Clearly I am not alone in considering this question to be the most important one of the 2012 election. A similar search on Google advises there are over 80,000,000 articles!
I have always felt that with a Romney candidacy and the election possibly being close the answer to the search question, for those who decide that their Christian faith supersedes any politics of the moment, may well make the difference in November. If, allied to any support switching to the perceived Christian, President Obama, Tea Party/Palin supporters stay at home because of any perceived snub to her by the Romney team, then Romney would be in some degree of Electoral College trouble I believe.
Here is a snapshot of Bing's opening page, (it will not link if clicked on,to see the articles type in the question at Bing or Google) there are many such and even more on Google and, for those who may be interested, my take on the question.
St.Paul is emphatic in his condemnation of "another gospel". Whilst I consider his statement regarding being accursed would pertain to those who knowingly and wilfully distort the true Gospel I would not consider it to apply to those who though naivety or culture believe or promote it. However, any such diversion from the received Christian faith reduces it and leads people away from the truth of salvation through the Christ of the Gospel and the Epistles.
" "The Apostle Paul warned in the strongest possible terms about the attitude of God toward those who would pervert the gospel of Jesus Christ. We can understand this, as it cost God his only son, and Jesus a horrible death by crucifixion. He stated:
"But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed." Galatians 1:8, 9"
To have, as president of the United States someone who sincerely believes in Mormonism would give credence to that "other gospel." The Republic has survived many challenges,wars and depressions and would survive four more years of President Obama even if during those four years there was massive economic dislocation.
It is more important that the true faith be protected, as the church founders wisely saw than to put political considerations first. I am deeply conservative and a liberal Christian but I consider my liberality has a home in the great body of the church which is wide and broad enough for all in Christ to dwell in.
Thus if a Mormon (or Scientologist for that matter) is the nominee of the GOP I will write in someone else. If such a person were a democrat I would work tirelessly for a Christian Republican. If need be I would vote for President Obama in 2012 as I believe his Christian faith to be sincere
This video is from a Black conservative AT THIS LINK
Dr. John Ankerberg has recently aired a series on Mormon beliefs, in which he interviewed panelists who had come out of the Mormon religion. Here are some questions he answers about Mormonism:
Here are some media clips from the series:
I am certain That Mitt Romney has a belief in his Mormon faith that is deeply held and sincere. It, his faith, is a mark of his character which I applaud and respect.
It appears to me that he, through his faith holds to ideals of peace, love and humanity. Indeed, I have never met a person of the Mormon faith whom I did not find anything but pleasant, especially at a number of inter-faith meetings I have attended at the Church of Latter Day Saints temples from time to time.
For me however, when it comes to choosing which candidate to vote for, especially for the highest office in the land, I am unable to separate the person from their religion when that religion is Mormonism.
I can appreciate that most, if not all religions have a degree of the fantastic about them. Much of this is clearly set out to illustrate moral precepts or is, frankly, propaganda directed at perceived enemies. However, nothing I can see in the Judeo-Christian Muslim context is divorced from historic, anthropological and archaeological reality.
Taking an undisputed source, The Book of Mormon itself we find in the introduction what is set out to be the historical setting of Mormonism. In summary the introduction advises, inter-alia, that " A glorified, resurrected being, Moroni," showed to Joseph smith in 1823 some golden plates upon which Moroni's father Mormon had inscribed the history of an ancient civilization in America and the visit of Jesus Christ to that civilization.
Again in brief " Two great civilizations came from Jerusalem ( to America) in 600 BC" namely the Nephrites and the Laminites the latter being the "Ancestors of the American Indians".There was apparently an older civilization the Jaredites which preceded them after "God confounded the languages at the Tower of Babel."
Now it is indisputable there there is not a single shred of archaeological evidence of any pre-Native American ("American Indian" ) civilization, especially one of the purported size and sophistication set out in the Book of Mormon. Not a building, boat or artifact, not a domestic utensil, article of jewelry or clothing, or grave, in fact, nothing at all.
The ancestors of the "American Indians" did not come from the Middle East as genetic testing proves, they are indisputably of Asian origin, having crossed the ancient land bridge from Siberia. The idea that the language (or rather multiplicity of languages) of Native Americans' was "confounded in Babylonia" is ridiculous and is not of course supported by any regarded ethnologist.We are clearly dealing not with fable or even fantasy but with a romance to put it kindly.
Again, there is a lot to challenge in the history of the Christian religion but nothing on the level of the entire religion being divorced from any sort of reality grounded in time and place.
I appreciate that people of faith can compartmentalize their life views.World famous scientists can view their work in the strictest of rationality whilst being sincere Christians which religious dogmas they understand they adhere to as a matter of faith divorced from the mindset they use in their occupation.
However, as much as I respect this attitude (which I hold to myself) there is a point at which I have to question the mindset of those who have, as I see it, stretched the faith/rationality dichotomy beyond its limits.
Thus for Romney to hold,as I am sure he sincerely does, to the purported historic roots of the Mormon faith
shows that, to me at least, he has thought processes that are a significant aspect of his personality that are questionable in respect of wider views he might hold now or in the future.
These include concepts which, again to me, are are totally divorced from reality.I would not look to a candidate for president to have,again as a major aspect of his very being, this sort of mindset.Simply put, if non-rationality at this core level can be accepted and acted on then what other non-rationality can also be accepted and acted on?
It may be said that Palin might hold to a fundamentalist belief which may or may not consider e.g. evolution to be totally true and which might take the old testament to be literally correct.However those views, even if held, are well within the mainstream of acceptable religiosity and have been held by world leaders throughout the ages.I would be sure the majority of voters would be comfortable electing a person to high office who subscribed to them.
It might also be stated that the same objections to Romney/Mormonism was made in respect of John F. Kennedy (and Alfred E. Smith before him) which objections have proven to be unfounded. However, the objections to Roman Catholicism was predicated on the belief that the Pope would be put in a position of having undue influence on American politics through the mechanism of a Catholic president-not primarily to the basic beliefs of the religion itself.
Whether the majority of voters would be comfortable in voting into the White House a person who held to the Mormon faith is a matter of conjecture but for me it is a settled issue.There is a leftist view AT THIS LINK
Joseph Smith said that there are men living on the moon who dress like Quakers and live to be nearly 1000 years old.
Well that's what this site AT THIS LINK says that Joseph Smith the founder of Mormonism advises. I am not qualified to comment as to whether or not Smith said that but if he did then it does, as the site indicates, raise some questions.
"Joseph Smith said that there are men living on the moon who dress like Quakers and live to be nearly 1000 years old. Since he was wrong about the moon, is it safe to trust him regarding the way to Heaven? (The Young Woman's Journal, vol. 3, p. 263-264. See reprint in Mormonism -- Shadow or Reality? by Jerald and Sandra Tanner, p. 4.)"
The site, which is admittedly a site that views Mormon doctrine in a negative way, presents a number of other purported Mormon doctrines which are, to say the least, interesting. I raise the matter because of the possibility of course of there being a Mormon nominee for president and subsequently a Mormon president.