Having read a great deal about Mormonism, I find it extraordinarily scary for every woman in the US if a devout Mormon is elected. The world view is neither Christian nor particularly truthful. However, – I must say that Mitt shows no indication of being much more than a cold opportunist. His views on social issues are merely what he perceives as necessary for the vote. He is well known for his cold manner toward anyone he can’t use. So, the Mormon thing isn’t that big a deal – his character is a big deal. Read “Leaving the Saints” which tells us a good deal about a world view that is quite damaging to the human spirit. As a Catholic – I know many Catholics who live in a falsely religious and weird world and many Evangelicals who have created a false world that is just as damaging. Perhaps healthy spirituality, truthful religious journeys are what we must look for in leaders. Mitt Romney displays non of the above.

All that I wrote David, is what Mormonism actually teaches when the smiles and white shirts fade away. Nice people also existed in the Roman empire. Heretics are not always grumpy and mean. Just compare the Jesus of the Gospel and the Jesus of Mormonism and you see that never the twain shall meet. And keep your children safely away when learning about “how” Mary got pregnant with the Mormon Jesus. There is nothing traditionally similar in Mormonism, to the faith delivered only once to the saints. If Mormons are Christians, so are Buddhists and Hindus and Voodoo practioners. Mormons are closer kin to Muslims than Christians. Eerily so. Look at what awaits them in Mormon heaven. Women to serve them eternally.What did the real Jesus offer to all in heaven?Complete eternal equality. We’ll be like angels, not Smith or Mohammad. I would vote for a Buddhist before voting for a Mormon. Because, I am a Christian. In fact a Chinese (Buddhist) American would make a great President. The Chinese just accomplish.At least Buddhists believe in no god at all. Not some freakisn idea of a god to promote the licentious views of Joseph Smith and his Mormon male followers.Besides Romney has already shown the world of conservatives what he does morally with leadership. Now the gay agenda is in control of children’s minds in the state Romney once led. Note that Billy Graham praised the Clinton’s when he was in New York during an evangelistic trip.

Interesting, albeit scattered post Donny. First, the very concept of a “representative government” begs for at least a bit of opportunism in light of taking care of your constituency over someone elses. If you were to disqualify a politicians moral fiber due to being “coldly opportunistic” you’d probably wipe out 99% of elected officials. Second, lets separate a couple things. First, Mitt is a politician looking to acquire another political office, not a Mormon evangelist looking to wipe out Christianity. While I’m sure his faith guides some of his decisions, it’s important to note that his public positions on traditionally moral issues closely mirror those of Conservative Christians. I think there’s a fine line we’re walking very close to between determining how a man’s faith affects his decisions and choosing to belittle him because of his faith. While the first is a very necessary question, saying things like Mormonism is “a freaskisn idea” exposes an ugliness that I’m fairly certain isn’t Christlike. Judge Mitt on his ability to govern and if opposed, make it because AS A LEADER AND POLITICIAN he won’t perform at the level you want in the next President – not because of a faith he and millions others hold sacred.

Mitt will not perform on the level I require of a President. Massachusetts proves that. And the founder of Mormonism certainly meant it for the wiping away of Christianity.He wrote that down in the Book of Mormon and pursued it his entire life. He went out guns blazing by the way. Certainly not like a Christian martyr.

My really worry is that many people will vote against Mitt because he’s Mormon and not for the much better reason that he might not be terribly trustworthy and bit difficult to pin down. On the plus side, his flexibility suggests a willingness to compromise rather than adhere dogmatically and stupidly to a course destined for disaster. That would be a welcome change.

Do we really want someone who hid behind his missionary stint to avoid military service (and never again found time to serve) and who advises his family not enlist to be Commander in Chief? The problem is not that he is a Mormon, its that he is not Mormon enough.