Romney not to get into specifics about LDS beliefs but will

[_truth dancer]

They don't have handicap facilities to allow for handicap people in the temple? I was pretty sure they did.

Those with some disabilities will never be allowed to view a sealing... for example those who are unable to have their endowment, or those for whom the ordinance/convenants are not necessary.

In other words, those with mental disabilities.

:-(

~dancer~

[_Yoda]

They don't have handicap facilities to allow for handicap people in the temple? I was pretty sure they did.

Those with some disabilities will never be allowed to view a sealing... for example those who are unable to have their endowment, or those for whom the ordinance/convenants are not necessary.

In other words, those with mental disabilities.

:-(

~dancer~

Wait---so those with mental disabilities can't hold a temple recommend?

I had never heard this.

[_truth dancer]

It is absolutely a valid comparison. People were nervous and some bigoted about a Catholic president, that he would take m,arching order from Rome and as well as other things that the majority protestant religion found repugnant. Romney is in the same boat. I agree that some questions about his religion are fair. Since the LDS have a strong hierarchy he should settle concerned about him being independent from them and following his own consciouses. But over all people should vote on a candidates based on the person, their political views, their trakc record and so on, whether they are Mormon, Jew, Catholiuc, Baptist, Muslim or atheist.

I sort of agree. :-)

I do not think someone should vote based on a candidate's religious affilation but perhaps a candidate's beliefs about life, humankind, world views, etc. etc. ARE important.

If a candidate believes he is chosen by God to become President and bring the priesthood to the highest office of the land, if he believes he is beginning to restore a theocracy as in the days of Joseph Smith, if he believes he has a duty to give all his time, talent, and energy to building up his church, well these are things someone MIGHT find important.

I'm NOT saying Mitt believes any of this.

I'm suggesting that for some folks these might be legitimate questions and concerns they might have toward a Mormon running for President of the United States.

~dancer~

[_Infymus]

He is a Christian. Mormons are Christian. Not orthodox Christians but Christians none the less.

No, he is not a Christian, he is a Mormon. His entire view of Christianity was created by Joseph Smith and does not adhere at all to Christianity.

I'll never vote for him, ever.

Why? Becuase he is Mormon or because you do not like his politics? Would you vote for Harry Reid?

Because he is a Mormon who has sworn an oath to the LDS Corporation during his endowments in the Mormon temple. He has sworn to obey the Corporation. He cannot be trusted to not allow the Mormon so-called-Prophet or the Mormon Corporate empire influence him.

[_Jason Bourne]

I don't think that Romney's religious affiliations should be held against him as far as his candidacy. His flip-flopping on issues should be, though.

Romney is desperately trying to pander to the religious right and is not doing very well.

Of course, Hillary has her own mess to deal with on the Democrat side. She's trying to keep the fringe leftists in place, too.

If the Republicans are smart, they will elect Guilliani as the candidate. He's much more moderate and has been up front about his policies. I have quite a few Democrat friends who would vote for Guilliani over Hillary in a general election. I think he would have a better chance of beating her than Romney would.

I like Rudy too. But I think Romney could beat Hillary hands down

Re the flip flop, I think you are being unfair. Romney addressed this the other night in an interview. First he said that he had changed his views since his senate race. But as governor of Mass, he had a pro lief record and he reffered to bills he had treated accordingly. He said that if the public does not want someone who never changed their mind then don't vote for him. He said he has modified his views, but as a public official he has a pro life record and it is not a recent change.

[_Jason Bourne]

It is absolutely a valid comparison. People were nervous and some bigoted about a Catholic president, that he would take m,arching order from Rome and as well as other things that the majority protestant religion found repugnant. Romney is in the same boat. I agree that some questions about his religion are fair. Since the LDS have a strong hierarchy he should settle concerned about him being independent from them and following his own consciouses. But over all people should vote on a candidates based on the person, their political views, their trakc record and so on, whether they are Mormon, Jew, Catholiuc, Baptist, Muslim or atheist.

I sort of agree. :-)

I do not think someone should vote based on a candidate's religious affilation but perhaps a candidate's beliefs about life, humankind, world views, etc. etc. ARE important.

If a candidate believes he is chosen by God to become President and bring the priesthood to the highest office of the land, if he believes he is beginning to restore a theocracy as in the days of Joseph Smith, if he believes he has a duty to give all his time, talent, and energy to building up his church, well these are things someone MIGHT find important.

I'm NOT saying Mitt believes any of this.

I'm suggesting that for some folks these might be legitimate questions and concerns they might have toward a Mormon running for President of the United States.

~dancer~

Yes but Romney had made it clear that he is not this way. How many times does he have to say it?

[_Dr. Shades]

Romney's speech has been given. Here is a link to the full text:

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=23830

A highlight:

"Almost 50 years ago another candidate from Massachusetts explained that he was an American running for president, not a Catholic running for president. Like him, I am an American running for president. I do not define my candidacy by my religion. A person should not be elected because of his faith nor should he be rejected because of his faith.

"Let me assure you that no authorities of my church, or of any other church for that matter, will ever exert influence on presidential decisions. Their authority is theirs, within the province of church affairs, and it ends where the affairs of the nation begin.

"As governor, I tried to do the right as best I knew it, serving the law and answering to the Constitution. I did not confuse the particular teachings of my church with the obligations of the office and of the Constitution – and of course, I would not do so as President. I will put no doctrine of any church above the plain duties of the office and the sovereign authority of the law."

Also:

"There are some who would have a presidential candidate describe and explain his church's distinctive doctrines. To do so would enable the very religious test the founders prohibited in the Constitution. No candidate should become the spokesman for his faith. For if he becomes President he will need the prayers of the people of all faiths."

[_Yoda]

Re the flip flop, I think you are being unfair. Romney addressed this the other night in an interview. First he said that he had changed his views since his senate race. But as governor of Mass, he had a pro lief record and he reffered to bills he had treated accordingly. He said that if the public does not want someone who never changed their mind then don't vote for him. He said he has modified his views, but as a public official he has a pro life record and it is not a recent change.

Several months ago, in an interview on "Meet the Press", Romney admitted that he voted the way he did on the pro-life issue in MA because he was "playing politics" and wanted to get elected. I'll see if I can find the transcript.

[_Dr. Shades]

So Romney flip-flopped on the abortion issue. Big deal! Doesn't everyone pretty much accept the fact that it's practically a requirement in American politics to try to please both sides somehow?

I view flip-flopping on abortion to be pretty much the same as breaking the speed limit: You're technically not supposed to do it, but everyone does it anyway, no one thinks the worse of you for it, and it's almost a necessity.

[_Maxrep]

[I'm NOT saying Mitt believes any of this.


~dancer~

I think Mitt takes what is usefull from the church and discards the rest. I'm sure we have all run across some zealous priesthood holders that would function poorly as president.

If Mitt does serve as president, we will see an accelerated decline in the legitimacy of the church. Think about it... How long would it take for bumper stickers with Mormon type sayings and jabs to appear. People are creative. Those that don't like Mitt for whatever reason will at time resort to beating his presidency over the head with his church's oddities.