abominations'. Local churches join together in various councils and associations - even Catholic churches since Vatican II, when they finally let go of their old rule that Catholics could not even enter a Protestant church. That arrogance and stupidity was nixed by John XXIII - a wiser Pope, by the way, than John Paul II, despite JP's supposed miracle. That, I presume, is debatable.

One trouble with Mormonism is that it is so aggressive, baptizing some of my dead Catholic, Baptist, Methodist and Congregationalist ancestors. They get their names and then baptize them in temple ceremonies! A real affront! Joseph Smith said that the moon was inhabited by people who dressed like Qaukers! Brigham Young was a big supporter of slavery. "The Negro," he wrote, is damned and is to serve his master until God chooses to remove the curse of Ham." Unbelievable hogwash! It was only in 1978 that the Mormons dropped their flagrantly racist position, after Stanford U announced that it would not play Brigham Young U anymore, the NAACP began to raise the issue with the Boy Scouts, a boycott of the Mormon Tabernacle Choir was launched, etc. Joseph Smith included the Book of Abraham as part of his sacred scriptures, claiming that it was written by Abraham. In fact it turned own to be an ancient Egyptian funeral text with all sorts of pagan gods and magical charms. The Mormons still are primitive when it comes to the position of women in their church.

We could go on and on. I still don't know whether or not I can support a Mormon. More thought required. But I think people (including uninformed Mormons) ought to know the kind of stuff Mormonism is peddling under the banner of Christianity. It's especially sad because Mormons are generally a fine, moral people, despite the polygamous offshoots.

Keep smiling.

Romney
Sorry little Lady it does not fly. he is a liberal rino today, tomorrow who knows, we might as well vote for Kerry and pretend he is a conservative, some days he was, other days who knows.

Who is a conservative?
Caballerokid, are you calling Jeb Bush a conservative? Better yet, are you even calling Geo. W.Bush a conservative? If you are--based on what?

Is it conservative to commit treason against your own country? Is it conservative to begin wars with countries that never did anything to you? Is it conservative to give Social Security payments to illegal aliens after they go back to Mexico?

Surely you jest!

Roy
I'm responding to you because you seem like a thoughtful person. I appreciate your misgivings about the LDS Church and especially appreciate that you are willing to think about voting for a Mormon candidate.

One question: Where do you get your information about the Church? The reason I ask is that many of the things you wrote look like they are written by someone who hates the Church. Not a good way to get information, in my opinion.

If you are willing to look at any responses to your assertions with an open mind, let me know. If not, it's really not worth time discussing them.

Either way, I'll keep you in my prayers.

Dr. North
No kidding! I wholeheartedly agree. What is wrong with people anyway?

toro
He's right here, only he is better than Reagan. Dr. Paul actually DOES what he says.

Ron Paul for President '08

http://www.ronpaul.org/
http://www.youtube.com/RonPaul2008dotcom
http://www.myspace.com/ronpaul2008
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul-arch.html

Abortion
From official LDS web site

http://www.lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/menuitem.3933737ad2ff28132eb22a86942826a0/?vgnextoid=bbd508f54922d010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=63c139b439c98010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____

Human life is a sacred gift from God. Elective abortion for personal or social convenience is contrary to the will and the commandments of God. Church members who submit to, perform, encourage, pay for, or arrange for such abortions may lose their membership in the Church.

Better.....
I like the fact that the son is speaking up for his Dad.

Let's compare, shall we????

Rudy: Wife #3 was too much for his kids, so they are not even speaking.

W: Two drunken daughters throwing up in the streets of Argentina.

Jeb: Daughter in jail for crack; son drunk in the streets of Austin.

Mitt won't make it past the "Christian" voters, but it's good to know some of these people can raise their children well.

The 'Money Primary'
Interesting to note that Mitt raised $23M for the 1Q. Seems like there are a lot of people who are willing to put their money where their mouth is...

CaballeroKid
"Secondly, this is not a forum for religious discussion."

Oh yes it is. Unlike the left, the right is overwhelmingly religious, and we don't stop being who we are just because we're logged onto townhall.com.

drzen
;)

J Turner
Your post has more excellent thoughts and comments than any other comment here. Imagine that, using literary methods to ascertain something of value.

Too bad that the "readers" have ignored it in their rush to judgment.

I thank you for your outline.

wild mormon fairy tales?
So the Mormon's believe in "wild fairy tales"?

Oh...you mean like a man who died living again?

Or...A vigin being with child?

Or...the Parting of the Red Sea? Manna in the Desert? Water struck from a rock by a wooden staff?

Or Angels appearing to men?


If you are a Christian you had better think really hard about what you believe.


As a Mormon I believe in all the above. The reason I believe is that Angels belong to our day as well. God has spoken again.

If you believe in Bible precedents you have to admit that it happened before. Why shouldn't it happen again?

Mormon on abortion...
A shorter URL for Mormon position on abortion also leads to other questions about church and state relationships.

http://www.ldsfaq.byu.edu/view.asp?q=22

Why listen to nattering nabobs of negativity when you can go straight to the source.

LDS.org
Mormon.org
BYU.edu
BlackLDS.org

and the largest Genealogy source in the world.

Reply to Brett
I am not a Mormon, Brett.
There are Mormons and there are Mormons; there are Catholics and there are Catholics. What I mean by that is that not everyone that claims a religion adheres or even believes in everything their religion teaches.

Mormons believe in having more than one wife. Does Mitt have more than one? Nope! Do you think he believes that's a good idea? Doubt it!

As far as the question to me on where Mitt stands on:

1.Immigration
2.Abortion
3.2nd Amendment
4.Gay marriage

Immigration. I don't see that he has 'flip-flopped' on that issue. He signed a document for training law enforcement agents to detain illegal immigrants.

He has also said he doesn't believe in forcing out 11 million people that are already here, and would rather see them becoming citizens.

That is not flip-flopping; its saying either apply for citizenship, pay taxes like everyone else, or you're going to be arrested. I have to agree with his stance. We are never going to rid ourselves of that many people in this country...by the time you get 2 million out, there'll be another 2 million to replace them. It would be a never-ending cycle.

Abortion. Romney initially felt that a woman should have the option to abort when there was incest, rape, or possible death for the mother. I think that is understandable.
But, then...stem cell research came into the picture, where it would also be alright for embryos to be destroyed for research and production of tissue. This put a whole new spin on the subject. Mitt was against this and changed his position due to this possibility.
Either way you can see that he has a conscience and follows it in making decisions. He didn't go from "Abortions are okay" to "Abortions are bad". Its not that cut and dried, Brett!

2nd Amendment. Again, Romney signed for a ban in regard to gun control. That ban outlaws assault weapons. Romney also is a member of the National Rifle Assoc. Is that "flip-flopping"? No. What he is saying is that we have the right to have guns, but they should be used in a responsible manner and not for the purpose of criminal behavior. People want to use the 2nd Ammendment to continue their criminal activiites and I say good for Mitt!

Gay Marriage. You may say he's flip-flopping on this issue, but you'd be wrong again, Brett. Mitt does not personally believe same-sex marriage or civil unions should be legally acceptable by the state. However, he feels people living in a [i]relationship[/i] similar to marriage, should be allowed equal rights as citizens, which means benefits that married couples are allowed. This is not being hypocritical or changing your mind on an issue. It is standing firm on your beliefs, but being fair about it.

Anything else you want to debate, Britt?

C Pearl
Great responses!

The problem is, most of the people here have no wish to debate or examine anyone on their merits.

They simply wish to throw mud into the arena.

That is easy to see.

C~Pearl
Good stuff. As Lizzie said, Brett probably doesn't want to discuss anything, but it's important that you get the information out there for others who care.

Just one correction: Mormons don't believe in polygamy--it's been banned by the Church for over 100 years.

Again, thanks for your comment.

to Lydia
Information obtained from critics and opponents will usually be biased and incorrect.

Try reading what the source has to say about plural marriage.


See http://www.mormon.org for answers to other questions you may have.

Question:
What is the Church’s position on polygamy?

Answer:
In 1998, President Gordon B. Hinckley made the following statement about the Church's position on plural marriage:

"This Church has nothing whatever to do with those practicing polygamy. They are not members of this Church. . . . If any of our members are found to be practicing plural marriage, they are excommunicated, the most serious penalty the Church can impose. Not only are those so involved in direct violation of the civil law, they are in violation of the law of this Church."

At various times, the Lord has commanded His people to practice plural marriage. For example, He gave this command to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, David, and Solomon (Doctrine and Covenants 132:1).

In this dispensation, the Lord commanded some of the early Saints to practice plural marriage. The Prophet Joseph Smith and those closest to him, including Brigham Young and Heber C. Kimball, were challenged by this command, but they obeyed it. Church leaders regulated the practice. Those entering into it had to be authorized to do so, and the marriages had to be performed through the sealing power of the priesthood. In 1890, President Wilford Woodruff received a revelation that the leaders of the Church should cease teaching the practice of plural marriage.

Just Who is the More Authentic Christian
Could Mitt Romney be more "Christian" than Evangelicals? Protestants and Catholics subscribe to the Nicene creed, which was initiated by the Emperor Constantine in the Fourth Century to rid Scriptures of the Apocrypha, which made reference to the oral traditions of Jewish and early Christian temple worship.

First Century Christian churches, in fact, continued the Jewish temple worship traditions:
1) Baptism of youth (not infants) by immersion by the father of the family
2) Lay clergy
3) Anointing with holy oil after baptism
4) Then clothing in white clothing

Just check with the Israeli Museum to verify. And read Exodus Ch 29 for Aaron and his sons” ordinances. Jewish Temple practices were continued by Christians prior to Constantine”s corruption (see St. Cyril of Jerusalem (315-386) Lecture XXI). Early Christians were persecuted for keeping their practices sacred, and not allowing non-Christians to witness them

A literal reading of the New Testament points to God and Jesus Christ being separate beings, united in purpose. To whom was Jesus praying in Gethsemane, and to whom was he speaking on the Mount of Transfiguration?

The Nicene Creed”s definition of the Trinity was influenced by scribes translating the Greek manuscripts into Latin. The scribes embellished on a passage explaining the Trinity, which is the Catholic and Protestant belief that God is Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The oldest versions of the epistle of 1 John, read: "There are three that bear witness: the Spirit, the water and the blood and these three are one."
Scribes later added "the Father, the Word and the Spirit," and it remained in the epistle when it was translated into English for the King James Version, according to Dr. Bart Ehrman, Chairman of the Religion Department at UNC- Chapel Hill.

Members of the Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) have concern for their ancestors” spiritual welfare, so they practice proxy baptism. (1 Corinthians 15:29 & Malachi 4:5-6).

Only members of the Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) continue these practices of First Century Christians. But Mormons don”t term Catholics and Protestants “non-Christian”. The dictionary definition of a Christian is “of, pertaining to, believing in, or belonging to a religion based on the teachings of Jesus Christ”:. All of the above denominations are followers of Christ, and consider him the Messiah foretold in the Old Testament.

It”s important to understand the difference between Reformation and Restoration when we consider who might be the more authentic Christian. If Mitt Romney is a member of a denomination which embraces early Christian theology, he is likely more “Christian” than his detractors.

* * *
Furthermore, a UCLA study found that observant members of the Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) in their 50s and 60s had one-twentieth the divorce rate, abuse rate, or substance abuse of a demographically similar group in Southern California.

And the National Study of Youth and Religion done by UNC-Chapel Hill in 2005 found that Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) youth (ages 13 to 17) were more likely to exhibit these Christian characteristics than Evangelicals (the next most observant group):
LDS Evangelical
Attend Religious Services weekly 71% 55%
Importance of Religious Faith in shaping daily life –
extremely important 52 28
Believes in life after death 76 62
Believes in psychics or fortune-tellers 0 5
Has taught religious education classes 42 28
Has fasted or denied something as spiritual discipline 68 22
Sabbath Observance 67 40
Shared religious faith with someone not of their faith 72 56
Family talks about God, scriptures, prayer daily 50 19
Supportiveness of church for parent in trying to raise teen
(very supportive) 65 26
Church congregation has done an excellent job in helping
Teens better understand their own sexuality and sexual morality 84 35


Just who has Polygamous Ancestry?
You don't hear a peep from the Mainstream Media about Barack Obama's polygamous FATHER (who had four wives simulaneously, but abandoned three of them and didn't support his children.) Barack Obama (called Barry by his white grandmother) now disowns his white grandmother and says his father's fourth polygamous wife is his grandmother.

But the MSM only have comments about Mormons' long-abandoned practice of polygamy.

macfan1950
Mac, (If I may call you that) when I said Mormons believe in having more than one wife, I was referring to original doctrine.

Religion, like anything else that has the ability to change with time, will change. The Mormon religion has done that. They, Mormons, for the most part do not live as polygamists in today's society, however, there are STILL pockets here and there in the U.S. that desire to adhere to the fundamental belief of the Mormon religion, or 'church'.

The Catholic church has also changed. In fact, it has changed its 'rules' since I was a child being brought up as a Catholic. I recall not being allowed to enter the church building unless you wore something on your head. I remember not being able to eat fish on fridays. I remember the Mass being said in Latin. Those things have changed...along with my being a Catholic. :)

You are correct in that modern Mormons don't practice polygamy, but Mormon fundamentalists do....or try to. So, perhaps we are both right to some degree. ;)

amulek
Thanks for being a reasonable Mormon and not defending past LDS Prophets and teachings. You sound like a person who is not afraid of the truth.

My only point is that Mormons need to stop acting like Victims and admit that the ONLY reason Mormonism even exists is because Joseph Smith's claims in his First Vision that God told him that ALL Christian Churches and creeds were an "abomination" in his sight. This is the WHOLE foundation and reason the "True" church needed to be restored. This is why Mormons try to convert Baptists, Methodists, etc to Mormonism. Mormons do not consider themselves to be just another denomination. Mormons claim they are the "True" Church. ALL others are heretics just like you said.

I agree with you that Mormons and Christians are natural allies in this fight against the secular liberals. Like I said earlier, I would never vote for Rudy or McCain. I would vote for Romney if he will require ALL LAW breaking illegal aliens to go back home and apply for a visa just like ALL of the Law abiding people who are waiting in line. I will NOT vote for anyone for President who believes in REWARDING 10 to 20 million LAW breakers.

McConkie was NOT making up Doctrine he was summarizing teachings from Prophets Smith and Young. His goal as a LDS scriptorian was to correctly summarize Mormon doctrine and create a LDS reference book for the church members. He was NEVER censured; however, LDS Church leaders who were embarassed by his factual summary on a few key points, asked him to make some corrections and not to claim it was authorized (which he agreed to). Even McConkie was embarrassed by the teachings of Prophet Young; however, McConkie thought he was being a faithful Mormon when he quoted Prophet Young.

Anyways, I am thankful that Mormons try to live by the Biblical commandments. I agree with Mormons on probably 95% of the political issues.
However, as a Christian, I am commanded by the Scriptures to earnestly contend for the faith.
That is why I point out the truth about Mormon doctrine or teachings even when it causes Mormons to disagree and call me a hater or anti-Mormon just because I do NOT believe it is the "True" restored Christian Church.








Bot - are you kidding Exodus 29
So where did the First Century Christians go to continue their Jewish TEMPLE worship traditions?

Wow, you really opened up a can of worms.
So tell us where in any ancient documents do we find TEMPLE marriages? Hmmm... Why were the secret handshakes in the Mormon TEMPLE ceremonies just like or similiar to the Masonic lodge secret ceremonies that Smith and Young also belonged to?

Speaking of Exodus 29, where is the blood sacrific of the bull and rams in the Mormon ceremony? Or don't you believe in following these sacred ordinances anymore?

Please give us a verifiable reference that any Orthodox Jews every performed any Marriage or Baptism in a Jewish Temple. Then maybe you have a point. I have NEVER heard ANY non-Mormon claim there is evidence for this.


CaballeroKid:

first:
please do correct my incorrect statements.
you can check many places for what the lds believes and teaches.
here is just one: http://www.douknow.net/whatdomormonsteach.htm.
i am not a mormon hater; i would like all to find salvation and restore their relationship with God.
but, this is only possible thru repentance and trust in Jesus Christ.

i did not know (and don't need to as senator reid is not a senator from my state)
that senator reid was a lds member.
however i do believe that senator reid (and the others in the fifth column group
on capitol hill and in the media) are doing more damage to this country
than anyone else in the history of this country (the greatest on God's green earth).

you are correct in saying that i am not voting for a pastor.
but, do you know of any pastors in this country's' history that was, or will be,
the leader over 300 million people?

everyone decides whom to vote for in their own way.
the bill of rights, constitution, or it's amendments do not state that
an individual can use only a specified list of qualifications to chose their candidate(s).
although, those on the left would probably like to change this thru the judiciary.

for me, a candidates' faith is number one on the list of qualities.
those of the mormon, jehovah's witness, buddhist, hindu, muslim, satanist,
humanist and atheist, (and many others) faiths are not acceptable to me.

narrow minded? yes.
but so is 'no one comes to the father but thru me'.
sound familiar?

secondly:
this is a forum for opinion; religious or otherwise.
it the left that wants to profess tolerance and then tell you to shut up.

thirdly:
i don't know senator obama's or president clinton's state of salvation; only God does.
however, i disagree with almost all of their positions on issues that are important to
me and the survival of this country.

lastly:
i think i qualify as having a backbone and taking a stance.


p.s.; check out: http://www.wayofthemaster.com/goodperson.shtml

US Leaders should be faithful Christians
Christians are called to be honest, trustworthy, faithful, and respectful. They are called to NOT be drunkards, liars, deceivers, greedy, lustful, etc...

So now in this moral relativistic period, why would I vote for any candidate who was not a faithful Christian? Moral relativistic people now have no problem with lying or cheating depending on the situation. Most Americans did not favor removing Clinton from office for obstruction of justice.

We do not need untrustworthy, power crazy leaders in the most powerful job in the world.

Mitt, while I do not consider him a Christian, appears to try to live by the some of the teachings except the "Thou shall not kill" one. Given his former support for the right of women to choose abortion, I just don't know if I can trust him now. Mitt was not stupid.

Brett
If you keep straining to find things about Mitt Romney to complain about, you just might burst a blood vessel. That would indeed be a tragedy.

No strain - I wish it were harder
So if you are OK with 10 to 20 million LAW breakers being REWARDED for breaking our LAWS, is it OK if I and 25 million other US Citizens stop paying our Federal Income Taxes for 20 years and then we get amnesty and you don't because you kept paying your Federal Income Taxes.

So why should anyone obey any Federal laws?
So the lesson learned from you is, if you don't like a Federal Law just break it.

Re: U.S. Christian Leader

Brett,it is apparent that you either didn't read my post to you, or you choose to ignore it.

Stop making things up.

And, while you're at, try writing things that make sense or don't bother to post.

Macfan 1950
Hi - Not sure if you have returned to this site, but you asked where I got my material re Mormons.

Many sources. To begin with I live very near a Mormon edifice and have attended there several times. I've done genealogical research there - but also in Salt Lake City. Discovered that many of my ancestors have been baptized. Somewhat offensive, though I suspect that Mormons think they are doing them a favor!

I have studied other religions - used to teach comparative religions in college for awhile (now retired). I have come to appreciate Mormon people generally, but what they have to believe is quite wild to someone living in today's world.

I don't even know where to begin. Those buried gold plates. Unim and thummin - or a hat. That battle where everyone (2 million) were killed except one on either side. All that history?? unconfirmed by any neutral source. All the words in the Book of Mormon that are precisely like those in the Elizabethan KJ Bible, translated many years later (1611). Changes made in the Book of Mormon after the original edition (allegedly dictated to Joseph). The witnesses that left the church. The resignation of Egyptologist Dee Jay Nelson from the church. God was an evolved man with physical parts and passions. This whole question of polygamy. Was it from Joseph or from Brigham? There was only a year before the 'revelation' to Joseph's death. How many wives? Sealing marriages - men may have more than one in heaven (if they became widowers in this life and remarry). Garden of Eden in Missouri. Freemason influences strong in rituals.

I could go on and on. I have read the Book of Mormon, Doctrines and Covenants, Pearl of Great Price, many books from all viewpoints. Have dialogued several times with Mormon missionaries. Seen films in Salt Lake City and NYC, across from Lincoln Center. Sorry, but I can't believe the unbelievable. I recall at the Mormon center nearby a chart focusing on 4000 BC as the time of Adam and Eve etc. Just too primitive for my mind. As a liberal Protestant, I put such unscientific ideas on the shelf years ago. I treasure my freedom to think for myself, to interpret scripture myself, and refuse to follow the dictates of any church. The Mormon church has much too much of a hierarchy for me - old, pious and archaic men. But you do produce some good music.

Nonetheless, keep smiling.

C~Pearl sorry didn't have time to reply
C~Pearl since you are not a Mormon and you are not Mitt, how do you know what he believes?
His great great grandfather practiced Polygamy.
Mormon Prophet Young said you could not reach Godhood unless you actually had plural wives. I know I used to be a Mormon. There are a lot more strange teachings in Mormonism. So yes, I am glad Mitt rejects some of them. Maybe he doesn't even believe that the Mormon Church is the only "True" church. I could accept that answer from him pretty easily given his flexibiilty.

I just do NOT see how an intelligent person like Mitt, who knows that the taking of innocent life is murder, can say he supports a woman's right to choose to kill her baby. And then try to justify his flip-flop by claiming stem cell research opened his eyes. He should have just said I was wrong to support abortion and I have learned from that mistake. End of story.
It's his lame excuses that make pro-life conservatives nervous that he may be just another social RINO trying to trick us.

I did not say he flip-flopped on every issue.

I had not heard (according to your post) that Romney is for allowing 11 million people that are already here, and would rather see them becoming citizens.

So if that is his RINO position, I will NOT vote for him. Allowing MILLIONS of illegal invaders to stay and become citizens is an act of cowardice (by a Rich man who apparently got his, so too bad for the rest of you).

Apparently (according to you) Romney believes in REWARDING millions of LAW breakers with US citizenship. So what should the millions (who were waiting patiently and legally in line) do now. Easy answer, get to the US ASAP using any means possible, so they can be REWARDED too.

When this happens ask yourself one question, WHY should any US Citizen continue to pay Federal Income Taxes? Why not wait for a Tax amnesty?

Viva la Revolution!



Response to Brett
How do I know what he believes? Its called 'reading', 'listening', and 'observing'. Try it.

Mitt Romney grew up in the Mormon church and still claims it as his religious faith...he can't very well claim any other, since he doesn't attend other churches. And what his great-great grandfather did has little bearing on Mitt Romneys's present beliefs today. Inotherwords, to view Romney as someone who might endorse polygamy, or even label him 'untrustworthy' because his great-great grandfather was one, would be foolish.

I can't really speak for Romney, but I can understand his position on abortion and why he made the choices he did. Some choices are very difficult, but he seems to be a person that decides on what is the best and most reasonable and logical one. When stem cell research would have been included into the law, he was against it, imho, because there was not enough justifiable reason in his own mind, for them to destroy embryos for the sake of science and medicine. He was seeing it in a different perspective, didn't like it, and didn't want it included in a law. If you want to blame him for actually *thinking* about the situation, that is your choice. But, to criticize someone for making the effort to do that is not very fair-minded, imho.

As far as immigration goes, again, Mitt is displaying his sense of logic and realizes we have to be realistic about this problem. It is easy enough to say, let's throw them all out! A great many of us would like to do that, but the problem is *doing it*! Do you have any idea of what is involved? It is a time consuming, expensive task and probably wouldn't work in the long run. I don't think he is against re-enforcing our border to stop the flow of illegals crossing our borders, but we still have to deal with those who are already here and have been for decades! But, don't assume that he is *for* illegals remaining in this country without requiroing them to become citizens or contributing to our economy.

Again, let me reitterate; Romney wants to allow illegal immigrants to be detained by local law enforcers (which most states do not now do), so they can be either be shipped out, or in some cases allowed/helped to apply for citizenship.
Remember, many illegals do not speak English and are fearful of letting anyone...especially government officials and law enforcement know of their status, which keeps them from getting the help they need for citizenship.

Of course, coming into this country under illegal status is wrong in the first place, but as we can see, it has become rampant and there has been nothing done about it for so many years that we now face a serious problem. Straightening out that problem is going to be very difficult and as it stands, the indifference that has been the attitude, now has spawned a great deal of controversy on the subject. Doing it right is crucial.

C~Pearl
You wrote: "You are correct in that modern Mormons don't practice polygamy, but Mormon fundamentalists do....or try to. So, perhaps we are both right to some degree."

There are people who practice polygamy and refer to themselves as 'Mormon fundamentalists', but they are nothing more than imposters. If they ever belonged to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, they don't now, because they have been excommunicated.

I see your point, though, that there are many people who will consider themselves adherents to a certain religion, when in actuality, they are members of that religion in name only.

Thanks again for your comment.

Roy
Great to see you have explored the Church from every angle. I appreciate that you have taken the time to delve into more than the shallow anti-Mormon stuff that continues to float around.

Having taught comparative religion classes, do you belong to any particular one?

If so, would you consider any of your beliefs fantastic if seen by a 'non-believer'?

If not, how do you feel about the claims of other religions who believe in miracles of any sort (the resurrection of Christ, as just one example)?

The above questions get back to the real political question here:

Should we discount a candidates' legitamacy if he / she believes in anything we can't explain readily?

C~Pearl only wants easy answers
I was thinking I could vote for Romney.
Thank you for convincing me that he doesn't have a logical reason for his flip-flop on abortion.

Thank you for convincing me that he cannot be trusted on Immigration because it might be a "time consuming, expensive task" and a "serious problem". Based on your logic we should have surrended in WWI, WWII, and now Iraq.

We tried amnesty before, it doesn't work. Yes, enforcing laws can be time consuming and expensive. No one says it going to be easy. However, it this day and age, National Security demands it. If Romney doesn't understand the severity of this issue, he is not as smart as he claims or he is a dupe for Big Business who want cheap workers.

The conservative answer on solving this illegal invasion is two-fold:
1. Employer verification of all employees.
Any illegal caught using a false social security card would be fined $10,000 per instance and deported.
Any employer caught knowingly hiring illegals would be fined $10,000 per person. If they have hired more than 5 illegals in a year, they will also be imprisoned one year per illegal employee.
2. A border fence will be built using both physical barriers and electronic survaliance.
Any illegal caught crossing the border will be fingerprinted and immediately deported back across the border. If caught a second time based on fingerprint evidence, the illegals will be lined up and executed. This is a WAR to defend our borders. No fooling around.

We fought and won two really difficult World Wars in less than 5 years each. I think with the above approach illegals will self deport and they will also NOT even try to cross the border because the JOBS will dry up and they will not want to be executed.

So is it really that difficult or do we just lack the will to WIN the WAR to defend our borders.


Update to previous post
I almost forgot. If you file a frivilious Federal Income Tax return, the Feds can fine you up to $25,000 per tax return. Since illegals also have to file knowingly false (or frivilious) Fed Tax returns using false social security numbers, it follows the fine should be at least the same amount.

So I amend my original post as follows:
1. Employer verification of all employees.
Any illegal caught using a false social security card would be fined $25,000 per instance and deported.
Any employer caught knowingly hiring illegals would be fined $25,000 per person. If they have hired more than 5 illegals in a year, they will also be imprisoned one year per illegal employee.

If the illegals don't have the money (which most will not), the Feds will have to seize their property (just like the IRS does).

News reports of these seizure stories will quickly spread among the illegals and kill the incentive to come or stay here.

Religion and the Presidency
That the fact that Mitt Romney is a Mormon will play a big role in whether he will be elected as President. Perhaps it shouldn't, but I am quite sure it will, since there are people in this country who follow religions that have greater numbers than the Mormon church. Or to put it simply, Mormons are not in the majority.

In addition, I venture to guess that the majority of those other followers of other religions know little about religions other than their own. That alone will create suspicion towards a candidate that is not of their own 'church'.

To judge a person fairly, if you are unfamiliar with the candidate's religion, you would have to gain some knowledge about that religion before making any decision as to his worthiness to be President.

It is also important to observe that person in respect to his religion. You'd have to ask yourself, "How big a role does his religion play in his life?" or "Is his religion radical?", meaning does his church believe in outrageous things that people would find completely unacceptable?

The important thing is to remember that all major religions have a common thread, and that is, that they all believe in some greater power whether called 'God' or 'Allah' or whatever.
And to be a participant in a religion means you have the desire to live a lifestyle that honors that greater power, or God. Is that a bad thing? Not in my mind.

So, I will not be suspicious of Mitt Romney because he is a Mormon. The fact he makes the effort to live his life in a way that is respectable, honest and 'clean' gives me reason to find him every bit as acceptable as other candidates of other religions.

Re: C~Pearl wants easy answers
Brett, your 'outline' sounds all well and good (except for the lining them up and shooting them part), but its not going to happen and I'll tell you why.

Corporate America runs this country (sad, I know) and they *love* immigrants! They have more power in the White House than you and all the rest of us. So, until you can change that, you won't see any of your 'outline' becoming a reality.

Is it time for Revolution yet? :)

How sad...
I think it is pretty sad that the United States allows a person's child to be something they are obviously not cut out to be just because of who daddy or mommy might be.

I also don't believe that Townhall would publish this article. I will have to think long and hard about what I will read from now on.

And this has nothing to do with religion, as I sincerely believe in the right to practice your particular choice of religion.

Daddy has faith in his child and makes the child a person of high rank in his political campaign...whoopee.. What does that mean to me? NOTHING. If you want to convince me that this man is the person who should be the president, tell me something he has done for someone NOT in his family...not some superman story from a child who is making MONEY being an advisor. And if you are going to make some kind of statement about how HE is the onel that made for the successful Olympics... How much of the money that was spent came out of his pocket? I could care less about someone's ability to spend my money, politicians have been doing a poor job of that all my life.

Give me a break...This sounds more like the whimpering of a spoiled child hoping daddy can be president than the truth about what daddy will bring to the office.

Re: How Sad
Sorry, Ripper, but your post has done nothing more than demonstrate your bitterness towards successful people and let us know of your financial woes.

I think Taggarts article showed by way of a simple story, some of the characteristics that his father possesses, and that is, that he is frugal (you should love that) and a fair-minded individual.

His article was not a political campaign speech, and wasn't meant to be; it was simply giving us an inside peek at the man himself through his son's eyes.

C~Pearl circular logic
Yes, Big Business has too much influence on the immigration policy. Will Romney stand up against Big Business on this issue? Apparently not, even though he has made over $500 million dollars in the Venture Capital business.

So, conservatives cannot trust him on immigration. This helps us narrow the field.

Tancredo, Hunter, Huckabee?, and maybe Thompson are the remaining possibliites.

Thank you for pointing out that Romney supports the Corporate America side of this issue.

Conservatives make up the majority of the Republican voters in the primaries. We will not accept RINOs like Rudy, McCain, or Romney.


C~Pearl Re:Religion and the Presidency
You need to study the founding of the Mormon church by Joseph Smith and Brigham Young before you spout off your uneducated views.

1. Polygamy was originally REQUIRED (not optional) by the Mormon Church if you were a faithful follower that wanted to get to the celestial kingdom (to be with God in heaven).
What does Mitt think of this? Does he believe Joseph Smith was a true Prophet and God required Polygamy in order to be with God in Heaven?

2. Mormons didn't allow Blacks to hold the Priesthood until 1978 (because they were unworthy as a race). So what did Mitt do to oppose his church's racist belief in the 1970s? He graduated from BYU in 1972 and got his dual MBA and Law degrees in 1975 from Harvard. His website claims he was deeply involved in community and civic affairs. Did he ever denounce this racism in public?
Does he claim he did anything to change the policy? Nope. Or did he just go along with his church's racism? Yep. So he supported his church's racist policy.

Do you honestly think the Democrats and the MSM will give him a free pass on these two issues? Or will they dig up every crazy quote from Prophets Smith and Young and force him to denounce their extreme beliefs on National TV.

They will they label him as a former racist and grandson of polygamists and try to make him look like a religious nutcase for being a faithful Mormon. This will not be hard to do.

Is that who we really want for the Republician candidate? Or is it safer to go with Duncan Hunter or Tom Tancredo?






Brett
You are WRONG!!!

Official "Mormon" church doctrine NEVER required all male members to have more than one wife to get to the celestial kingdom.

You are WRONG again!!

Official "Mormon" church doctrine NEVER states the priesthood was withheld from blacks "because they were unworthy as a race". Some may have thought and said such things but they were only expressing their own opinion. Opinion is not doctrine.

Official "Mormon" church doctrine is canonized in the in their "scriptures"

The Bible
The Book of Mormon
The Doctrine and Covenants
The Pearl of Great Price

gunlock is wrong -- Prophet Young says
Prophet Brigham Young quotes about polygamy:
"The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 11, page 269).
"Now if any of you will deny the plurality of wives, and continue to do so, I promise that you will be damned." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 3, p. 266).

Prophet Young also said "I know just as well what to teach this people and just what to say to them and what to do in order to bring them into the celestial kingdom...I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call SCRIPTURE. Let me have the privilege of correcting a sermon, and it is as good Scripture as they deserve. The people have the oracles of God continually." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 13, p. 95.)

So I do not see how you can argue with the Prophet Brigham Young about his teachings if you want to go to the celestial kingdom. UNLESS you think you have a better relationship with GOD than Prophet Young did. POLYGAMY was a REQUIREMENT to go to the celestial kingdom according to your own Prophet at the time. You can deny it all you want, but it won't make it go away. You actually make it worse and force people to keep quoting Young. This makes you look delusional.

Prophet Brigham Young quotes about blacks:
"You see some classes of the human family that are black, uncouth, uncomely, disagreeable and low in their habits, wild, and seemingly deprived of nearly all the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind....Cain slew his brother. Cain might have been killed, and that would have put a termination to that line of human beings. This was not to be, and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 7, page 290).
"Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so." (Journal of Discourses, Volume 10, page 110.)

So why were blacks not allowed the priesthood until 1978. If you say it was because of the mark of Cain that identifies blacks, then that is a racial mark. Therefore, blacks were inferior to non-blacks. This is the standard defintion of racism. Go ahead and try to justify it. A more honest approach would be to admit the Mormon church was wrong to think blacks were unworthy of the priesthood just because they were blacks.

I am very glad most mainstream Mormons since 1978 are not following these teachings. I do think Hinckley is trying to make the Mormons into mainstream christians. He even claims he doesn't know much about the "God was once a man" couplet.

I even think Mormons will eventually stop teaching that "man may become a god" doctrine because it's too extreme.


Brett
You are wrong!!!

Nowhere have you quoted "mormon scripture.

You continue to quote Journal of Discourses as if Mormons are bound by it. They are not, and you know it. Quit try to deceive people over this.

Brigham Young on race
Brett,

Round and round you go. I love how you conveniently splice comments made by past prophets to your liking. Again, you get points for creativity. Here is something else Brigham Young had to say on the race issue, taken from one of the talks you quoted, but for some odd reason you left this part out:

"If the Government of the United States, in Congress assembled, had the right to pass an anti-polygamy bill, they had also the right to pass a law that slaves should not be abused as they have been; they had also a right to make a law that negroes should be used like human beings, and not worse than dumb brutes. For their abuse of that race, the whites will be cursed, unless they repent.

I am neither an abolitionist nor a pro-slavery man. If I could have been influenced by private injury to choose one side in preference to the other, I should certainly be against the pro-slavery side of the question, for it was pro-slavery men that pointed the bayonet at me and my brethren in Missouri, and said, "Damn you we will kill you." I have not much love for them, only in the Gospel. I would cause them to repent, if I could, and make them good men and a good community. I have no fellowship for their avarice, blindness, and ungodly actions. To be great, is to be good before the Heavens and before all good men. I will not fellowship the wicked in their sins, so help me God."

Go ahead, try and spin it.

Brigham Young on polygamy
Here is another quote from BY on polygamy, also from a talk you cited, but yet again you left this portion out. I apologize for its length, but its instructive:

"It is not through lust that men and women are to practise this doctrine, but it is to be observed upon righteous principles; and, if men and women would pay attention to those instructions, I would promise, in the name of the Lord, that you would never find them lustful in their dispositions, and you might watch them as closely as you pleased.

Plurality of wives is not designed to afflict you nor me, but is purposed for our exaltation in the kingdoms of God. If any man had asked me what was my choice when Joseph revealed that doctrine, provided that it would not diminish my glory, I would have said, "Let me have but one wife;" not because it is not a great comfort to me to have children, but if I have not children I know them not.

Some of these my brethren know what my feelings were at the time Joseph revealed the doctrine; I was not desirous of shrinking from any duty, nor of failing in the least to do as I was commanded, but it was the first time in my life that I had desired the grave, and I could hardly get over it for a long time. And when I saw a funeral, I felt to envy the corpse its situation, and to regret that I was not in the coffin, knowing the toil and labor that my body would have to undergo; and I have had to examine myself, from that day to this, and watch my faith, and carefully meditate, lest I should be found desiring the grave more than I ought to do.

You will probably wonder at this, and that such should have been my feelings upon this point, but they were even so.

Now if any of you will deny the plurality of wives, and continue to do so, I promise that you will be damned; and I will go still further and say, take this revelation, or any other revelation that the Lord has given, and deny it in your feelings, and I promise that you will be damned."

A little context adds a lot to Brigham Young's statement. Polygamy was, at the time, and is no longer, a revelation or commandment from God (with biblical precedent, I might add, but you probably glossed over that as well). Brett, you would agree with Brigham, wouldn't you, that denying the revelations of God would put your salvation in a peculiar position?

Bravado - proves my point
Thank you for admitting that Polygamy was REQUIRED to go to the celestial kingdom according to Mormonism at that time.

Unfortunately for Mormons, the New Testament had already made it clear that a Christian man was to only have one wife. So who you gonna believe the Bible or some new religious leader who contradicts it. Since the Bible has been proved to be more reliable than Mormon doctrine (which appears to be flexible and can change depending only on who the new man in charge is).

Again, thank you for NOT denying that Polygamy used to be REQUIRED like gunlock bill (who is either a liar or a delusional nutcase).

Bravado - so B.Y. was a nice racist
First he says about all Blacks: "You see some classes of the human family that are black, uncouth, uncomely, disagreeable and low in their habits, wild, and seemingly deprived of nearly all the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind ..."

Anwser how that statement is not racist?

You try to defend it by quoting (without dates and references) hime where he says he is "neither an abolitionist nor a pro-slavery man" that means he is not a racist. I would say it just means he is a nice racist.

Millions of Christians back then were for abolition and ran the underground railroads. If Young wasn't a racist he would have agreed with the abolitionists. To be a fence sitter and to claim to be a Prophet of God, and then deny the Priesthood to Blacks (which prevented them from going to the celestial kingdom) makes God look racist. I will stick with the Bible which never made a claim that your race would prevent you from going to heaven.

I predict one day Mormons will admit that the Prophet Brigham Young was wrong on this issue and thant Blacks should NEVER have been denied the Priesthood. Only individuals (not races) based on their unworthiness cannot go to the celestial kingdom.

I also predict that both the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham will be dropped from the list of approved Mormon scriptures by a future Mormon Prophet (voted out by the LDS membership) because they have been proven to be historically fraudulent.

I look forward to that day.

Brett
Still no quote of actual "mormon" scripture. Can't do it can you!

Clarifications
Brett,

First off, don't expect me to answer any of your questions if you are simply going to ignore mine.

Second, you've created a false contradiction by misreading gunlock bill's statements. He said polygamy was never required of all male members, which is consistent with the historical practice and Brigham Young's statement above. Some were called upon to engage in the practice, but most weren't. For those who weren't, they still needed to believe in the revelations of God.

Third, where in the bible does it say that the practice of polygamy had been forever done away with and that God could not recall it if he so desired? That the practice in new testament times was one man and one woman I don't dispute, but thats not the same as saying God couldn't institute the practice again if he wanted (unless of course you have a scripture to support that).

And while we're on the subject, what of Paul's comment to "[l]et your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience." Sounds kind of sexist don't you think? Will you denounce Paul as you have Brigham, or will you chalk it up to outdated social practices/beliefs that are now outdated and irrelevant?

Fourth, Brigham Young was hardly a fence sitter on the race issue. Maybe you didn't catch the part about him saying whites would be cursed for their harsh treatment of blacks. And by the way, which group of people are his comments directed to? Could it be ... gasp ... mainstream Christians who for years practiced slavery and justified it by the scriptures? Let he who is without sin (maybe you think this is you Brett, you seem to act as though you do) cast the first stone.

Fifth, I stated that the BY passages I quoted came from two of the same sermons you cited. You have the references, look them up if you want to verify them. It'll be educational reading for you.

I predict that your predictions (or should I call them prophesies ... is there a prophet among us?) are ridiculous and will never come to pass.


Listen to Prophet words not gunlock
Prophet Brigham Young said "I know just as well what to teach this people and just what to say to them and what to do in order to bring them into the celestial kingdom...I have NEVER yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call SCRIPTURE. Let me have the privilege of correcting a sermon, and it is as good Scripture as they deserve. The people have the oracles of God continually." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 13, p. 95.)

So who you gonna believe gunlock bill or the PROPHET Brigham Young who said he would never mislead them and that his sermons were as good as scripture. And sure enough some of his sermons are NOW in the Mormon Doctrines & Covenants. So if you lived at the time of Prophet Young didn't you have to obey his commandments.

Granted it's easier to take gunlock bill's position and ignore Brigham Young since he's dead. However, historically most of the Mormons went along with the Prophet and practiced Polygamy. I do NOT think the women thought it was optional.

I have lots more quotes from Prophets Smith and Young if you want to keep defending their twisted views on blacks, marriage, men on the moon, etc...





Brett
Still no quote of actual "mormon" scripture. Can't do it can you!

So who
are you going to believe when it comes to what mormons believe? Brett the ex- but now anti-mormon who left the in a bitter rage or actual mormon scripture?

sorry
left the CHURCH in a bitter rage

Bravado - what Clarifications
1. Which question did I miss?

2. Prophet Young's quotes are sufficient:
"The ONLY men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 11, page 269).
"Now if any of you will deny the plurality of wives, and continue to do so, I promise that you will be damned." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 3, p. 266).

So either Young is a liar or God requires ALL men to practice Polygamy if they want to become Gods. You can parse words like Clinton but you are not fooling anyone.

3. Where in the Bible does it say that the practice of polygamy was ever REQUIRED to go to any heaven? Where does it say in the Bible that God called anyone to practice polygamy?

Paul's comments were to a specific church and specifc women. If his comments were to all women at the time, then yes, his comments were sexist.

4. Like I said he was just a nicer racist.
I am NOT defending any christian who thinks blacks are an inferior race and cannot hold a Priesthood that is REQUIRED to go to the celestial kingdom. You apparently think this is OK with your God. Not me. My God wants all of his children (black or white) to be with HIM in Heaven.

5. The burden is on you to prove your point not me. I am sure others reading your post are waiting to see if you really have the exact reference so they also can verify your truthfulnes.

I NEVER thought the Mormon church would change the SACRED TEMPLE ceremony and remove the SACRED death penalties received from God by Prophet Smith. Was their a new revelation authorizing the removal of these death penalities? Didn't think so. Why were they removed?

gunlock bill - a hater
Sorry to disappoint you gunlock bill.
I left because I had a born-again christian experience where God called me out of the Mormon church.

God told me when I left that the Mormon church (although not the "True" church) serves a purpose. God told me that the Mormon church teaches people to obey the law and commandments (just like the OT Jews).

I didn't realize I was a sinner who needed a saviour until after I was baptized Mormon and after I was an ordained Melch. Preist.
My efforts to become a God are what finally helped me see that I was a sinner, because I could never perfect myself by my own efforts.

I saw three types of people in the Mormon church, the fakers who didn't really care or try, the sincere who tried but were buried down by it, and the hypocrites who pretended them cared but did what they wanted when no one was looking.

As a sincere born-again christian, I am no longer alone. Christ is with me every step of the way empowering me to overcome sin. Christians are still humans with a flesh that tempts them. If we have faith and trust God to help us, we can overcome any temptation.

You can be a Christian in the Mormon church; however, the Mormon church is NOT the "TRUE" restored church.

Note to all Mormons
I am thrilled that the Mormon church is changing and NO longer practices Polygamy and excludes blacks from the Melch. Priesthood (and therefore from the celestial kingdom).

If Mormons stop claiming to be the ONLY "True" Christian church, I promise I will no longer feel compelled to question the origins and foundations of your Mormon doctrines.

Brett
Still no quote of actual "mormon" scripture. Can't do it can you!

P.S. I liked idea you can become a God
Sorry to disappoint you gunlock bill but I really liked the idea taught by Prophets Smith and Young that we can become Gods.

I was considered a "Golden Contact" because I didn't have a problem with most Mormon doctrines.

I was serving on a Stake Mission when God started his process of calling me out of the Mormon church. So I didn't leave in a rage, just the opposite, my wife and I started trying to teach the Biblical concept of Grace in Mormon Sunday School. Some people understood and some didn't. We finally left on our own accord when God told us to.

Most of my wife's family are still Mormons and we still loved them (and reached out to them) even when they shunned us for leaving the Mormon church.




Happy Easter to all
I'm outa here!

I already did quote B.Y. scripture
I already proved my point using sermons from Brigham Young where he said they were as "good" as scripture. I can keep repeating them.

Just because You and others TODAY disagree with the Prophet Brigham Young doesn't mean you are right. SHOW me one Scripture at the TIME Brigham Young was Prophet that claims you do NOT have to practice Polygamy and you can still can go to the celestial kingdom.

Can't do it can you?

Grace and Peace to all this Easter
May the Grace (unmerited favor) and Peace be with you all this Easter as we celebrate the risen Saviour.

My hope is that everyone this Easter will come to know the Peace and Joy that comes with a personal relationship with the Saviour.

Romney and Rudy
Taggart, as you may notice, most of the debate about your dad is really about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (LDS or "Mormon"). The Mormon Church thing is a big hurdle, because a lot of people associate it with irritating (and sometimes deceptive) behavior on the part of Mormon missionaries seemingly dedicated to converting Christians, which is frankly a counter-productive enterprise.

I think it's critical that your dad be as candid as possible about his beliefs, including his relationship with Mormon "prophet, seer, and revelator," Gordon Hinckley, who's nearly 100 years old.

Also, he need to deal directly and decisively with the widespread view that he's changing his positions on social issues to pick up evangelical Christian votes. Contrary to popular opinion, it is okay to change your positions, but you have to explain exactly why you did so.

If he thinks it's a bad idea for women to work -- I'm not sure he does, but the LDS Church historically has said as much -- he should say so.

I think your essay is a good one, and you and your dad are lucky to have each other.

Frankly, I am supporting Rudy Giuliani, partly at least because I think he can win.

In my blog, I’ve written an in-depth analysis of the effect a Giuliani campaign could have on conservative candidates for Congress in Pennsylvania. Using the most recent poll data, I conclude that effect would be very positive.

In PA, Hillary Clinton has a decent favorability rating, but an extremely high unfavorability ratio (47%). In contrast, Giuliani’s unfavorability is low (25%) and his favorability is an impressive 56%.

In the election of 2008, PA will be an extremely important state, as it was in 2004, when Kerry won by a small margin. In my column, I suggest that with Giuliani at the head of the ticket, a top-flight conservative candidate, such as Diana Lynn Irey, could defeat John Murtha.

In invite you to read the entire piece, written two days ago. It’s at http://camp2008victory.townhall.com

I’d very much like to hear your thoughts about Giuliani and my piece. Note: I have no association with his campaign, and I am not his son or any other relative. All the best.

Stephen R. Maloney
Ambridge, PA
TalkTop65@netscape.com



Brett
If you were all the “mormon” you claim to have been, then you KNOW that Journal of Discourses is NOT “scripture”, it is not “B.Y. scripture”, and it is not “mormon” scripture. And for you to represent it as any kind of scripture is malicious and deceptive. Like a typical anti-mormon when caught in a deception you prevaricate and obfuscate. The only thing you have “proven” is that you are a deceiver.

So either quote actual “mormon” scripture, which is the Bible, The Book of Mormon, The Doctrine and Covenants, or The Pearl of Great Price, to back up your claims, or you will again prove yourself to be a deceiver.

Gunlock Bill is the prevaricator
So how did sermons get into the Doctrine and Covenants? Where did the D&C come from? It came from the Book of Commandments. Who wrote the majority of the Book of Commandments (and therefore the majority of the D&C)?

Answer: Prophets Joseph Smith and Brigham Young.

Since I have shown that Prophet B.Y. said his sermons were as good as scripture according to his own words in a sermon, who should people believe, you or the Prophet Brigham Young?
Prophet B.Y. even said he would never mislead the people.

Modern Mormons do NOT like their past historical teachings to be brought up because it proves their Prophets who claimed to receive Divine revelations straight from God, make foolish sermons that they foolishly recorded and taught for years in private to their followers.

Unfortunately for those Prophets, what they used to teach only to their faithful followers, is now available for ALL to see. AND it is embarrassing to Modern Mormons who do not like the original teachings of Smith and Young.


Brett
Still no quotes from actual mormon scripture.

gunlock bill
As I proved in my last post, the Prophet Brigham Young declared his sermons were "as good as Scripture". In fact a lot of his sermons were put in the Book of Commandments which was later changed into the Doctrine and Covenants (which you accept as Mormon Scripture).

Do Mormons believe that the Mormon Temple endowment ceremony is sacred and was revealed by God? If so, where is this in the Mormon Scripture?

brett
you could end this issue by just quoting real "mormon" scripture to back up your claim. If you can't do it just admit it.

gunlock bill
Sorry but I think the Prophet Brigham Young is a stronger authority on historical Mormon doctrine that you are. His sermons were followed by thousands of Mormons.

How many Mormons follow you?

Brett
If you believe that Prophet Brigham Youngs words are in force today then why are you not following them or are you a polygamist?

Again you try to change the subject.

Still no quote from actual mormon scripture.

gunlock bill
Sorry but I think the Prophet Brigham Young is a stronger authority on historical Mormon doctrine that you are. His sermons were followed by thousands of Mormons.

I agree with you. How do Mormons reject Prophet Brigham Young's teachings on polygamy? Why was it required then to get in to the celestial kingdom (heaven) but not now? Why didn't all the Mormons flee to Mexico and establish Zion there?



Brett
Again you try to change the subject.

Still no quote from actual mormon scripture.

Trust the Prophet Brigham Young
I think the Prophet Brigham Young is a more trustworthy authority on historical Mormon doctrine that you are. His sermons were followed by thousands of Mormons.

How many are following you?

Personally
I don't care that he is a Mormon. What I care about is his stand on the Constitution and the limited government outlined in it.

C'mon folks, we have had a Clinton, who had multiple photo ops at churches and carrying the bible. We have had 2 Bush Presidents that were photo oped doing the same.

NONE OF THEM HAS BEEN WORTH DIDDLY SQUAT. Not a one has upheld the Constitution. Not a one has reduced the size of government. Heck, and at least one of them handed state secrets to the Communist Chinese. We have one now who claims to be a Christian that is selling our country off to the highest bidder, while encouraging 20 million+ illegal aliens to invade our country. What does he do... secure the border? NAH. He wants to give them friggin' amnesty and enters an agreement with Canada and Mexico to merge our 3 countries into a North American Union.

I don't know whether he is really a Christian or not. I DO know that he is less than a patriotic American. (I am trying to be nice here). If he really IS a Christian, it sure didn't equate to a Constitutional government, did it?

Possibly, we should get off the issue of Romney's Mormonism and focus on the important things. Hey, and I don't even like the guy's politics from what I have seen thus far. I'm just trying to be fair.

Liberty - I don't care if he is Mormon
I agree with you. I don't care if he is Mormon either unless he still believes polygamy is OK at some future point.

The argument happens because I quoted the Prophet Brigham Young (PBY) who said it was a requirement for the celestial kingdom (Heaven).
Then all these Mormons keep denying that PBY taught that. Since I used to be a Mormon and know what I am talking about, I refuse to let them lie and deceive anyone on this website.

Feel free to skip past these posts.

Brett
No problem. My comment wasn't directed at you, Brett. It was just a general comment about focusing on the religious beliefs of the candidates to the exclusion of examining their stances on what we actually hire them to do.

I'm sure it comes as no surprise to you that if the candidate has not shown by ACTION that they plan to adhere to the Constitution, they can go fly a kite, as far as I'm concerned. Regardless of what their religion happens to be.

Actual Scripture -Official Declaration 1
Here is one way to prove that the Prophet Brigham Young taught that polygamy was required to go to the celestial kingdom.

If it was optional to practice polygamy and you have to be called by the Mormon Church to practice it, Why did the Church have to come out with the OFFICIAL DECLARATION—1? You claimed ONLY the Church leaders can CALL you to practice polygamy. Why did they need an OFFICIAL DECLARATION—1, since ONLY Church leaders could CALL you to practice polygamy? Hmmm...

Sounds like it was NECESSARY to change the Official scriptural teachings of Brigham Young.
And since Mormons love to rewrite (i.e. hide) their former scriptures (over 4000 changes just to the Book of Mormon), who should we believe you or the Prophet Brigham Young?

I am with you Liberty
Mitt Romney has shown by his actions that he cannot be trusted.

For example, when the Radical Liberal Mass. Supreme Court justices "interpreted" the Mass. Constitution (over 180 years old) to now grant Homosexuals the right to marry, they violated their oaths of office which required them to "defend and protect the Constitution".
Mitt Romney showed by his actions that he was UNWILLING to defend the Mass. Constitution by declaring these judges had violated their sworn oaths and MUST be impeached and REMOVED from office.

Only Liberals and RINOs do what Mitt did and bend over and take it from the Liberal judges.
Conservatives stand up like the Judge who lost his job because he refused to remove the Ten Commandments for the Courthouse.


Brett
This has gone on long enough. One more post from you that is empty of official "mormon" scripture will be an implicit admission on your part that none exists, that you are wrong and that all here are vindicated in calling you a deceiver.

So go ahead, make my day.

Actual Scripture -Official Declaration 1
Actual Scripture -Official Declaration 1
Here is one way to prove that the Prophet Brigham Young taught that polygamy was required to go to the celestial kingdom.

If it was optional to practice polygamy and you have to be called by the Mormon Church to practice it, Why did the Church have to come out with the OFFICIAL DECLARATION—1? You claimed ONLY the Church leaders can CALL you to practice polygamy. Why did they need an OFFICIAL DECLARATION—1, since ONLY Church leaders could CALL you to practice polygamy? Hmmm... Do you have any historical examples of Mormons who were excommunicated for practicing polygamy without being Officially called first? Didn't think so.

Sounds like it was NECESSARY to change the Official scriptural teachings of Brigham Young.
And since Mormons love to rewrite (i.e. hide) their former scriptures (over 4000 changes just to the Book of Mormon), who should we believe you or the Prophet Brigham Young?

Actual Scripture part 2
Also in this Official Declaration 1 that is part of Mormon scriptures (considered part of the Doctrines & Covenants), we find the following quote:
"The Lord will NEVER permit me or ANY OTHER MAN who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray."

So here Prophet Wilford Woodruff agrees that President Brigham Young would NEVER lead you astray. Since President Young said "The ONLY men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 11, page 269).
"Now if any of you will deny the plurality of wives, and continue to do so, I promise that you will be damned." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 3, p. 266).

So who are Mormons to believe President Brigham Young and President Woodruff who agrees that with Young that the Lord will NEVER lead you astray.
So "true" Mormon doctrine supports polygamy as the ONLY way to become a God.

Do you or do you NOT support the Prophets Young and Woodruff as God's leaders who will NEVER lead you astray?

Simple question: Yes or No?

You got me
So I quote only the Mormon Prophets and you call me a deceiver? LOL

Prophet Brigham Young would have sent his avenging angel of death to visit you for disagreeing with him.

Why do Mormons freak out and start calling people names when we just ask you admit your past practices or teachings? Were they really that bad for the times? Why can't you just admit you had some bad teachings in the past?


Brett
None of the official scripture you quote backs up you claim that

Official "Mormon" church doctrine requires all male members to have more than one wife to get to the celestial kingdom.

That

Official "Mormon" church doctrine states the priesthood was withheld from blacks "because they were unworthy as a race".

SWEET VINDICATION!!!!!

So if Mormons delete a scripture
So if the Prophet Brigham Young says his sermon is as good as scripture. AND if 50 years later, a different Prophet Woodruff, says it's No longer legal because the U.S. Government will arrest all of the Mormons if they do not stop their illegal behaviour, this somehow proves it was Never scripture?

The sermons/discourses of Prophet Joseph Smith are what make up the bulk of the Doctrines and Covenants, which were originally called the "Book of Commandments". Since these books were not published until after Joseph Smith died, how do we know the new leaders didn't leave out some of his "strange" sermons/discourses that they didn't agree with?

Why do men who came after the Prophet Brigham Young get to Exclude his sermons/discourses that he claimed we as good as scripture?

Mormons historical have been rewriting and deleting doctrines and scripture in both the Book of Mormon (over 4000 changes, wierd for the most accurate book) and in the Book of Commandments and in the Doctrines and Covenants.

Just because Mormons exclude historical doctrines from their Modern Versions of their scriptures doesn't mean you can expect non-Mormons to ignore your failed attempts to conceal your history. I can even cite honest Mormons who agree with me.

So I don't see how you are vindicated unless you are delusional.

SWEET VINDICATION!!!!!
None of the official scripture you quote backs up you claim that

Official "Mormon" church doctrine requires all male members to have more than one wife to get to the celestial kingdom.

That

Official "Mormon" church doctrine states the priesthood was withheld from blacks "because they were unworthy as a race".

SWEET VINDICATION!!!!!

OK you proved you are delusional
OK, None of the official Non-Deleted scripture from the Prophets Joseph Smith and Brigham Young that survived the "smell" test after 50 years, Now claim that ALL male members.

So let me get this straight, are you saying that ONLY certain male members had to have more than One wife to get to the celestial kingdom. And you think that makes More sense??? LOL

So why were ALL blacks denied the priesthood before 1978??? What did the Mormons use to exclude blacks from the priesthood? Were ALL blacks unworthy because they voted Democrat? LOL

I See Brett is Showing Ignorance
I See Brett Is Showing His Ignorance On This Thread As Well. He continues to show his inconsistencies, deceptions and lies. He is also guilty of stealing from his employer as he showed on a different thread, name calling, wrath, hate, and I expect adultery as well since he is always asking for a sign. Does not the Jesus tell us that it is a wicked and adulterous generation that seeketh after a sign.

Any Thoughts?
Dear Taggart Romeny and Others. I wrote a column today ("Romney's Mormonism: Candor, Please"), and I'd love to get comments on it from Mormon and non-Mormons, Romney supporters and non-supporters. You can find it at:
http://camp2008victory.townhall.com.

Thanks for you input.

steve maloney

From a non-Mormon
'Read your column, Steve...and the comments regarding it, and noticed how defensive and accusatory some can be if you are NOT of their own religion.

I liked what you had to say, and felt you were right in saying that Romney needs to make his position very clear.

We like to believe there is a separation of church and state in this country, but that is not entirely true at all.

The abortion issue is a perfect example of how religious belief influences our laws; those who follow a church's doctrine will see it as a moral issue, but those who are not particularly religious, will look at it purely in a practical sense. And, to me, this is why we can't seem to ever get anywhere on that topic.

It does make a difference as to how closely Mitt Romney follows his religious beliefs, because imho, it will effect his decision making and if there are those who disagree as to his religious beliefs, it could be detrimental to his candidacy.

Still, whether he believes in us becoming "Gods" in the after life or not doesn't really bother me, (even though I don't believe that). How he lives his life in the here and now is all that concerns me, and he seems to be in agreement with my own standards so far! And as, you said in your article, most religions have the same goal...to please their God and end up in a good place...the Mormon church doesn't seem to me to be any different. Also, may I add, I have no fears concerning polygamy and Mitt Romney's agenda. :)

Mormons believe in a different Christ
Mormons believe in a different Christ than the Christ of the Bible.

First Mormons believe the Bible has been corrupted and is therefore untrustworthy. Yet after almost 200 years they have still failed to correct and print a "RESTORE" Bible that is 100% Correct. Why have their "Prophets" failed to ask God to help them to correct the Bible? This would not be hard. God supposedly helped Joseph Smith translate the fictional Book of Mormon from "reformed Egptyian", a language nobody has ever heard of, including the Egptians. So God could easily help ANY Mormon Prophet to correct the Bible. Why has it been over 150 years and still No Offical Mormon Church 100% correct version of the Bible.

Second, Mormon doctrine teaches that Jesus Christ is just our older spirit brother from Heaven. He is no different than you and I. Just older. Even thou John 1 say In the Beginning was the Word and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. Christians believe Christ was God in the beginning (even Jesus claimed he was God when he said "I am") and that he was not a man who perfected himself into a God.

I could go on and on, but you get the point. Search the web and you will find good websites like http://www.carm.org/mormon.htm that point out all of their anti-Christ doctrines.

Taggart
It is good to know more about a person that one might vote for and get past all the marketing material. It sounds like he is a real person that can solve the country's problems, which are many. I think I am leaning towards voting for Mitt. He seems more squared away than the others. I don't care if he is a Mormon, Catholic, or whatever, as long he has family values.

Cherry Tree
This made me think of George Washinton and the Cherry Tree. If Mitt makes it I sure that this story of Tagg and the missing anchor is going to become one of those storys like Washington cutting down the Cherry Tree. Did it really happen. Hey, I'm voting for Mitt. I think he's the real deal.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name: