Why Not Mitt?

Mitt Romney is admittedly an attractive candidate. He has business experience, governing experience, he is tall, good looking, and has an attractive wife. He is correct on most of the issues we are concerned about. At least the current edition of Mitt Romney is pro life, pro family, and conservative on fiscal issues and foreign policy. So why would I be opposed to voting for him?

If you read the news magazines evangelicals oppose Romney because of the doctrinal differences with the LDS church. Evangelicals believe Mormonism is a cult along the lines of Branch Davidism only a "more acceptable to our culture cult" like Jehovah’s Witnesses.

We are electing a president not voting on a Pastor. We don’t choose presidents on the basis of doctrine. They don’t have to agree with the gospel to be a good president. Make no mistake, while Mitt talks about the gospel, it is a different gospel. I don’t oppose Mitt based on the heretical doctrines of the LDS Church to which he belongs.

A lot of news sources believe opposition to Romney is based on the polygamy factor. The LDS church officially ended its ties with polygamy in 1890 although the unofficial acceptance continued for at least another generation. Even today there are many polygamists in Utah and if they will just keep their beliefs to themselves they go un molested although the young girls, 13 and 14 years old married off to uncles and cousins are not so lucky. See the Warren Jeff’s rape trial. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,231017,00.html

But Romney is not pro polygamy, nor do I believe his election will either make polygamy more or less acceptable or prevalent.

So what is my opposition to Romney based on? Romney grew up in the LDS church. Just like all good Mormon boys he was baptized at age 8, joined the Aaronic priesthood at 12 and became a deacon, became a member of the Melchizedec priesthood thus becoming an elder when he was 18. Before returning to BYU and marrying Ann he served as a missionary in France. Those are all the actions of a cultural Mormon and would describe most of the young men growing up in a Mormon home. But does he really believe?

ABC reporter Terry Moran asked Mitt on Nightline, January 29, 2007 Would you describe yourself as a devout Mormon? True believer?"

Romney answered, “Absolutely. I'm proud of my faith. It's part of my heritage.” USA Today asked Romney if he would disagree with any aspect of LDS church? His response: "I wouldn't take it upon myself to try in any way to distance myself from my faith. I love my church. I am not going to pick and choose doctrines and beliefs." USA Today 3/12/2007

That being the case, let me tell you a few things Mitt Romney believes about you and your faith.

1. He believes that your faith, unless it is LDS, is corrupt. Mormonism was founded on the first vision of Joseph Smith who said God told him that all the religions were corrupt and all their professors were corrupt. Professors was not a word talking about teachers as we use the word, but to all those who profess to believe.

Every Sunday when Mitt and Ann attend the local ward meeting they hear from every speaker that the LDS church is the only true church. It is a part of the testimony of each speaker. So if he accepts all their beliefs, as he has said, he believes that your church is corrupt and not true.

2. Mormons who do not stay in line are disciplined. First their temple recommend is taken away, meaning they can no longer enter the temple and do the temple work. (be baptized for the dead, be sealed for eternity, or attend the temple marriages of their children or friends.) Then if they don’t straighten up they will be excommunicated and will no longer have the blessings of the gospel.

That may be the reason Romney makes such statements as he accepts all the doctrines and beliefs. He doesn’t want to be excommunicated. Do we want a man as president who must believe certain things or be excommunicated from his church and from his chance to become a god?

The LDS church is very lenient about political views. If they required all good Mormons to tow the church line they would have to excommunicate Senator Harry Reid of Nevada. But what would they excommunicate a politician for? I don’t know.

3. Mormons do not preach a gospel of conversion. They don’t even call what they do evangelism. They call it proselytizing. Because that is what it is. They want the members of your church to become the members of their church. Not so you will be saved, and have an opportunity to go to heaven, but so you will belong to the correct church.

A Mormon president would be a real boon to their proselytizing efforts. That is why Utah is the brewing ground for a Romney presidency. Recently he used the mailing list of LDS Living magazine as a fund raiser. LDS Living has a strong connection to Deseret Books, some say they are owned by Deseret Books. Deseret Books is owned by the church. So the Romney campaign used a mailing list of the LDS church to raise funds. That would be like a candidate using the mailing list of Home Life (a Southern Baptist Family Magazine for those that don’t know) to raise funds.

Utah is one of the smallest states in the union, but except for California, Romney raised more money in Utah the first six months of 2007 than any other state. Why do you think that might be? Could it be because they know it will greatly enhance the stature of their religion thus helping their proselytizing efforts to have a Mormon president? Of course they do.

Robert Millet, Professor at BYU admitted such. He said, electing Mitt Romney would “be a statement that to some extent people have begun to treat Mormons as something other than an oddity." In other words, they would be more accepted as a religion.

So I am opposed to Mitt based on three things.
1. What he thinks of me and my faith.
2. His need to tow the LDS line or be disciplined.
3. The advantage to LDS proselytizing that his election would have.

One last comment. I think it would be a mistake for the Republican party to nominate Romney for this reason. A poll conducted in June by the Los Angeles Times and Bloomberg found that 35% of registered voters said they would not consider voting for a Mormon for President. The poll found that the only faith that would be more damaging for a candidate would be Islam. (Time Nov. 26, 2006) Republicans would be nominating someone with a high negative factor not based on political views. All presidential races are so close that a negative as high might tip the scales to the democrat.

If the presidential election is between say, Romney and Clinton I will have to do a lot of soul searching. And the question I will ask myself is “what is the price at which I sell my spiritual beliefs for political goals?”

Tell me, what do you think. I don’t believe I am infallible. Where have I gone wrong?