so ... Mitt Romney.

[BVS]

I think Republicans are done with this as a whole, w/the exception of national security issues.

dbs

What evidence of this "change" do you have?

 

[coemgen]

Thank you for your kind words.
I don't have a testimony of the Bible truths based on it's historicity-if a person needs that, I think that's sad-but won't belittle his Faith as some have attempted to do to mine.

You didn't win any arguments here because I never fully engaged in any, nor will I, my Faith isn't based on needing physical proof or historicity, as you seem to need for yours.

Until God The Father or Christ comes down and appears to you personally and commisions you or one of the leaders of your Faith and tells you and your leaders of your Faith :
to label the LDS Church as "cultists", I would encourage you and others not to do so.

Again I refer you to:
"But I say to you that for every idle word men may speak, they will give account of it in the day of judgment. For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned," (Matt. 12:36).

God Bless,

dbs

I don't need the proof of historicity for my faith, but it's comforting it's there. And it's odd that it's close to 2,000 years older than Mormonism, and it has a growing amount of historical support, while The Book of Mormon isn't even recognized by the Smithsonian as a historical document because there's no support for it. I would feel uncomfortable putting my faith in something that has no historical foundation and is based on scribbled notes by someone with an eighth-grade reading level that's considered divine revelation. Also, the Bible even tells us to "Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have." (1 Peter 3:15) We're called to share and defend our faith. There's nothing wrong with what I'm doing here.

As far as Matthew 12:36, you're using it out of context to fit your own beliefs (something common to Mormonism).
First off, you're using a quote from Christ in reference to something immediate, not a new faith started about 1,800 years later.
Secondly, he's talking about how the Pharisees were attributing his authenticating miracles done in the power of the Holy Spirit to Satan. If you read the verse with the verses around it, or in context, you'll discover this. This is the best way to read the Bible. It's dangerous to just pick and choose random vereses to fit your personal views. Christ even says a few verses earlier "Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven . . ." So even if Mormonism were true, the verse can't say what you're trying to make it say. I'm just speaking against Mormonism (which wasn't even around at the time of this passage), not Christ and certainly not the Holy Spirit. So I can't be condemned. Sorry, dbs. I know you're crushed.

 

[diamond]

I don't need the proof of historicity for my faith, but it's comforting it's there. And it's odd that it's close to 2,000 years older than Mormonism, and it has a growing amount of historical support, while The Book of Mormon isn't even recognized by the Smithsonian as a historical document because there's no support for it. I would feel uncomfortable putting my faith in something that has no historical foundation and is based on scribbled notes by someone with an eighth-grade reading level that's considered divine revelation. Also, the Bible even tells us to "Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have." (1 Peter 3:15) We're called to share and defend our faith. There's nothing wrong with what I'm doing here.

As far as Matthew 12:36, you're using it out of context to fit your own beliefs (something common to Mormonism).
First off, you're using a quote from Christ in reference to something immediate, not a new faith started about 1,800 years later.
Secondly, he's talking about how the Pharisees were attributing his authenticating miracles done in the power of the Holy Spirit to Satan. If you read the verse with the verses around it, or in context, you'll discover this. This is the best way to read the Bible. It's dangerous to just pick and choose random vereses to fit your personal views. Christ even says a few verses earlier "Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven . . ." So even if Mormonism were true, the verse can't say what you're trying to make it say. I'm just speaking against Mormonism (which wasn't even around at the time of this passage), not Christ and certainly not the Holy Spirit. So I can't be condemned. Sorry, dbs. I know you're crushed.

Well my challenge remains:

Until God The Father or Christ comes down and appears to you personally and commisions you or one of the leaders of your Faith and tells you and your leaders of your Faith :

to label the LDS Church as "cultists", I would encourage you and others not to do so.


Based on your post(s) you seem to have a limited amount of knowledge of the Book of Mormon, it's orgins, the method of it's translation and it's translator -Joseph Smith.

It wasn't scribbled notes by Joseph Smith:

Could you write the Book of Mormon under the same conditions that Joseph Smith wrote it?

1. You must be between twenty-three and twenty-four years of age.
2. You cannot be a college graduate. In fact, you can have only three years of formal schooling.
3. Whatever you write must be on the basis of what you know and not what you learn through research.
4. You must write a history of an ancient country, such as Tibet, covering a period from 2200 BC to 421 AD
5. You must write a book with 102 chapters, twenty-five of them about wars, ten about history, twenty-one about prophecy, thirty-two about doctrines, five about missionaries, and nine about the mission of Christ.
6. You must include in your writings the history of two distinct and separate nations, along with histories of different contemporary nations or groups of people.
7. Your writings must describe the religious, economic, social, and political cultures and institutions of these two nations.
8. You must weave into your history the religion of Jesus Christ and the pattern for Christian living.
9. When you start to produce this record covering a period of over 2,600 years, you must finish it in approximately eighty days (less than three months).
10. When you have finished, you must not make any charges in the text. The first edition must stand forever (this does not include grammatical errors, etc.).
11. After pauses for sleep and food, if you are dictating to a stenographer, you must never ask to have the last paragraph or last sentence read back to you. You must start right where you stopped previously.
12. Your history or record must be long, approximately 777 pages with over 500 words per page.
13. You must add 180 proper nouns to the English language (William Shakespeare added thirty).
14. You must announce that your “smooth narrative” is not fiction, but true-yes, a sacred history.
15. In fact, your narrative must fulfill the Bible prophecies; even in the exact manner in which it shall come forth, to whom given, and its purpose and accomplishments.
16. You must publish it to every nation, kindred, tongue, and people, declaring it to be the Word of God.
17. You must include with the record itself this marvelous promise: “And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.”
18. Tens of thousands must bear record to the world for the next 164 years that they know the record to be true. Because they put the promise to the test, the truth is manifested to them by the power of the Holy Ghost.
19. Thousands of great men, intellectual giants, and scholars, must subscribe discipleship to the record of its movement, even to the point of laying down their lives.
20. There can be now flaw, whatever, in the entire book (except in grammar, or other errors of man in transcribing,etc.).
21. Your descriptions of the cultures in these civilizations, of which you will write about, is not known when you publish your manuscript.
22. Yet, you must not make any absurd, impossible, or contradictory statements.
23. Even so, many of the facts, ideas, and statements given as true in your record must be entirely inconsistent with, even the direct opposite of, the prevailing belief of the world. Yet very little is even claimed to be known about these civilizations and their thousands of years of history.
24. you must invite the ablest scholars and experts to examine the text with care. You must strive diligently to see that your book gets into the hands of all those most eager to prove it a forgery and who are most competent to expose any flaws in it.
25. After 164 years of extensive analysis, no claim or fact in the book is disproven, but all are vindicated. Other theories and ideas as to its origin rise and fall, leaving your claims as the only possible ones.
26. Thorough investigation, scientific evidence, and archaeological discoveries for the next 164 years must verify your claims and prove even the minutest details of your history to be perfectly true.
27. Internal and external prophecies must be confirmed and fulfilled in the next 164 years.
28. Three honest, accreditable witnesses must testify to the whole world that an angel from heaven appeared to them and showed them the ancient records from which you claim your record was translated.
29. You must hear out of heaven the voice of the Redeemer declaring to you and those three witnesses that your record is true, and that it is their responsibility to bear testimony of it- and that they do.
30. Eight other witnesses must testify to the world that they saw the ancient records in broad daylight, and that they handled them and felt the engravings thereon.
31. The first three and the second eight witnesses must bear their testimony, not for profit or gain, but under great personal sacrifice and severe persecution , even to their deaths.
32. You must talk a friend into financing your book with the understanding that he or you will never receive any monetary remuneration from it. This person must mortgage his farm to have it printed. You must sell the book at cost or less.
33. Finally, after suffering persecution and revilement for twenty-four years in the process of producing and defending this book, you must give, willingly, your own life for your testimony that the record is of God.


--------

dbs

ps-

Have you read the Bible in it's entirety?

I've read the Bible cover to cover and understand about not taking scriptures out of context-and I think the scripture was cited correctly pertinent to the issue at hand. By referring to a group of believers in Christ "cultists" you will have to answer for it the same way the Pharisees spoke wrongly about Christ and his believers in the New Testament.

thanks.

 

[coemgen]

34. You must plagerize a good deal of the Old Testament
35. You must murder two men.
36. You must posses two guns while in jail on charges of treason
37. You must die in a gun battle
38. You must have more in common with David Koresh than you do Christ.
39. You must claim God calls you to become a polygamist
40. You must make false prophecies claiming Missouri is the location of Zion and a refuge for the saints with a new temple, only to be driven out of the state.
41. You must falsely prophecise that Christ is coming in 1843 and then 1891.
42. You must fail to make a long list of prophecies found here http://www.exmormon.org/prophet.htm despite the fact the Bible says "You may say to yourselves, "How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the LORD ?" 22 If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the LORD does not take place or come true, that is a message the LORD has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously . . . " Deut 18:21-22

I could go on, but I'll stop there for now.



Actually, I have completed the Bible recently.

 

[A_Wanderer]

See what I love is that all people are capable of rational thought; if only to be used as a weapon against some other believers fairy tale.

 

[coemgen]

A_Wanderer, how you been? You're getting close to 10,000 posts. I bet you're excited.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Rather arbitrary to me

But as long as I may have provoked some introspection

 

[diamond]

Zogby: Romney Dominating Iowa Still

Thursday, November 8, 2007 9:45 AM

By: Newsmax Staff Article Font Size



Mitt Romney retains his lead over all other Republican presidential candidates in early caucus state Iowa, according to the latest poll from Zogby International.

In the poll of GOP caucus voters, to be released Thursday night, 31.3 percent of respondents said that if the Republican caucus were held today, they would vote for Romney.

Rudy Giuliani, although the front-runner in most polls nationwide, still lags in Iowa, with just 10.6 percent of the vote in the latest poll. He now trails Mike Huckabee, who got a respectable 15 percent of the vote.

Fred Thompson is also lagging — he received 9.7 percent of the vote — and John McCain got a disappointing 7.7 percent.

Ron Paul tallied 4.4 percent, and no other candidate received more than 3 percent.

Romney’s support is solid in all age groups, and is especially strong in the 18-to-29 demographic. He also maintains large leads among voters who say their ideology is “moderate” or “conservative,” and he even polls strongly among those who say they are “liberal,” running second only to McCain.

But more than half of respondents say they could change their mind about the candidates between now and the caucus in January — 43.5 percent said they are “somewhat likely” to change their mind, and 15.8 percent said they were “very likely.”


© 2007 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

 

[U2isthebest]

This is why I wonder if Pat's endorsement has some of that 'Mormon's aren't real Christians' mentality...

That's the first thing I thought of when I heard about this. Somebody needs to send a memo to the Religious Right and let them know we don't live in a theocracy. However, if that's what turns them on, I hear Iran is nice for that. For the life of me, I can't figure out why anyone would choose to support a candidate who disagrees with everything he or she stands for, yet believes the same thing about Jesus that he or she does.

 

[coemgen]

DNC auctions Romney "Flip Flop Kit"

WASHINGTON (CNN) – The Democratic National Committee criticized former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney Friday for encouraging supporters to sell their old belongings to help stock his presidential campaign war chest and said that he has "outgrown" his policy positions.

Romney's campaign launched "Mitt Market," a Web page where people can sell their possessions and direct the proceeds to be sent to his presidential campaign in the form of a donation. His campaign asked for "bicycles that the kids have outgrown to old electronics or baseball cards" and said "your stuff may be someone else's treasure."

As a response, the DNC is auctioning its own "Mitt Romney Flip Flop Kit" on ebay, which includes a DVD and flash cards with Romney's "more infamous flip-flops." The DNC said the proceeds will go a local animal shelter in honor of Romney's dog, Seamus, which he acknowledged rode in a dog carrier on top of the car during a family road trip.

Romney spokesman Kevin Madden said this shows that Democrats are worried about running against the former governor.

"The DNC spends an awful lot of time both worrying about and attacking Governor Romney," Madden said. "It just proves that the last person they want to run against is a chief executive like Governor Romney with a proven record of accomplishment who is determined to change the status quo of Washington and the free-spending, high-taxing ways of the Beltway Democrats."

"I’d put a list of actual Democratic accomplishments in this year’s Congress up for bid on e-Bay too if I could, but there aren’t any," Madden added.

 

[diamond]

34. You must plagerize a good deal of the Old Testament
35. You must murder two men.
36. You must posses two guns while in jail on charges of treason
37. You must die in a gun battle
38. You must have more in common with David Koresh than you do Christ.
39. You must claim God calls you to become a polygamist
40. You must make false prophecies claiming Missouri is the location of Zion and a refuge for the saints with a new temple, only to be driven out of the state.
41. You must falsely prophecise that Christ is coming in 1843 and then 1891.
42. You must fail to make a long list of prophecies found here http://www.exmormon.org/prophet.htm despite the fact the Bible says "You may say to yourselves, "How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the LORD ?" 22 If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the LORD does not take place or come true, that is a message the LORD has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously . . . " Deut 18:21-22

I could go on, but I'll stop there for now.



Actually, I have completed the Bible recently.

prophecise

First of all please learn to spell prophesy



I touched on some of these items before (the Bible plagiarizes itself does that make the Bible false?)
Joseph didn't plagerize the Bible-(he noticed that the prophecies were similar and inserted Isaiah's words as suitable.)

Also, if you understood the Bible, some prophecies are conditional: you have taken some quotes out of context and the Church never believed that the 2nd coming would happen in 1843 or 1891, the scriptures indicate that "no man knows the day of the coming of the Lord, but the Father"-that's what our Church teaches.

Polygamy was practiced for 50 years early in the Church history by less than 2% of a few selected faithful members because Joesph was instructed to by an Angel of God to do this; the Church has since quit the practice over 100 plus years ago, as it had served it's purpose.


That Joesph was promised protection by the Govenor Ford and assassinated in June of 1844 while awaiting trail by men with painted faces, if you want to make heros out of murderers-go right ahead: that is to your spiritual demise. That Joesph picked 2 off in self defense- doesn't make him a murderer.

Attempting to link Joesph Smith to David Koresh shows not only your ignorance but the is height of absurdity -when comparing the 2 men's legacies.


Here is what the Mayor of Boston, Josiah Quincy a non Mormon said when meeting Joseph Smith in the 1840s:

It is by no means improbable that some future textbook, for the use of generations yet unborn, will contain a question something like this: What historical American of the nineteenth century has exerted the most powerful influence upon the destinies of his countrymen? And it is by no means impossible that the answer to that interrogatory may be thus written: Joseph Smith, the Mormon prophet.


You are coemgen the unwitting fulfillement of prophecy uttered by the Angel Moroni, this is what he told Joseph before giving him instructions of translating the Book of Mormon:

33 He called me by name, and said unto me that he was a messenger sent from the presence of God to me, and that his name was Moroni; that God had a work for me to do; and that my name should be had for good and evil among all nations, kindreds, and tongues, or that it should be both good and evil spoken of among all people

You post links to the same tried and tired aruguments that never have had any real traction; the Mormon Church is the 4th largest Christian denomination in the USA, it continues to flourish, continues to spread Christinaity through out the world regardless of how you think Christianity should be understood.

If the arguments you posted had validity -the LDS Church would have disintegrated a long time ago.

If the Book of Mormon was a a concoction of Joseph Smith based on his "scribbles" as you alleged earlier- the Church would have disbanded.

So continue to kick "against the pricks" and "fight the Saints of God" as Paul speaks of in the New Testament and I will hold a prayer in my heart that you and others that choose to do this will find something more productive to do in your "Christian" efforts.

Please stop casting aspersions about the beliefs of my Church.

You and those of your ilk will have to answer for your idle words.

Thanks,

dbs

 

[Diemen]

First of all please learn to spell

plagerize
Joesph
heros
Joesph

Hello pot, this is kettle.

 

[coemgen]

I touched on some of these items before (the Bible plagiarizes itself does that make the Bible false?)
Joseph didn't plagerize the Bible-(he noticed that the prophecies were similar and inserted Isaiah's words as suitable.)

The Bible doesn’t plagiarize itself. The New Testament references the Old Testament, but it doesn’t steal words and phrases and claim it’s a “new revelation from God.” Smith not only stole about 30,000 words/phrases from the OT and called it his own, he created names of cities and people by taking cities and people from the OT, and switching the letters. I’ve posted this many times here and it’s widely available on the Internet. Does that sound like a prophet?

Also, if you understood the Bible, some prophecies are conditional: you have taken some quotes out of context and the Church never believed that the 2nd coming would happen in 1843 or 1891, the scriptures indicate that "no man knows the day of the coming of the Lord, but the Father"-that's what our Church teaches.

You just laid out a great argument against Joseph Smith -- why would a true prophet prophesize about something he’s not supposed to know? That sounds pretty silly.
"President Smith then stated that the meeting had been called, because God had commanded it; and it was made known to him by vision and by the Holy Spirit. He then gave a relation of some of the circumstances attending us while journeying to Zion--our trials, sufferings; and said God had not designed all this for nothing, but He had it in remembrance yet; and it was the will of God that those who went to Zion, with a determination to lay down their lives, if necessary, should be ordained to the ministry, and go forth to prune the vineyard for the last time, or the coming of the Lord, which was nigh--even fifty-six years should wind up the scene." (History of the Church, Vol. 2:189)
Jesus did not return within fifty-six years when 1891 arrived.
Here’s another silly prophecy he made, with proof he made it: http://www.carm.org/lds/docs/HC_5_394.htm

Polygamy was practiced for 50 years early in the Church history by less than 2% of a few selected faithful members because Joesph was instructed to by an Angel of God to do this; the Church has since quit the practice over 100 plus years ago, as it had served it's purpose.

It was stopped because it was deemed illegal. Then church leaders changed their views. Utah also wanted to gain statehood.

Attempting to link Joesph Smith to David Koresh shows not only your ignorance but the is height of absurdity -when comparing the 2 men's legacies.

They may have had different outcomes, but the similarities are there still.

Here is what the Mayor of Boston, Josiah Quincy a non Mormon said when meeting Joseph Smith in the 1840s:
It is by no means improbable that some future textbook, for the use of generations yet unborn, will contain a question something like this: What historical American of the nineteenth century has exerted the most powerful influence upon the destinies of his countrymen? And it is by no means impossible that the answer to that interrogatory may be thus written: Joseph Smith, the Mormon prophet.

This holds no value. Obviously, people were drawn to him. People were drawn to David Koresh, too.

You are coemgen the unwitting fulfillement of prophecy uttered by the Angel Moroni, this is what he told Joseph before giving him instructions of translating the Book of Mormon:

33 He called me by name, and said unto me that he was a messenger sent from the presence of God to me, and that his name was Moroni; that God had a work for me to do; and that my name should be had for good and evil among all nations, kindreds, and tongues, or that it should be both good and evil spoken of among all people

You post links to the same tried and tired aruguments that never have had any real traction; the Mormon Church is the 4th largest Christian denomination in the USA, it continues to flourish, continues to spread Christinaity through out the world regardless of how you think Christianity should be understood.

The size of the Mormon church doesn’t prove my arguments are wrong. That’s faulty logic. Also, it’s not continuing to flourish:
Mormon portion of Utah population steadily shrinking
The Salt Lake Tribune
http://www.sltrib.com/ci_2886596
As far as your scripture, you’re right: his name has been used wrong . . .

If the arguments you posted had validity -the LDS Church would have disintegrated a long time ago.

Well, except your church draws people in and then doesn’t allow people to question it. It also puts strong guilt on those who leave and changes what it believes. These are all signs of a cult.

If the Book of Mormon was a a concoction of Joseph Smith based on his "scribbles" as you alleged earlier- the Church would have disbanded.

Yes, that explains why the Book of Mormon has been changed so much over the years. If the Book of Mormon is true, then why has the Mormon church changed it? Examples are: 1 Nephi 11:21; 19:20; 20:1 and Alma 29:4. Compare these with the original Book of Mormon. (Gerald and Sandra Tanner – the great-great-granddaughter of Brigham Young -- have counted 3,913 changes in the book of Mormon, excluding punctuation changes.)

So continue to kick "against the pricks" and "fight the Saints of God" as Paul speaks of in the New Testament and I will hold a prayer in my heart that you and others that choose to do this will find something more productive to do in your "Christian" efforts.
Please stop casting aspersions about the beliefs of my Church.
You and those of your ilk will have to answer for your idle words.

If I see a counterfeit posing as the truth, I’m going to call it out – especially when it claims to be “Christian.” And, once again, you’re judging me. Do you really have the authority to condemn me, or is it just out of frustration that you’re resulting to that?

Here’s some more questions I have for you:
• If the Book of Mormon is true, why do Indians fail to turn white when they become Mormons? (2 Nephi 30:6, prior to the 1981 revision).
• If Moroni devoutly practiced the Mormon Gospel, why is he an angel now rather than a God? (Doc. & Cov. 132:17,37)
• Why did the Nauvoo House not stand forever and ever? (Doc. & Cov. 124:56-60).
• If Jesus was conceived as a result of a physical union between God and Mary, how was Jesus born of a virgin? (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 1, page 50).
• How did Nephi with a few men on a new continent build a temple like Solomon's while Solomon needed 163,300 workmen and seven years to build his temple? (1 Kings 5:13-18 and 2 Nephi 5:15-17).
• God rejected the fig leaf aprons which Adam and Eve made (Gen. 3:21). Why do Mormons memorialize the fall by using fig leaf aprons in the secret temple ceremonies?

 

[Infinity]

I don't know if this has been mentioned yet, but I find it interesting that Mitt Romney would talk to lawyers in order to decide whether he should or should not ask Congress for approval to go to war.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SIRlNUqEdlU

 

[diamond]

coemgen -

The arguments you've posted I've heard before; they're nothing new or ground breaking.

The Church has a membership of 13 million, with a quater of a million joining in 2006.

The Mormon Church continues to grow and rings true to hundreds of thousands of people who join it annually.

It doesn't keep people from leaving who decide to leave; I left for 25 years and was never made to feel gulity about it- and came back when I was comfortable.

I told you I wasn't here to debate the tenets of my Faith.

Your pre occupation with trying to tear down the LDS Church isn't a healthy one.

best,

dbs

 

[phillyfan26]

coemgen -

The arguments you've posted I've heard before; they're nothing new or ground breaking.

The Church has a membership of 13 million, with a quater of a million joining in 2006.

The Mormon Church continues to grow and rings true to hundreds of thousands of people who join it annually.

It doesn't keep people from leaving who decide to leave; I left for 25 years and was never made to feel gulity about it- and came back when I was comfortable.

I told you I wasn't here to debate the tenets of my Faith.

Your pre occupation with trying to tear down the LDS Church isn't a healthy one.

best,

dbs

But you have debated. And he replied.

So this is just a cop out.

 

[coemgen]

So Richard Land DOESN'T endorse Romney.


Prominent conservative clarifies: I am not endorsing Romney

COLUMBIA, South Carolina (CNN) — Dr. Richard Land, President of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, said Monday that he supports Republican Mitt Romney's right to seek the presidency as a Mormon, but has not, and will not endorse any candidate running for president.

"Defending Governor Romney's right to run is very different than endorsing Governor Romney, which I have not done," Land said in a statement.

Land was responding to comments Romney made in South Carolina last week to an audience of Bob Jones University students, faculty and alumni, in which he sought to reconcile his Mormon faith with the evangelical Christian community he is courting in South Carolina.

Romney justified his faith to the invitation-only audience by invoking previous comments made by Land on the subject.

"I think it was Dr. Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention, who said we're not electing a pastor-in-chief, and so I appreciate that support and just you remember that when you go to vote," Romney said.


CNN obtained an audio recording of that private meeting in Greenville from a Bob Jones alumnus who said he was frustrated that University officials Bob Jones III and Robert Taylor endorsed the former Massachusetts governor, in part because of Romney's past support for abortion rights.

Land, an influential voice among Christian conservatives, responded to Romney's comments Monday making it clear he is not officially supporting him.

"Those statements were made in response to questions about whether or not Governor Romney's faith was an absolute 'deal breaker' for evangelicals in selecting a presidential candidate, not an endorsement of Governor Romney," Land said in the statement. "I have defended various candidates from time to time when I've felt that they have been unfairly or inaccurately criticized. At other times, I have been asked by the media for my assessment of a particular candidate's chances or weaknesses and strengths. Neither defense nor assessment should be confused with endorsement. As a matter of policy, I have not endorsed, do not endorse and will not endorse candidates."

Romney's South Carolina communications director Will Holley issued this response to Land's comments: "The Governor has great respect for both Dr. Land's neutrality and his opinions."

 

[diamond]

old news.

 

[deep]

I would vote for a Mormen, (Harry Reid) a Scientologist, etc..

I really don't care what group a person associates with.

but, it appears many people do care

Romney's Challenge: Reader Emails Reveal Reservations About Mormonism

Monday , November 12, 2007
By Martin Frost


One of my recent columns discussed the role of Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney's Mormon faith in his campaign. My column pointed out that some people could not vote for Romney because of his religion and I asked readers who felt this way to explain their position.

I received more than 400 emails in response to this column and have now read all of them. Let me start by saying that a majority of the people responding to my column took the position that a candidate’s religion should not be a factor in whether or not he is elected. I personally agree with that view. I think it's un-American to judge a candidate on the basis of his or her religion. But it's nonetheless clear from reading these emails that Romney’s religion will be an issue if he wins the Republican nomination.

Reproduced below is a representative sample of the emails from readers who said that Romney's religion would prevent them from supporting him.

Charles M. Larson: "Their (Mormons) belief system and scriptural writings still proclaim and teach that God approves of racism by 'cursing' with dark skin and 'blessing' with light skin. And to people like myself, this is reason enough to not lend credibility to such an organization by offering one of its members the office of president of the United States."

Rick Olson: "the position of president is unique and requires the highest standards. The facts show that there is no historical basis for the Mormon religion and that it begins with the highly suspect Joseph Smith. The facts that contradict the tenets of the Mormon religion are widely available and someone who chooses to ignore them does so willingly. So the question that I must ask is: do I trust someone to be president of the United States who intentionally believes a lie and can I trust someone who does that to make the right decision when the heat is on?"

Warren Brown: "I believe that the Mormon Church has an agenda, to take over the powers, etc. of the country. To be governed by a Mormon president would be too close to being governed by the Mormon Church for my taste."

Mike Butz: "I have voted for the Republican candidate in every presidential election to date (I’m currently 41 years of age), but will not vote for Romney if he is the nominee. Mormons embrace the blasphemous notion that each of them (if deemed worthy enough) can, one day, become god of his own planet…As an evangelical Christian, I would have no trouble voting for a Catholic or a Jewish candidate, and would even consider voting for an atheist, but can and will never vote for someone whose ambitions include becoming god."

Edward Yezekian: "I think the question at hand is judgment. I wouldn’t vote for Mitt for the same reason I wouldn't vote for a Wican or an Atheist. Even a cursory evaluation of Mormonism, its history, its doctrines, and its contradictions would call into question any follower’s intelligence and/or judgment."

Bob Bilyeu: "The Mormon faith is a hierarchal organization. There are leaders who expect to be obeyed, and church law that is considered to supersede civil law. Would you feel comfortable electing a person to civil office if you believed that they would then answer to this alternative power structure, rather than to civil law?”

Diane Graber: "Mormons who are temple-worth wear special 'garments of the Holy Priesthood' (long johns) which they believe have special powers to protect them from danger and evil…If that's not enough, they believe the Garden of Eden was in Missouri, that Christ will return to Earth in a year that has had no rainbows and disbelieve all relevant scientific evidence as to the age of the Earth…Any man who could believe all this and not challenge it intellectually is not someone I would ever support to run this nation."

Mark Smith: "Why not Romney? You are also forgetting that voters have the right to choose or reject a candidate for any reason(s) they choose. Voter rejection of Romney because of his Mormonism is no more baffling than voter acceptance of Hillary who is unqualified and chosen by many simply because she is a woman and/or spouse of a former president."

Amy King: "You’d better believe that I refuse to vote for a man without the personal character to withdraw from a racist, sexist organization, and I'm very nervous about turning over the most powerful office in the world to a man who thinks he's going to become a god and collect trophy wives in the Celestial Kingdom."

Lori Daniel: "Even though he may have a great record as a governor, being a Mormon requires that he obey the teachings of the church and not those of the country…Romney may be a good person, but as a president, he will not be able to make decisions that might go against his religion. He views his religion as his salvation and to go against any principle of that religion would mean losing his salvation."

Frank Morley: "I do not believe that people who oppose Romney are religiously intolerant. I believe that they see what is a plain fact: Mormonism is intolerant. Pamphlets available to anyone who attends a Mormon Church tell of Joseph Smith’s 'enlightenment' and tell how he founded the only true church, that all Christian churches, and by definition, all other religions, are apostate. It is difficult to support a man who subscribes to such a position towards my church."

Jessica Elliott: "I can’t speak for all Christians or all Republicans, but I can give you an honest perspective from one average Christian mom who would never vote for a Mormon. You understand already that many people call Mormonism a cult. What you may not understand is that many of us see Mormonism as such a strange, ridiculous belief system that we have to seriously doubt the judgment of anyone who could believe it. It's like asking us to consider voting for someone who believes they were kidnapped by aliens."

John Commuta: "Bible believing Christians feel their loyalty is to Jesus. Mormons believe in a completely different Jesus than the Bible reveals. They consider him to be Lucifer’s brother, and not truly God, among many other foundational differences. So many devout Christians — who have as much right to vote according to their conscience as anyone — cannot vote for someone for the temporary job of president of the United States who has an antithetical view of their permanent Lord, to whom these Christians feel a higher allegiance and responsibility."

I thank everyone who responded to my column. The views reproduced above represent a minority of the total comments but a very loud and distinct minority.

 

[verte76]

I'm on a U2 list with a Mormon who is very progressive. So I wouldn't hold being a Mormon against a candidate. I don't like Romney because he's too conservative.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

Boston Herald

Romney camp denies role in anti-Mitt push polls
By Jessica Van Sack | Tuesday, November 20, 2007

Former Bay State Gov. Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign furiously denied rumors yesterday that his own supporters were involved in calls placed to voters in Iowa and New Hampshire that spread anti-Romney smears under the guise of conducting a poll.

Political strategists and bloggers slung accusations at Romney’s camp yesterday after a scathing article appeared in the National Review titled “Did Mitt Romney Push Poll Himself?” which identified several Romney supporters at Western Wats, a Utah-based firm believed to have made the calls. The practice of using phony polls to plant a negative message is commonly known as push-polling.

“The idea that Mitt Romney or his supporters are spreading negative information about him is preposterous,” Romney spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom told the Herald. “These paranoid delusions aren’t worthy of a serious response.”

The New Hampshire attorney general launched an investigation into the calls, which may violate state election laws requiring all political advertising and phone pitches to identify the candidate being supported.

Jim Kennedy, assistant attorney general in charge of election law enforcement in the Granite State, vowed that subpoenaed phone records and other evidence will unveil the culprits, despite client confidentiality clauses repeatedly cited by Western Wats.

Among the questions asked during the 20-minute calls placed last week were whether the person polled knew Romney received Vietnam-era military deferments while serving in the Mormon missionary in France, that none of his sons served in the military and that the Mormon religion didn’t accept blacks as bishops until the 1970s.

The calls also included flattering questions about the military service of Sen. John McCain, whose camp immediately denied responsibility and filed a complaint with the New Hampshire attorney general Friday, as did Romney’s.

“At this point, everyone should be a suspect,” said Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics. That includes both Republicans and Democrats, said Sabato, who researched push-polling for his book “Dirty Little Secrets.”

The National Review article cited sources who speculated Romney’s camp put the hit out on itself “because his campaign wanted polling data regarding the negative perception of his Mormon faith for internal use.” But others speculated a motivation to pre-empt attacks on Romney’s faith.

 

[coemgen]

This article explains more of the controversy:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Y2ZkMWNkZDkzOTk1YTM0NTNkNmJlZThmYjJmM2ZmOGE=#more

Here's an interesting part:
"Shortly after reports of Romney being targeted in a push poll emerged, the firm making the calls was identified as Western Wats, which is based in Utah and has a number of Romney campaign contributors on the payroll. Western Wats was founded by Ron Lindorf who has ties to the business school at the Mormon-owned Brigham Young University, Romney’s alma mater (Lindorf has since divested himself from the company). Lindorf’s brother Paul and his wife Teena are avid supporters of Romney (Paul is a former employee of Western Wats who retired five years ago; Paul and Teena claim not to know Romney or have a vested interest in his campaign).

"Evidence collected from Internet bulletin boards dedicated to tracking telemarketers and nuisance phone calls suggests that Western Wats may be tied directly to the Romney campaign."

 

[phillyfan26]

I would vote for a Mormen, (Harry Reid) a Scientologist, etc..

I really don't care what group a person associates with.

but, it appears many people do care

Are we surprised? Many Protestants don't even trust Catholics to hold the office of president.

The irony of some of these people calling Mormonism "intolerant."

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

Analysis: Couple's murder raises specter of Romney's own `Willie Horton' moment

By Glen Johnson, Associated Press Writer | November 27, 2007

BOSTON --Mitt Romney did everything he could while governor of Massachusetts to avoid having a sticky "Willie Horton" criminal case cloud his future presidential campaign.

To no avail. Romney is now being dogged by the case of a convicted killer who was charged in the recent deaths of a young couple -- after being released over prosecutors' protests by a judge Romney appointed.

Rudy Giuliani is trying to tie it all to his rival in the race for the Republican presidential nomination. "The governor is going to have to explain his appointment, and the judge is going to have to explain her decision," Giuliani says.

The theme, likely to resurface at a GOP debate Wednesday in Florida, harkens back to 1988, when allies of Republican George H.W. Bush broadcast a demonic photo of inmate Willie Horton in ads against another Massachusetts governor running for the White House, Democrat Michael Dukakis.

The spots accused Dukakis of being soft of crime for a furlough program under which Horton -- likewise a convicted killer -- was released. Horton was convicted of raping a Maryland woman and pistol-whipping her fiance while free.

Bush went on to win the election.

Today the images in search of a commercial are the smiling snapshot of victims Brian and Beverly Mauck of Graham, Wash., and the mug shot of Daniel Tavares Jr., replete with tattoos on both sides of his neck. Released last July, Tavares has been charged in the deaths of the couple who were found shot to death in their home Nov. 17.

Romney is trying to contain the damage. His staff has repeatedly said they fear ads against him by third-party groups, and they are anxious to avoid having the case define him to a national audience.

"The danger is that if you take it all together, it's the perfect storm in that there's doubts in terms of his conservatism on the social issues and now this adds more doubt that he has been good on issues of law and order," said Paul Pezzella, a veteran Massachusetts Democratic activist who was Florida state director for the Dukakis campaign.

"If there's one thing Republicans understand, it's appointing nonactivist judges. They run on appointing strict constructionists, they are law and order, they are tough, and now this raises doubts about Romney in that regard," Pezzella said.

Last weekend, Romney called for Judge Kathe Tuttman to resign, saying her decision to free Tavares "showed an inexplicable lack of good judgment."

He also unleashed his most personal criticism yet of Giuliani.

Romney noted Giuliani proposed Bernard Kerik as Homeland Security secretary while the former New York police commissioner was under criminal investigation. Kerik, a Giuliani friend and once his chauffeur, has since been indicted by federal officials.

"I must admit that of all the people who might attack someone on the basis of an appointment, I thought he would be the last to do so," Romney said of Giuliani.

Whether Giuliani can turn Daniel Tavares Jr. into Willie Horton is an open question. The war in Iraq, the rising cost of daily living and concern about terrorism have superseded crime as paramount issues for voters 20 years later.

There also is Romney's squeaky clean personal life and his outreach to conservatives as he depicts himself as anything but the more liberal Dukakis.

"What Willie Horton did was play into people's predispositions and suspicions about Michael Dukakis, that he wasn't tough on crime. The facts of the case mattered far less than the appearance of the case," said David King, a political science professor at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government.

"In the case with Romney as governor, he steadfastly opposed pardons, he was a law-and-order governor, so what happened is not consistent with what people believe to be the image of Mitt Romney," King said.

Romney had tried hard to avoid this predicament in the first place.

While governor, he cast himself as a law-and-order executive, favoring the death penalty in a state that strongly opposes it, and embarrassing vacationing lawmakers into enacting tougher sentences for repeat drunken drivers.

He also refused to pardon any prisoners during his four years in office, a move widely viewed as inoculating himself against future Willie Horton moments on the campaign trail. One of those denied a pardon was a decorated Iraqi war veteran who wanted to become a police officer.

That man's past transgression? A conviction as a 13-year-old for shooting a friend with a BB gun.

Giuliani, meanwhile, has tried to pivot from the Tavares case to a broader critique of Romney's record on crime.

The former mayor, during an interview with The Associated Press, pulled a sheet of paper out of his pocket listing FBI crime statistics for Massachusetts while Romney was governor. Murders were up 7.5 percent, robbery was up 12 percent, he said.

"So it's not so much the isolated situation which he and the judge will have to explain -- he's kind of thrown her under the bus, so it's hard to know how this is all going to come out. But the reality is, he did not have a record of reducing violent crime," Giuliani said.

Romney accused Giuliani of mangling statistics and produced his own set showing overall violent crime had fallen by 7 percent during his term.

"Mayor Giuliani can't resist embellishing the facts to make a bogus point. It's a very troubling trait," said Romney spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom.

Romney aides say Giuliani's criticism simply reveals his own concerns about his campaign in New Hampshire. Romney leads in the polls there, and the former mayor is trying to eat into that lead in the first primary state.

Another Republican candidate recently faced questions on a separate prison release case: an Arkansas man who killed a woman after being paroled for rape when Mike Huckabee was the state's governor.

Huckabee had once spoken in favor of releasing the man but told reporters last month the decision to free him was made by parole board members appointed by his Democratic predecessors, Jim Guy Tucker and Bill Clinton.

The man was released to Missouri in 1999 where he was later convicted in the murder of a Kansas City-area woman. He died of cancer in prison in 2005.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

New Romney brochure rips rivals' stance on marriage

By Michael Levenson, Globe Staff | November 28, 2007

The colorful brochure from Mitt Romney's presidential campaign looks like many of the political fliers flooding Iowa mailboxes this time of year.

But there is a difference. The piece is Romney's first to single out his rivals by name, a shift that shows him becoming more aggressive in the final weeks before the Jan. 3 caucuses.

The mailing juxtaposes photos and quotes from Romney showing his support for a federal constitutional amendment to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman with photos and quotes showing that Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, and Fred Thompson all oppose such a measure.

But it makes no mention of Mike Huckabee, the former Arkansas governor and Baptist preacher whose website says he has consistently supported a federal marriage amendment and led successful efforts to pass such an amendment at the state level in 2002. Huckabee has surged from the back of the pack to a virtual tie with Romney for first place in the Iowa polls.

Kevin Madden, a Romney spokesman, said yesterday that the mailing was designed to contrast Romney with other candidates who are leading in the national polls - a group that does not include Huckabee.

The Giuliani campaign, which has been feuding with Romney's camp, harshly criticized the brochure, which was apparently the first by any of the Republican candidates to directly go after a rival in Iowa. "After spending months attacking, distorting, and misrepresenting his Republican opponents' positions, and spending tens of millions of dollars to see his poll numbers continue to slide, it's not surprising Mitt Romney has taken his negativity to a new low," spokesman Jason Miller said in a statement. "We fully expect Romney's negative attacks to soon be up on television, as his campaign continues to make clear they will do anything to distract voters from the fact their candidate is a phony with a liberal record."

The brochure is aimed at social conservatives who make up a powerful constituency in Iowa, where Romney has run TV and radio ads on his opposition to gay marriage. He also was the first candidate to criticize a judge who ruled Iowa's gay marriage ban unconstitutional.

The mailing touts Romney's opposition to the 2003 Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruling that legalized gay marriage and his congressional testimony in support of a federal marriage amendment and says, "His position has been consistent from the beginning - no to discrimination, but yes to a federal amendment protecting marriage."

It does not mention that Romney pledged to be a better advocate for gay rights than Senator Edward M. Kennedy when he unsuccessfully challenged the Massachusetts Democrat for his seat in 1994. Nor does it state that Romney struck a more moderate stance on gay rights in his campaign for governor in 2002, when he supported domestic partnership benefits.

 

[verte76]

So Romney's flip-flopping on gay marriage.

 

[diamond]

Another endorsement:

Washington Insider with Ronald Kessler RSS ARCHIVE
David Keene Endorses Romney

Thursday, November 29, 2007 7:59 PM

By: Ronald Kessler Article Font Size

Dave Keene says Mitt Romney is a "good conservative" and "the best of the bunch."

Dave Keene, president of The American Conservative Union, has endorsed Mitt Romney for president. The endorsement is a pivotal moment in the 2008 campaign.


Keene, who endorsed Romney on Thursday, tells Newsmax that Romney is a “good conservative” and “the best of the bunch.”


A bulwark of the conservative movement, Keene has headed the ACU, the country’s oldest and largest conservative grass-roots lobbying group, since 1984. With 1 million members, the ACU runs the Conservative Political Action Committee’s (CPAC) annual conference in Washington and publishes an annual Rating of Congress — the gold standard for ideological assessments of members of Congress.


Among conservatives, no one is more highly respected than Keene. As second vice president of the National Rifle Association, he will automatically become president of the organization in three and a half years.


Deal Clincher


Keene’s endorsement is likely to galvanize fellow conservatives in Romney’s direction.


For some time, Keene had been discussing issues with Romney, but he had not issued an endorsement because he is friends with some of the other Republican candidates. Romney clinched the deal with him when they met in St. Petersburg for two hours the day before the Republican debate, Keene said.



“Romney spent most of Tuesday preparing for the debate; then at the end of the day, we spent a couple hours together; and then afterward I had dinner with his campaign manager Beth Meyers and Peter Flaherty who was his deputy chief of staff as governor, and Al Cardenas, who is one of my very closest friends,” Keene said.


Jeb Bush’s former finance chairman, Cardenas is on Keene’s board and chairs Romney’s National Hispanic Steering Committee.


“I had basically come to the conclusion that it is coming down to a race between Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney,” Keene said. “And the reason I decided to break my neutrality, which I’ve maintained from the beginning, is that the Mike Huckabee surge in Iowa could easily derail the Romney momentum that he’s going to need to break through what Rudy Giuliani calls his firewall in Florida before the big primaries. And I therefore think it’s important that conservatives who think that Romney is the best of the bunch and are concerned about the impact of a Giuliani nomination on the conservative coalition and the general election, have to come out now because in essence a vote for Huckabee in Iowa is a vote for Rudy.”


Despite being friends with many of the candidates, Romney and Fred Thompson were the only two that he really considered supporting.


“As time went on, it began to appear, fairly clearly to me at least, that the Thompson campaign missed its window, wasn’t going to take off, and that left Mitt Romney,” Keene said.



Romney — Upfront Conservative

“Romney I think is a good conservative,” Keene continued. “He’s been very upfront with people, and the thing that sealed it for me was not just my concern about the outcome of the race, but I spent some time with him on Tuesday and . . . on the major issues of concern to me and I think to most conservatives, he pretty well satisfied me during that meeting. So I was very comfortable with telling him that they could announce my endorsement today.”


Keene said he speaks for himself and not The American Conservative Union, which does not endorse candidates.


“As I told the governor, I don’t pretend to speak for the conservative community,” Keene said. “Nor do I pretend to have an army of people that follow my lead. But a lot of conservatives have been sort of going through this same intellectual and emotional journey, if you will, to try to satisfy in their own minds whom they ought to be supporting. And at the end of that journey, I come up with Mitt Romney, and I want to share that thinking and that conclusion with other conservatives who may be in the midst of the same journey, for whatever value it might be.”


The Right Man for the Job

In an Oct. 29 story, Newsmax reported that Keene believed Romney was in the best position to win the Republican nomination. While Rudy Giuliani leads in the polls, Keene said then that most people have not begun to focus on the election.


Once they do, they will recognize how liberal Giuliani is on some social issues like abortion and gay rights, and Republicans overall will tilt against him. Then Romney’s strategy of focusing on key states like Iowa and New Hampshire could propel him to the nomination, Keene observed.


“Romney’s doing it the right way, in my view,” Keene said then over lunch at the Palm. “My view’s colored by history, and these other guys seem to be betting that history doesn’t matter, and I’m not sure that’s true. If you win the first contest, and they’re close enough to the second contest, you get an enormous boost. And the idea that the onrush of big primaries makes those early contests unimportant may be 180 degrees wrong.”


In an interview on Thursday, Keene said that while Giuliani has some strengths, “I really do believe that a Giuliani candidacy would split the conservative coalition in ways that would be very difficult to put together and could have long-lasting impact on the shape of the Republican Party.”


On the major issues, Romney is “right on,” Keene said. “The most important thing with these candidates is, when they give you their word in a campaign, that word is credible.

“I thought Romney put it very well when he was asked during the debate about his position on abortion, and he said he was wrong, and he changed his view, and anybody that wants somebody that’s always been right better look somewhere else.”


Keene said Romney could have pointed out that like Ronald Reagan, he was wrong, “because of course Ronald Reagan began as a pro-choice politician.”


The Right Change Is Good


What is important, Keene said, is not so much whether a candidate has changed his views.

“It’s a question of whether that change has been thought out, on the one hand, and is deeply felt on the other, and doesn’t go against his most basic values,” Keene said.


Giuliani said “I may be against you on guns and abortion and all these things, but the fact of the matter is I’ll appoint conservative judges,” Keene said. “Now if you in fact believe that, then he may have solved that problem in your mind if you’re a voter.


“I find it very difficult to believe that somebody who has taken a whole series of very strong positions on one side would rise to the presidency and then decide that his lasting legacy will be to appoint people who would steer society in exactly the opposite direction of where he’d spent his life trying to steer it. I have difficulty finding that credible.”

In contrast, Keene said he believes Romney’s promises.

“That is both because of the basic values that I know he has, and because I think that he’s a guy who, if he gives you his word and he said that he’s going to do something, you can pretty well count on it,” Keene said.


The Mormon Issue

Keene does not think Romney’s Mormon religion will be as big a factor in the race as the press coverage would suggest.

“My feeling is that he’ll lose some votes some places because he’s Mormon,” Keene said. But Keene said he believes most voters will not vote based reservations about religion.

“I suspect that when he gets to the general election and even in the primaries, the few votes he might lose are likely to be lost in places where they won’t make much difference,” Keene said. “So I don’t see that as a handicap. We have lots of successful Mormon politicians in both parties. It’s a little bit like in early 1960 when his opponents were claiming John F. Kennedy was going to be ordered about by the Pope. Well, that’s not the way people follow their religion. So I don’t see it as a problem.”


Ronald Kessler is chief Washington correspondent of Newsmax.com. View his previous reports and get his dispatches sent to you free via e-mail. Go here now.

© 2007 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

 

[coemgen]

This is popular on Digg right now:

Mitt Romney Buys Election in Florida Straw Poll

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdCcGWX2SuU

 

[phillyfan26]

Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani are two of the scariest candidates I've ever seen.

 

[deep]

This is popular on Digg right now:

Mitt Romney Buys Election in Florida Straw Poll

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdCcGWX2SuU

If he can fix an election in Florida
he should be the GOP nominee.