After reading the commentaries of both Hugh Hewitt and Michael Medved concerning the Presidential candidacy of Mitt Romney, I’ve come to the conclusion that there is a serious disconnect between biblical truth and reality among many conservative commentators, especially when it comes to religious beliefs.  Both of these gentlemen have come to the defense of Mitt Romney, who is an avowed Mormon, asserting in one way or another that his aberrant religious beliefs, ultimately about truth, do not matter when discussing Presidential leadership in the Whitehouse.  Yet, their reasoning is so flawed with ignorance, equivocation, and pragmatic opining that it makes one wonder what happened along the way that caused them to jump the tracks of rationality.

            For instance, Hugh Hewitt—in an earlier blog of his—wrote an article which carries the same title as a book he is currently peddling, equivocates Romney’s perversion of Christianity—which he refuses to discuss, and is a Mormon tactic borrowed straight out of Freemasonry, by the way—with Barack Obama’s race and Hillary Clinton’s gender.  Hewitt accuses the critics of Romney with “religious bigotry,” assuming that religious heresy is of the same nature as a person’s skin color or gender.  The fallacy of equivocation is obvious, given that Obama’s race and Clinton’s gender are inherently what they are as human beings, as opposed to Romney’s beliefs, which are the product of mental ascent.  In other words, Romney’s beliefs have nothing to do with what he is as a human being.  In fact, thousands of people leave the cult of Mormonism every year when they discover the lies and distortions inherent within it, yet their races and genders do not change!  Hewitt is guilty of comparing apples with oranges, and is in fact guilty of intellectual bigotry himself.

            Michael Medved is no better.  In his most recent blog questioning whether Romney’s Mormonism should disqualify him or not, from being President of the United States, Medved offers some of the most irrational suggestions as a defense of him thus far.  In essence, Medved wants people to “Forget about theology,” forget about the past, and use a pragmatic philosophical outlook on life to determine not only the truth of religious claims, but whether a person is mentally capable of fulfilling such an office as President.  He claims that “Most of the anti-Mormon arguments emphasize the alleged absurdity of LDS doctrine.”  Alleged absurdity?  There is nothing alleged about it when one intelligently understands that Mormons believe that God is an exalted man who lives with a harem of polygamously married women, and is siring “spirit-children” on some planet nigh unto a star called Kolob; that Jesus and Satan are brothers, and then men and women—with enough self-effort—can go on to become gods and goddesses.

And to forget history is to repeat it.  Michael should know that, given his Jewish background.  Or maybe Michael would not mind if another Adolf Hitler rose to power, either, and put him in a concentration camp.  You might gasp and wonder, “Adolf Hitler?”  How does one get from Mitt Romney to Adolf Hitler?  That’s what happens when you discount the past, ignoring the Mormon tyranny that is a part of its history, which is driven by its theology.  Joseph Smith was a megalomaniac, as was Brigham Young.  Mitt Romney lauds Joseph Smith.  And if we accept Medved’s suggestion to forget the past, particularly when Mitt Romney’s ancestral religious past is dark and ugly, then it won’t be long before we repeat it, and that with another tyrant like an Adolf Hitler.

Finally, Medved’s pragmatic suggestion is so much like that found on the Political Left it is almost scary.  Whatever works, in other words, is great, so long as it doesn’t hurt anyone.  What?  Michael’s disconnect with the almost unbearable hurt that Mormonism has caused the literally thousands, if not millions of lives, is glaring.  Yet, he thinks that as long as Romney has all the outward appearances of peace, joy, and contentment, and as long as he can balance a budget, well then, he must be Presidential material worth considering.  The problem, though, with such thinking is that it is self-refuting.  Why?  Because pragmatism is a kissing-cousin of relativism, which is a worldview divorced from the truth, while hypocritically claiming to embrace and advocate it.  In other words, a pragmatic view based on what works for one person, or one group, does not necessitate that it is either true, or beneficial to anyone else.  It is merely a matter of opinion, and we all know what the definition of an opinion is.

Clearly, there is a significant disconnect among the political media pundits, on both sides of the isle when it comes to Mitt Romney, and that disconnect centers around a lack of knowing biblical truth.  Many of the political pundits that the American populace hears on radio and TV everyday are so biblically illiterate that they will do just about anything to put someone like a Mitt Romney into office.  They might claim that they’re not electing a pastor, but a President, but once again that is merely another display of ignorance that refuses to take into account the religious commitment of the person they are defending.  Mitt Romney is not just another guy with political ambitions, just like Joseph Smith was not just another guy who wanted to be President either.  He is a Mormon, first, and cannot help but bring his Mormon influence to office.  And only those too eager to be naïve and irrational about his Mormonism will look the other way, or provide excuses for it, to detriment of us all.

http://apologeticsonline.net

Recently during a "60 Minutes" interview with Mike Wallace, Presidential hopeful Mitt Romney made the following statement:

"There is part of the history of the church’s past that I understand is troubling to people," Romney says. "Look, the polygamy, which was outlawed in our church in the 1800s, that’s troubling to me. I have a great-great grandfather. They were trying to build a generation out there in the desert. And so he took additional wives as he was told to do. And I must admit I can’t imagine anything more awful than polygamy."

Mitt Romney, as everyone by now knows, is a devout Mormon, as even Mike Wallace alluded to during the early part of the interview. So, when he tells a national audience that he "can't imagine anything more awful than polygamy," one has to wonder if he's telling the truth. Why? Because as few people know, Mormonism still has within its "Standard Works" (the Mormon source for "official doctrine" among Mormons) a full section dealing with the topic of polygamy, and those who think it's "awful" are destined for damnation for refusing to practice it. Notice the following from Doctrine & Covenants [D&C] 132:1-4.

To:Joseph Smith

1 Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you my servant Joseph, that inasmuch as you have inquired of my hand to know and understand wherein I, the Lord, justified my servants Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as also Moses, David and Solomon, my servants, as touching the principle and doctrine of their having many wives and concubines-- 2 Behold, and lo, I am the Lord thy God, and will answer thee as touching this matter. 3 Therefore, prepare thy heart to receive and obey the instructions which I am about to give unto you; for all those who have this law revealed unto them must obey the same. 4 For behold, I reveal unto you a new and an everlasting covenant; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory.

Of course, the rest of this particular "revelation" to Joseph Smith goes on to outline just what can be expected if one is married to the right person (another Mormon), in the right place (the Mormon temple), and by the right authority (a Mormon priesthood holder), with specific references to polygamous marriage and the condoning of it, namely exaltation unto godhood. Moreover, in D&C 132:54 there is stern warning that God allegedly revealed to Joseph to pass on to his wife, Emma, that if she objected to the idea of polygamy, that she would be destroyed.  So, it is quite clear throughout that polygamy is anything but "awful," at least according to such an authoritative Mormon source, but instead is a blessing from God, and is something to be obeyed if the faithful Mormon is truly desirous of salvation.

Nevertheless, lets assume that Romney does believe that there is nothing more awful than polygamy. What is also safe to assume? That the Mormon Church is awful, given that its leadership practiced polygamy for several decades after the supposed prohibition was uttered by Mormon President Wilford Woodruff. Hardly. In a Mormon's mind, the Mormon Church is the Kingdom of God on earth, if not God himself, and can do no wrong, despite a never-ending list of bad doctrine leading to bad behavior.  In fact, one cannot attain "true" salvation without being a member of the Mormon Church.  So, with all of that riding on the line, the Church cannot be "awful," can it?

How about, Mitt Romney believes that the Book of Mormon, or more specifically, the Doctrine & Covenants  is "awful." Not on your life. Mormonism would completely fall apart if it was ever admitted that any part of the extra-biblical writings which make Mormonism what it is were "awful" or in error. And that despite the fact that there is nothing verifiable to support anything the Book of Mormon has to say, much less the twisted renderings of D&C 132 which openly condones plural marriage.

Well, if Romney would never consider either the Mormon Church or the Book of Mormon to be "awful," then what about Joseph Smith? After all, he's the one who first introduced the idea of polygamy to the Mormon people. Besides, Joseph Smith not only practiced polygamy (some report he had as many as 33 wives), but Joseph's ventures led him to not only marry children (Helen Mar Kimball was 14; Fanny Alger was 16), the children and their mothers (Patty Bartlett and Sylvia Sessions), but the wives of other men (Zina Huntington, Marinda Johnson, Sarah Kingsley), while they were still married to them, as well. First of all, it is anathema for any Mormon to speak ill of the "prophet," so Romney is not going to do that, and that despite all the perversions that the "prophet" engaged in and propagated. Second, if a Mormon ever expects to succeed in becoming a god himself one day, and part of the requirement for attaining such a lofty status is to receive a "certificate" of approval from Joseph Smith, then fear of forfeiture will also keep Romney's mouth shut for attributing awfulness to Smith.

How about God? Isn't he "awful," since He's the one who ultimately mandated polygamy in the first place? Not at all.  How could anyone condemn God, who's an actively practicing polygamist himself?  And that includes Jesus.  Former Mormon apostle Orson Pratt once wrote,

Now, we have no reason to suppose that this increase would continue, unless through the laws of generation, whereby Jesus, like his Father, should become the Father of spirits; and, in order to become the Father of spirits, or, as Isaiah says, "The Everlasting Father," it is necessary that He should have one or more wives by He could multiply His seed, not for any limited period of time, but forever and ever: thus He truly would be a Father everlastingly, according to the name which was to be given Him.

So, if Romney does not believe that any of the aforementioned are "awful," then just how can he believe that polygamy itself is awful?  The fact of the matter is, he cannot.  Romney no more deplores polygamy than he does his Mormon faith, which is "awful" by biblical standards.  Instead, what we have in Mitt Romney is another mealy-mouthed Mormon who is unwilling to tell us what he really believes when asked, but hides those beliefs underneath his collar out of expediency.  For he knows that if he ever actually divulged his Mormon beliefs and his devotion to them in public, his political campaign for President of the United States would suddenly suffer cardiac arrest.

The United States does not need another presidential leader with a forked tongue, much less does it need someone with the kind of religious pedigree which would cause a Mitt Romney to say one thing before the TV cameras and something else in his heart.  What the United States does need is a presidential leader who says one thing because his heart's motives are pure.  Romney's motives are not pure, they are "awful."  And only those dumb enough to listen to the one-pronged message coming from his two-forked tongue will laud him otherwise.

This morning I was listening to Mormon talk show host Glenn Beck ramble on an on over the stupid comments that the "Reverend" Al Sharpton had made recently in respect of Mitt Romney and his Mormon Church ties. Apparently Sharpton said to atheist Christopher Hitchens in a debate with him, "As for the one Mormon running for office, those who really believe in God will defeat him anyways, so don't worry about that; that's a temporary situation." From that Glenn Beck, along with others whom the Mormon are attempting to course sympathy from, ranted, lamented, and attempted to gain empathy for the poor, victimized Mormon political candidate, Mitt Romney. It was enough to make a person gag.

What Beck and his Mormon callers did is what all Mormons have been doing lately, and that is to try and garner sympathy for just how "Christian" Mormonism is without ever actually addressing the fundamental tenets that Mormonism espouses (see elsewhere in this blog where those tenets are clearly laid out).

Instead of honestly and openly telling people that Mormons believe that God is a polygamously marriage man, who sires bodiless children to be sent to earth to take on bodies, whereby they can become gods and goddesses one day, he whines about just how poorly the Al Sharpton's are treating him and his religion.

Instead of honestly and openly telling people that Jesus is Satan's brother, he points out what he thinks is a flaw in Sharpton's soul, and how it is as dark as the one that Beck once exhibited during his days of drunkenness and debauchery.

Instead of honestly and openly telling people that no one is going to gain entrance into heaven one day until they first accept Joseph Smith (the founder of Mormonism) as a prophet (even though he never uttered a prophecy that ever came to pass exactly as stated), and then receive a "certificate" of approval from Joseph Smith, Beck laments that he doesn't feel pity for Sharpton, but feels badly for just how ignorant he is.

Glenn Beck is the typical Mormon evader who is dishonestly and deceitfully duping people with his victimhood persecution complex. It is a hallmark strategy that Mormon President and Public Relations guru Gordon B. Hinckley has been promoting for years, and sad to say, it is working to the detriment of society as a whole. For not only are people being hoodwinked into believing that Mormonism is something that it is not, namely Christian, those dumb enough to fall for all the whining and complaining are slowly being indoctrinated in the beliefs and practices of demonic paganism, and given the biblical ignorance and illiteracy of so many, they're swallowing much of it hook, line, and sinker.

America, we need to wake up! Mormonism, like Islam, like all false religions in general, is not what it claims to be, and the Glenn Beck types are feeding us a line of bull by trying to convince us otherwise. Yes, Al Sharpton said something dumb, but if one were to ask a Mormon what was so dumb about it, particularly if one were to get into the origin of all the Mormon gods and goddesses, one could easily say that Sharpton was right, at least to a certain degree.

What America doesn't need is to be substituting one form of bigotry for another. And that is exactly what Glenn Beck, Mitt Romney, Gordon Hinckley, and the Mormon Church is doing by playing on the sympathies and sensitivities of those whom they not going to inform as to what they really believe. Yet, if we look the other way, as so many will, then we deserve what we get: one bigot exploiting another bigot to simply promote his bigotry, while many hypocritically sit around lauding one and condemning the other.