Politics and Theology: Questioning the Romney Candidacy

Last Thursday in this space, CE published a reprint of an article by Terry Mattingly, "The Exaltation of Mitt Romney," a brief examination of some of the political implications for Romney of a few aspects of his Mormon religion.

Reader reaction to the article in our space was very engaged and intense. Some readers argued that his religion is a non-issue with regard to his fitness for the presidency. Others questioned whether we as Catholics might be benefitted more by attention to the genuineness — or lack thereof — of Catholic candidates instead of worrying about Romney's religious affiliation.

Mattingly's article drew attention especially to two things: the power and authority of the leader of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, called by adherents, "prophet, seer and revelator" and the Mormon doctrine of "exaltation," the belief that every Mormon male will someday be a god, creating and ruling over his own planet and populating it with his own children. The article pointed out that when a Mormon says he "is saved" by Jesus or that he can gain "eternal life," both real "salvation" and "eternal life" are defined by Mormons as "exaltation." The article did not mention the Mormon saying, "salvation without exaltation is damnation" meaning that if you ask a Mormon if non-Mormons can be saved, the Mormon will answer yes, however since only Mormon males can be exalted, the "salvation" available to non-Mormons is what they consider damnation for themselves. (But this isn't an eternal punishment like hell — that is reserved for Mormon "apostates".)

The point of all this is simply to demonstrate that there is not a single word of Christian terminology — including "God," "Jesus," "heaven," "salvation," "creation" — the definition of which is agreed upon by Mormons and Christians. Mormons are not Christians; their doctrine of the nature of God is polytheistic.

The reason some have raised the question of the authority of the Mormon leader is to challenge Romney regarding what he would do if the person he calls "prophet, seer and revelator" suddenly imposed upon all Mormons, and therefore upon him, a new practice that was at odds with American law as their former practice of polygamy was. Would he obey his leader or the law of the United States that he was sworn to uphold? While his answer to this might be interesting, it is a question that is odds-on merely theoretical given that the two most famous uses of the power of the "prophet, seer and revelator" have been to outlaw polygamy among Mormons and to declare the spiritual equality of Blacks with Whites — both of which brought Mormon society more in line with the prevailing American culture. The idea that the Mormon religious leader might suddenly, upon the election of a Mormon president of the United States, declare that Mormons must practice polygamy, or must use cocaine as a sacrament, or must drive on the left side of the road, or create any other such conflict with American law is too far-fetched to be seriously considered.

So, if that is not a worry, what possible difference do the other theological issues make in the man's qualification to be president? As one of our readers pointed out, he is not running to be the nation's pastor.

I think those who are shrugging off the Mormon distinctives may be missing something pertinent. But I also think that the issues mentioned above do not get to the heart of the problem with Mormonism and with the possibility of a Mormon president. (Note: In the discussion below, I will use dual terminology referring to Mormon "gods" because the beings they consider gods are gods in the same sense that we would call, say Thor, "a god" — they are not eternal, omniscient, omnipotent and possess none of the perfections of God and they are imaginary. I am also using "God" because it is important to understand that the Mormons make these claims about the God of the Bible.)

Take their polytheism for example: as oddly fascinating and even appalling a doctrine as it is, you have to get behind it to understand its implications. Behind it is something called "the eternal progression": the god who created this world — the God of the Bible, they claim — was once a man living on a planet created by his father god, who was once a man living on his planet created by his father god and so forth. Now there is a philosophical problem with this: there is no beginning point — it is an infinite regress. But there can not be such a thing, because if you have to go back an infinite number of times, you never get to a beginning and without a point at which to begin, you never get to now and today. That is an insurmountable philosophical (logical) problem.

 But more pertinent to the political question is the moral problem it generates. According to Mormon doctrine, the way that each god gets to become a god is by following the "law of the gospel." To Mormons, law (not god, or God) is eternal and law is prior (although "prior" has no real meaning when one is talking about an infinite regress) to god (or to God). God has not created law, it is not "of Him" or "from Him," rather, "law" — impersonal and uncreated — has made the gods gods (made Him God).

This is not merely a radical departure from the Judeo-Christian concept of God, it is a radical deformation of the concept of law, both natural law and the positive (promulgated) laws that flow from it:

The natural law, the Creator's very good work, provides the solid foundation on which man can build the structure of moral rules to guide his choices. It also provides the indispensable moral foundation for building the human community. Finally, it provides the necessary basis for the civil law with which it is connected, whether by a reflection that draws conclusions from its principles, or by additions of a positive and juridical nature (CCC 1959).

Behind the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution stands precisely this Judeo-Christian concept of natural law as the participation of the human conscience in the eternal law of God. It is eternal because it "is the work of divine Wisdom" (CCC 1950), and has as its source an eternal Being, God.  It is this concept of natural law from which positive law (ecclesiastical and civil) derives its just authority and its appeal to human reason. Furthermore it is exactly this concept of law that allows us to insist that no law can ever make abortion or euthanasia or embryonic stem cell research lawful. A law that purports to do so is not a law at all because it intrinsically contradicts the proper function of law, as St. Thomas explained:

A human law has the character of law to the extent that it accords with right reason, and thus derives from the eternal law. Insofar as it falls short of right reason it is said to be an unjust law, and thus has not so much the nature of law as of a kind of violence (STh I-II, 93, 3, ad 2).

Which brings us back around to the question of Romney, Mormonism, and the possibility of a Mormon being elected president. Romney's appeal to some Catholics and other Christians is certainly based on his pro-life position, whatever one thinks about its duration and sincerity. But what kind of case can he make to the nation for the cause of the murdered unborn? What kind of case can he even build in his own head? If "law" is prior to and above (ontologically superior to) even the gods (or God), then on what basis do we claim that law ought to serve the good of persons? If law is ultimately not the product of a Personal Being, how can human reason make judgments regarding law and how can the human conscience be bound by law? Doesn't it all come down to arbitrary decree? And isn't arbitrary decree (read: usurpation of legislative function by the Supreme Court) exactly why we are in this mess?

Considering that "a decent respect to the opinions of mankind" required reason to make its case against arbitrary decree at the founding our country, the possibility of electing to its highest executive office someone who must hold as a tenet of faith such a different, and unreasonable, conception of law gives me pause.

Subscribe to CE
(It's free)

Go to Catholic Exchange homepage

  • Guest

    In the case of a pro-abortion politician, can we trust the reason and decision-making of a person for any political office who reasons it is okay to murder an innocent unborn child in the womb?  I submit we cannot as they put their personal opinion before reason or they are unable or unwilling to reason properly.


    Similarly, can we trust the reason of a person who buys into the Mormon faith, or has a totally different concept of God and of law?  I think not.  While such a person may have business acumen, that is not the same as enforcing and shaping the law of our country.


    Ad majorem Dei gloriam!

  • Guest

    Thank you Mary for the most informative article about Mitt Romney yet. And an excellent overview of the Mormon faith and beliefs. I have forwarded this article and links to Catholic Exchange to co-workers and friends so they can have information about making an informed vote.

    Thank you!


  • Guest

    I fear that this article falls into the same trap that our Protestant brothers and sisters encountered when they were trying to disqualify John Kennedy from the Presidency. They were more concerned with the theological underpinnings of his beliefs than the content of his beliefs and his fidelity to them. They criticized our beliefs that the Church could determine "the law" on a basis other than Scripture, and that the Bishop of Rome could impose that law on its members like Kennedy. They worried about the Church influencing American policy.

    We rightfully called those concerns and that criticism of 1960 bigotry. We should apply the same standard to those concerned about Romney's faith in 2007.

    The article states that the beliefs of his faith are determined by a different theology than ours, and that theology is reason for concern. And, the article contends that Romney's "conception of law" is different than ours, so we should be concerned that his view of the law as an "arbitrary decree" will influence American policy.

    Let me suggest that we should be more concerned about the values of Romney and all the other candidates, and how faithful they have been to them in their daily lives. The theological underpinnings of Romney's values, or any other candidate, are just fodder for political bigots, and have no place on the Catholic Exchange website.

  • Guest

    Thank you Mary.  I appreciate the great article and will share it with as many people as I can in the next couple days.  I should at least be able to pass it to close friends tonight and tomorrow at New Years events.  I live in Iowa and will be going to caucus on Thursday!

    Thank you to everyone at Catholic Exchange for what you do.  Back in my twenties, all I could find was Focus on the Family as a good Christian voice helping people in the secular world live our Christian values. (Leadership in the Parishes seemed diconnected and afraid to proclaim truth).  No hard feelings toward Focus on the Family, but I really appreciate all the Catholic Christian voices now to be found here, Catholic Answers, EWTN TV and radio, other Catholic radio stations, The Light Weigh, Jeff Cavins, Fr. John Corapi, etc., etc.

    It is wonderful to see the grace of the Holy Spirit raising up so many people and ministries in the Catholic faith.  Even the Bishops and their newly released U.S. Catechism for Adults.  Not to mention the young priests coming up through the seminaries who will help us be faithful to the Pope, Church and its teachings.

    As a way to show you how your efforts are paying off, I am happy to report that our parish (500 families) is making Adult Education a priority and doing our part in trying to educate (re-educate) any adult willing to participate. 

    The week of January 6 will kick off our second year of studying the Catechism of the Catholic Church in small groups.  We have 130 people meeting in homes or at church and on about every night of the week to study the second pillar "Sacraments" using the Bishops' United States Catechism for Adults.

    Last fall, our Knights of Columbus group bought the Great Adventure Bible Timeline study and we have had 30 people complete the 24 week study with another 30 people half way through.

    We started The Light Weigh program with seven ladies two years ago, and now have had about 20 more people go through that spiritual growth program.

    May 2008 be blessed by all human hearts turning to God and knowing that he will forgive anything if we only repent.

  • Guest


    Interesting article. I learned some new things here. It's obvious you put a lot of thought into it. I'm not sure about the following statement though, since they are talking about their 'god':

    "Now there is a philosophical problem with this: there is no beginning point — it is an infinite regress. But there can not be such a thing…" 

    Their god of the bible may be imagined, but your statement may not be true. Einstein's theory of general relativity, which is now widely accepted and supported by observable evidence, established that time, space and matter all had a beginning and are all linked together. The dimension of time itself began with the rest of the universe. If God created the entire universe, He created time and the laws that apply to time. Therefore, He is not defined by or limited by the dimensions and laws He created. In fact, God transcends the past, present and future all at once. Therefore, God had no beginning in time (as we see it), and God didn't need a cause (as we understand it).

    Romney did state he has a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. I know I'm unable to judge if that's true or not. Curiously, I noticed many Mormons do resemble sincere followers of Christ; a fact which always amazed me.

  • Guest

    techwreck: The reason that Kennedy's religion was not a threat to the Constitution (regardless of the imaginings of the Protestants) was exactly the reason that Romney's is. The Catholic Church believes in the natural law and the ability of men to reason on it — in other words the Catholic conception of law is not at odds with that of the framers of this country — Mormonism's is. It is NOT bigotry to point that out.

    zephyr: Yes, the universe (and time) had a beginning and God did not.  That is NOT what Mormonism teaches and you have completely misread me because you are attributing to me what I was explaining as Mormon doctrine. I certainly would NEVER say that the God of the Bible is imaginary; Mormon "gods" are, though. Please go back and reread the article more carefully.

    perusha: Thank you for your kind words about CE — remember everyone, today is the last day of 2007 and your donation to CE today is tax dedutible, just click on the blue Donate to CE tab above. We have great new Bible study resources coming in 2008 and we depend on your support!

  • Guest

    I tried to read the article, but I couldn't get past the picture. Do all Catholics look at life in this type of reality? Sealed

    Remember, the Sun is always shining!

  • Guest

    Yes, Mary, well done, you've said it. This is exactly what has given me pause about our brilliant friend. If you can get by the question of the depth and sincerity of his pro-life convictions, there is still the question of how easily we are trying to find a sure-fire winner, no matter what the cost to the American judicial framework. Reagan was totally in consonance with it, but Mr. Mitt on so many issues that matter, seems not to be. And yet he remains an attractive alternative in this season where there are just no perfect choices. Huckabee is a slickster, and Thompson seems to want to pretend that moving the clock back on abortion to let 50 states solve it will answer for 51 million deaths. Like Lincoln in the Civil War, if we want a more perfect union, with greater freedom assured for our citizens, the next president, and every president until it is accomplished, must be dedicated to leading us through the door that ends abortion and recognizes personhood for the unborn, and nothing less demonstrates an understanding of the true basis of the American political system and the realities of history. The law is christian in its origin, and is on our side, but we keep ceding our legitimacy in law to those who corrupt and usurp because we can't find a champion who can take it on, and shepherd us home. We keep subconsciously falling for the idea that morals have no place in the public law or dialogue, when in fact, our opponents know it's all about that.

    To say that these concerns, deep and penetrating as they are, have no place being discussed on a Catholic website because we're afraid someone else will say it demonstrates bigotry, is ludicrous, and robs any meaning and purpose from our freedom of speech and religion that is only legitimate in order to facilitate our search for the truth.

    To say that we should only concern ourselves with how consistent they are to the values they hold, is a red herring, and relativism. On that basis Bill Clinton looks pretty good. And a polygamist who is faithful to that, would win a gold star, but fail the required test for leadership today.

    To address these issues of the foundation of a thought system that exposes how a candidate will think in formulating policies that should stabilize and preserve our freedoms, is the very essence of political discourse, and our duty as citizens. If you want to compare it to Kennedy's time, fine, but those non-Catholics at the time had the right to know if he would be approaching the freedom of religion, for example, with the same understanding as they had and that the founders had, and what basis for formulating his positions was informing him. What Protestant America got at that time and since, from the Catholic understanding of law, was a deeper and more stable understanding of the truths of human nature and law that yielded greater security to the American system for the long run. To ask if we will get that from a Mormon understanding is legitimate, and necessary, and a right use of political discourse.

    Solving the problems of Mormonism, which is a corruption of Christianity and Judaism, is not what the discussion is about. But upon what basis we can trust a political leader who presents himself using words to communicate even a sincere frame of reference for his solutions to our problems, is germane to our problem at hand, and that is to assure ourselves that as he confronts issues of real moment to our lives and liberty, that he will be able to propose solutions not just to symptoms, but to causes, in a way that does not erode our foundation, but strengthens and expands it.

  • Guest

    God loves you .

    WHAT ‘reality’, DavidT? And, how is it wrapped up in that picture of Mitt Romney?

    A reality that Mormonism is a set of ‘the usual heresies’ from out of Protestantism wrapped in an absurd personality cult? I don’t see that my realization of that is ‘Catholic’, except as my Catholicism gives me criteria for comparison.

    That the likes of CE needs financial support? Maybe the Church ought to ‘Mormon’ us to require a tithe (from gross income, no less) and such organizations as CE could apply for support.

    Hmmm – again I ask – WHAT ‘reality’, DavidT?

    Remember, I love you, too .

    In our delighted glory in our Infant King,

    Pristinus Sapienter

    (wljewell @catholicexchange.com or … yahoo.com)

  • Guest

    mkochan, You missed my point. Kennedy's religion was not relevant to the Constitution or the election, but his values and how he lived them were. I think you would agree that bigotry occurs when doctrinal differences are used for political purposes. The attacks on Kennedy were political, as are the attacks on Romney in the Republican primaries.

    The Constitution says that there shall be no religious test for a candidate for public office. Are you attempting to add one?


    qhrpfu, You didn't read what I wrote. The values of a candidate are worth study and discussion in an election, but not their religion. Values that are not practiced are worthless. Bill Clinton never looked "pretty good" to me for that reason.

  • Guest


    An attempt at humor.

    A, "you had to be there" attempt as well, intended for Mary.

    So don't pay it any mind.

    Remember, the Sun is always shining!

  • Guest


    Do you see any influence on societal norms when the President of the US claims that "he did not have sex with that woman" using a straight face and believing it to this day?

    The point is, and I think Mary did an excellent job of utilizing logic in her conclusion, that it is not his religion, per se, but his thought process that is derived from that religion. He is not unfit because of his religious beliefs, rather because of his ascent to those beliefs.

    In Christ,

    Remember, the Sun is always shining!

  • Guest

    This discussion and exposition of all manner of facts needs to be in this or any other respected forum. None of this is to smear or broad brush the candidate with our prejudices but rather to educate and make ourselves comfortable in perhaps voting for the guy down the road. The above comments do a very good job justifying these articles.

    I will support it from another angle. The office of the President is highly visible and influential in the world. Parents will be naming babies after the president. The press will be talking to important members of his church to get fascinating stories. Astronomers will be examining the heavens to see if there are enough planets for every exalted Mormon male to rule. There will even be conversions to Mormonism as a result of Romney’s presidency.

    We Catholics are doctrinaire and the Mormon doctrine is at odds with ours. Why would we not scrutinize that which concerns us? Ultimately Romney may just get a pass on these issues but if he was appointed for the position of a Justice he would be facing these same questions from the Senators. Remember that Judge Bork was denied his spot for much less than that. This is all necessary within good clean political discourse. Otherwise the mascots of this website would be the three challenged “no evil” monkeys.

  • Guest

    Mary, great article, thanks.

    I think that most people, even of Mr. Romney's intellect, disconnect their faith from how they actually live their lives. Few perhaps actually think out the logical consequences of their belief system. And in perhaps a uniquely American mold, they have bought into the idea that faith in private should/must/can, as necessity arises, be disconnected from their public excersise of it.

    This attitude is not solely the property of any one faith, we see this disconnect between faith and reason in any number of Catholic politicians and those in the pews who support them.

    Nor is the accommodationist bent in Mormonism unique, we have no further to look than the current state of Anglicanism to note its effect.

    What is most disturbing is the uncritical way in which believers live their faith lives. They, and here I am thinking specifically of Catholics, get a few of the basics down then become intellectual slugs, not daring or caring to continue their exploration of the great riches of teaching God has to offer them in the Church and therefore fail to understand why they believe what they do. I think it was C.S. Lewis who equated this sluggishness/laziness to being less than a man. In what earthly occupation can we quit learning?

    As to uncritical thinking, it has been growing on my mind that our children need to be taught, perhaps as early as the 6-8th grades, the beginnings of philosophy and critical thinking. This seems a task especially suited to our Catholic schools (my 6th grader is bored, maybe this would provide a challenge).

    If anyone has any good home schooling resources with which we could supplement our childrens education I would be most appreciative of the information.



  • Guest


    you didn't understand my comments (nor Mary's article for that matter). You obviously think that Bill Clinton had values different from what he practiced, and I say he didn't. He is a committed liar, deviant and devious, corrupt and corrupting. If you think law is arbitrary, what good are your values, and how trustworthy is your practice? Or does that depend on what the meaning of "is" is?

  • Guest

    I disagree that the maleability of prophecy is as harmless as you seem to imply.  Whereas I do not see the Mormons doing something that would place them outside the mainstream, such as reinstating polygamy, it is possible for them to change their views on what the culture considers mainstream, but what would be offensive to traditional Christians.  For example, the Mormon prophet could theoretically mandate support for abortion, or same-sex "marriage", or many other things we associate with the Culture of Death.  Certain Protestant denominations, which do not make the same claims as the Mormons, have already done so, for the sake of being "more in line with the prevailing American culture".  In my opinion, the maleability of Mormon dogma remains a matter of concern.

  • Guest

    Look folks, CE is a non-profit (in every sense of the word, believe me).

    We cannot editorially endorse a candidate.  What we can do is raise relevant issues.  Call us naive, but we actually think that a very well-educated Catholic voting base could change this country.

    What has to be involved in such an education of the Catholic voter? It involves a lot of components: moral, theological, constitutional, and prudential. It involves general principles and their application to real life particulars. These are things we try to address in our own limited way. But these are all things that are part of our call as Catholics to be faithful citizens.

  • Guest


    You wrote, "CE is a non-profit …We cannot editorially endorse a candidate."

    Not to get off track, but do you, or anyone else for that matter, know why PP is allowed such a voice?

    In Christ,

    Remember, the Sun is always shining!

  • Guest

    ryanking, you make a good point — although I am not of the opinion  that there would be any such accomodation as you posit soon — it remains possible within their belief system.

    I think the Mormons are interested at this point as being seen as "just another Christian denomination."  A lot of their appeal even to converts is on the basis of morals and family values and so I don't anticipate any move that would pull them morally in a non-evangelical direction anytime soon.

    But if the winds change and morals voters no longer show themselves a robust part of the electorate and the society — who can say? That is the problem with seeing law as arbitrary decree — there aren't any bedrock principles behind it.

    David, your guess is as good as mine.

  • Guest

    David T, I call that "thought process" values. But, those thoughts must be lived as well as "thunk" to be a reality. There was obviously a disconnect between Bill Clinton's bible he carried to church and his behavior toward interns.

    In President Clinton's case, his religion didn't determine the kind of President that he turned out to be, and there was plenty of evidence of his values from his record as Governor of Arkansas.

    There is plenty of evidence of Romney's values from his record in business, with the Olympics, and as MA Governor without debating his religion.

    PS I'll repeat my disclaimer from earlier posts on the site. I am not a Romney supporter, and I do not intend to vote for him, for reasons other than his religion.

  • Guest
  • Guest


    I'm not associating his actions with his Bible. I am merely stating that, as president, he influenced America with his assertion that the relationship he had with Monica Lewinsky, and possible others, was something other than sexual. He is a learned man, a Rhodes scholar I believe, that does not know the moral wrongdoing in his actions.

    What message did that send to the youth and the 'playas" and to women? A president that lacks a basic of understanding of the moral law, one who "claims" to be Christian, should…"cause one to pause."

    In Christ,

    Remember, the Sun is always shining!

  • Guest

    Ms Kochan,

    I respect your writing and opinion very much.  Also I love Catholic Exchange.  However, I must disagree with you on the matter of Mitt Romney.  Briefly here's why.  You did a good job of expostulating the strangeness of the Mormon Religion.  But have you considered this.  To outsiders, that is, non-Catholics, some of our traditions, are strange indeed.  For example, the House of Loreto story.  As you know, this is the original house where Our Blessed Virgin Mary received the Annunciation from the Angel Gabriel.  In 1253 King Louis of France paid a visit there, prayed there, etc.  In 1291, Tradition has it, that the house was moved to what is now present day Croatia, micraculously translated, through the air, as it were (some say by angels).  In 1295 Pope Boniface VIII declared this event "worthy of belief". Sometime in the 15th century, the Holy House was again translated micraculously (because of a threat by Saracens) to Loreto, Italy, where it remains an important shrine for pilgrams today.  


    Lastly, The Constitution of the United States of America states in Article VI, "…no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States".



    Rio Vista, California



  • Guest


    You speak of Catholic traditions but the article speaks of Mormon beliefs, that is what Mormons are required to believe. Private revelation, such as the Loretto story, while not contrary to Catholic faith are not required  'beliefs' that is, Catholics are not required to believe them.

    The no religious test binds only the government in that it can't apply a religious test, by law, before accepting a candidate to any office or public trust. This does not bind the voter.




  • Guest

    Ray, in what way does Loreto, or Transubstantiation, or Purgatory or any number of other Catholic doctines, or traditions, relate to a candidate's fitness for office to administer the laws of this country?

    Now, then, does a candidate's understanding of what law is and what law is for relate to it?

    I could see if I had called Romney into question based on the idea that the angel Moroni visited Joseph Smith — then you might have your analogy. But I didn't and so you don't.

    He has to swear to uphold the Constitution — is it not pertinent that he understand law according to its meaning within the Constitution?

  • Guest

    Interesting read from a protestant: 

    "If you vote for Mitt Romney, you are voting for satan! This message today is not about Mitt Romney. Romney is an unashamed and proud member of the Mormon cult founded by a murdering polygamist pedophile named Joseph Smith nearly 200 years ago. The teachings of the Mormon cult are doctrinally and theologically in complete opposition to the Absolute Truth of God's Word. There is no common ground. If Mormonism is true, then the Christian faith is a complete lie. There has never been any question from the moment Smith's cult began that it was a work of satan and those who follow their false teachings will die and spend eternity in hell. This message is about the top Christian leaders in our nation who are supporting this cult members quest to become the next President of the United States.

    I have watched in horror over the past weeks as one evangelical Christian leader after another has either endorsed, supported, or just as bad, refused to denounce Romney's run for the White House and those Christian leaders who support him. Last weekend Pat Robertson, founder of CBN and Regents University, had Romney deliver the keynote address to the graduates of Regents. Regents is one of the great Christian colleges in this nation and Robertson allowed this cult member to deliver the commencement address. Is he out of his mind? Do you think there would ever be a true Gospel preacher giving the commencement address at Brigham Young?

    I have been warning you for years now about this cult born out of the pits of hell and responsible for sending millions of souls to eternal damnation. For the nearly 200 years this cult has been in existence they have strived for mainstream acceptance. They are the most devious of all the cults since they have always tried to portray themselves as "just another Christian group" when in fact, they are no more Christian than a Muslim is! Their deception starts with their name, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Sounds like a Christian church doesn't it? Some Mormons have recently changed their name to simply Community of Christ to disguise even better who they are in an attempt to lure people in.

    The Mormon cult talks of God and Jesus, but again, don't be deceived since the god and jesus of Mormon theology are NOT the one true God and Jesus of the Bible. This cult also uses the Bible, but like in all cults it is NOT their final authority. The Bible is superceded by the writings of Smith in the Book of Mormon, the Pearl of Great Price, and the Doctrine and Covenants. These books form the perverted teachings of Mormonism and is what their false theology is based on. There are many great ministries who work to bring those lost in the Mormon cult out of that deception to true faith in the Jesus of the Bible. You can visit any Christian bookstore and find many books that will detail in great depth the bizarre theology of Mormonism which is not based on anything but the imagination of Smith.

    I am not even going to deal with the tons of documentation that exists on the Mormons strategy to gain mainstream acceptance in the American culture. Obviously a big part of this strategy is to wield political power, with the Presidency being the ultimate political prize. There are reportedly 12 million Mormons worldwide, half of those in the United States. The worldwide holdings of the Mormon cult are in the tens of billions of dollars. Mitt Romney is the first member of this cult who has had the legitimate opportunity to help them achieve their goal of mainstream acceptance while holding the most powerful office in the world. Romney will have the full resources of this cult behind him in his bid for the White House.

    As I have told you often, despite what some polls say, the better percentage of two full generations living right now have never even been to church. Everyone has a spiritual side to their life, and the cults and false religions, the new Age movements, have been having a field day attracting people to their false beliefs because of the overwhelming number of people who have no faith coupled with the fact Christians have quit evangelizing and virtually removed themselves from the culture leaving these lost souls to satan. It is against this backdrop that I tell you without any hesitation or equivocation that to support and vote for Mitt Romney is to support and vote for satan!

    If Romney gets elected as the next President of the United States, the Mormon cult will finally have the mainstream acceptance they have been striving for these past 200 years. Romney winning the White House will lead millions of people into the Mormon cult. Those who follow the false teachings of this cult, believe in the false jesus of the Mormon cult and reject faith in the one true Jesus of the Bible, will die and spend eternity in hell. *ROMNEY GETTING ELECTED PRESIDENT WILL ULTIMATELY LEAD MILLIONS OF SOULS TO THE ETERNAL FLAMES OF HELL!!!

    Knowing all we do about this satanic cult leading people's souls to hell, knowing that a Romney presidency would give mainstream acceptance to this cult, why are most of the top evangelical leaders of our day falling over themselves to support this man? How can any Christian in good conscience have anything to do with Romney? I submit to you there are only 2 possible reasons, money and power.

    Let me first discredit immediately the reason many are publicly giving for supporting Romney, and that is his stand on family issues and life. Romney has distinguished himself as the leading Republican candidate to be pro life. It is important to note this has only happened recently since Romney used to support women killing their babies. His wife even donated money to the leading baby killing organization in he world, Planned Parenthood. But even giving Romney the benefit of the doubt that he will take a stand for life, the chances of him being responsible for moving that issue are minimal even if he went on record that his number one objective of his presidency is to overturn Roe vs. Wade, which of course he has not done and never will do. Supporting and voting for Romney because of his position on life is NOT a reason to elect a man who will ultimately be used to lead millions of souls to hell.

    No my friend, as sad as it is, this is about what most things in life boil down to, money and power. Is it any wonder why the Christian faith is so weak and ineffective, has such little influence in our culture when those who are recognized as leaders aren't really interested in God's Truth or in seeing souls saved, only in money and power. It was just a few decades ago that another cult member bought the evangelical leadership of this nation. His name was Rev. Sun Myung Moon, head of the Unification cult. To gain mainstream acceptance for his cult, he set up a myriad of conservative organizations and through them funneled literally millions of dollars to people like Billy Graham, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Tim and Beverly LaHaye, Robert Schuller, Paul Crouch, James Dobson, Jay Sekulow. D. James Kennedy, and many others.

    Fast forward to the year 2007 and you now have many of these same names involved in Romney's bid to become the next President. Romney had a very clear gameplan to court the evangelical leaders of this nation to support him. There is nobody who will dispute that it was the Christian vote which was responsible for President Bush being elected twice. Knowing the satanic nature of the Mormon cult and the fact they have worldwide resources in the tens of billions, literally thousands of non profit and for profit corporations they control, it would be pocket change for them to funnel money and/or services to those Christian leaders who support Romney for President. Having been embarrassed when their ties to Moon's cult became public, I have no doubt that those who are in bed with Romney have been very careful to insure that however they are being rewarded for their support, it will be virtually impossible to discover.

    Of course, the other component to those who are supporting Romney is power. Sadly, many evangelical leaders are also smitten with being "near the throne." Many of these men and women are willing to compromise the Truth in exchange for political power. They are willing to ignore the fact this hideous cult is leading millions to hell in order to be part of Romney's team. These leaders are nor driven by the Gospel but by political power!

    FOX News, that likes to portray itself as being friendly to the Christian faith, might as well be renamed the Mitt Romney for President network. Sean Hannity, who wears his Romney cheerleading dress to the program every night, has stated numerous times that those who dare question Romney's faith are hate mongers. It is clear that Hannity could care less about the spiritual implications of a Romney presidency, only that he will be on the inside as one of Romney's biggest advocates. Of course there is radio and TV host Glenn Beck who rarely lets people know he is a Mormon, often stating he is "born again." Beck is either like most Mormons and hasn't got a clue what his cult really believes, or he is simply trying to reinforce the lie from hell that a Mormon is a Christian.

    I love you and care about you so much. It is no wonder why the church is so weak and ineffective when you have those in leadership willing to compromise the Gospel for a few shekels and some political clout. I remember last year being excited about a wonderful deal we had put together with Larry Jones' Feed the Children organization that would have meant millions of dollars a year to Liveprayer and been a big part of the answer to giving us all the resources we needed to do what God has called us to do in reaching the lost through secular television. I'll never forget getting the phone call that Jones was bought and used by the Mormon cult as part of their overall strategy to appear as "just another Christian church." I had no choice but to sever the ties we had established with Jones. All the money and power in the world is not worth selling out Jesus!

    Please take some time today and pray for Mitt Romney and all those who have been deceived by the lies of the Mormon cult. The fact is that unless they renounce those lies and turn to faith in the one true Jesus of the Bible, they will die and spend eternity in hell. Pray also for these Christian leaders who have for whatever reason, foolishly aligned themselves with Romney. Pray the Holy Spirit will convict them and that they will renounce Romney and find a candidate to support who will hold to Biblical values. There is no excuse, no justification for supporting and voting for a man who will be used by satan to lead the souls of millions into the eternal flames of hell!

    I refuse to sit back and be silent while those who people look up to, who lead them in spiritual matters, are selling out the faith for whatever money and power they might be able to get in return. I challenge any of them to come on my TV program, or I'll appear on theirs, and answer one simple question, "Knowing that Mormonism is a cult and those who follow this cult will die and go to hell, what possible justification can you give for supporting Romney?" Having Romney as President is no different than having a Muslim or Scientologist as President. Please, don't tell me that Mitt Romney is the best option. I'll stay home and not vote before I will vote for satan, since if you vote for Romney you are voting for satan!

    Bill Keller


  • Guest

    Bill, Just what is your position with the Hucklebee campaign?

    PS Hannity is a solid Guilliani man.

  • Guest


       Excellent work.  But be careful!  If you keep opening cans of worms like this, soon no none will have time to read all the comments afterward.  A Blessed and Happy new year to all at CE!  May the peace of Christ be with you now and always! 

  • Guest

    Wow. I think we can safely say the Bill Keller comments have taken us into bigotry. Look, I think the concerns were stated pretty precisely before. Even if anything BK has to say is true (who can read all that?) it is not our concern here. As far as anyone's salvation goes, just for being a member of church, every one of us stands on our own in judgment before God. We can all go to hell, and we can all make heaven. Of course, the Catholic Church is the best help to getting there, but God's love is not blind and is ever providential. Otherwise, we are all at each other's throats again. Even if you conclude that the basis of someone's belief or thinking is not trustworthy, you may very well conclude that the individual is.

    O Immaculata, Queen of Peace, and Patroness of our country, pray for us all, to truly love each other under God.

  • Guest

    qhrpfu, Well said!

    A blessed New Year to all of you who make CE a civil and interesting place to discuss issues and the spiritual life.

  • Guest

    Just wanted to let you know that I purchased the 6 pack bundle of "Champions of Faith" and gave them out as gifts to various people in support of CE.  It's about the only kind of support I can offer right now.  Hubby holds the purse strings, and he is in need of a bit of conversion in that area and others.  Please pray for him in the new year.

  • Guest

    I think the comments of our Protestant friend get some things wrong and some things right.  Among experts Mormonism is in the process of moving from cult status to world religion status.  Also, the Protestant case against Mormonism is wholly dependent upon the Catholic Church, without which they would have no Bible, and no doctrine of the Trinity. Yet you will find that Protestants who write that way about Mormons are often very anti-Catholic as well.

  • Guest

    This & the previous article have been a fascinating look at Mormonism.  Thank you, CE, for having the courage to print it though I've no doubt you knew that it was going to generate controversy.


    Politically speaking, the honest must admit that Romney is problematic on multiple levels (most recently it has come to my attention for supporting ENDA – making it illegal to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation — Which is why Catholic Charities in Boston is no longer able to facilitate adoptions.) 


    But the focus of this article has been on Romney's spiritual dimension.  I admit that I am more concerned with Romney's apparent spiritual shallowness than his Mormonism, though this article has opened a window to me on my very large ignorance of that religion.


    I do feel the need to complain here, however, because of the commenters that have used this as an opportunity to slam Mike Huckabee.  I am an enthusiastic supporter of the man after having nearly given in to despair on this election. 


    I did my research – I compared what he says with what his previous opponents had against him long before Romney started his slanderous campaigning.  Then I started looking at what 3rd party outsiders said & comparing everything.  I'm hardly claiming that Huckabee is a saint (like any of us are yet), but he is the closest to our Catholic moral values of any of the people running.  What's more – his actions as he served his state matched his words. 


    We are looking at the awesome possibility of a renewed Supreme Court and judicial system AT LAST – which of the candidates can we TRUST without fear not to let us down & to appoint judges who won't legislate from the bench & esp. a Justice who will abide by what the Constitution actually says rather than what they think it should say?  Enough with the slander of a truly decent man already – exercise charity along with due diligence



    http://www.mikehuckabee.com/ – check out the Truth Squad

  • Guest

    I also picked out a lot of truth in BK's comments. A little strong but many of the things needed to be said. I especially agree with how LDS will benefit in it's influence both politically and financially. They are a tight click that walk in lockstep. That is the nature of a cult, to control the actions of their members. I now understand why you addressed this topic Mary. You're an authority on cults in your own right.

    I took an indoctrinating tour of their temple in Utah and came back the next day to a concert by their Tabernacle Choir. A couple of months later they sent two young ladies as missionaries to my home. I bragged to them so much about then JP2 that I never heard from them again.

  • Guest

    BK's comments are very strong, but that doesn't make them untrue.  He probably is equally condemnatory of Catholics, but that doesn't make his rhetoric about Mormons untrue, either.  Anyone willing to put in the "sweat equity" can easily verify his claims.

    On the other hand, I'm a Michigander, and I was a young married when Daddy George was Governor.  He didn't do much damage, and actually accomplished a few good things.  The state did not become Mormon under him.

    So, what about little Mitt?  He's awfully "slick", and I don't trust him, but then, I wouldn't vote for Guiliani for dog-catcher.  Huck is on the wrong side of all my social positions, as is McCain.  But, I'll vote for whichever one secures the Repulican nomination just to keep HillBilly out!  Talk about Satanic!  She makes the hair on the back of my neck stand up!

  • Guest

    I was shocked to hear SolaGratia's claim to have done the research necessary to endorse Huckabee, by simply comparing his rhetoric with that of his opponents. Such a method is wholly inadequate, and, indeed, has resulted in a serious error.

    Mr. Huckabee's statements must be weighed against the facts and his own actions. When that is done several things emerge.

    1. He is a habitual liar. He lied about working for the release of serial rapist Wayne DuMond (who went on to continuing murders). He lied about his educational credentials, repeatedly. He lied about his relationship with John Bolton. All of this to facilitate his Presidential ambitions. These are just a few examples.

    2. He supports embrionic stem cell research and has been paid to promote it.

     3. He believes in the use of government to steal the property of people that earn it to give it to those that didn't, in direct violation of Biblical principle.

    4. He supported the Lawrence vs. Texas Supreme Court decision that "found" a right to homosexual sodomy in the Constitution the same way they "found" a right to abortion there in Roe vs. Wade: by inventing it.

    5. He supports teaching the unscientific atheist article of faith, godless evolution, in public schools.

    6. He supports the Communist assault on American enterprise known as "Environmentalsim" by endorsing its latest fraud, man-made global warming, and the open-ended solutions it prescribes: the destruction of American progress, development and technology.

    7. He released more violent criminals and murderers prematurely from prison than all the governors of his state combined over the last 100 years. Innocent people are dead, now, because of it.

    Mr. Huckabee is not only NOT Catholic, I don't believe he is Christian, his politics having contradicted the tenets of Protestantism, as well.

    Mike Huckabee is a charming (for some) con man and SolaGratia has been conned. When you weigh a con man by his own words and he knows what you want to hear you are asking to be conned. Mike Huckabee knows what people of faith want to hear.

    These will seem like harsh words to some, but this is not a parlor game. This is the future of America at a crucial time. These kinds of errors cannot be tolerated or "winked" at. Huckabee is a counterfeit. NOT REAL. In that respect, he is the most like Romney of any other GOP hopeful. They both have put on the culture of life through costuming. Further, were he to win the nomination, I'm convinced the Repubican Party's fiscal conservatives would abandon the ticket, just as I expect and pray its social conservatives would abandon the ticket if Rudy Giuliani were to be nominated.

  • Guest

    rosary4peace  I wonder what a Fundamentalist like Bill Keller really thinks about the Catholic Church and its teachings?  I have read many opinions like the lengthy one above where the writers substituted the word "Mormons" and inserted the word "Catholics".  You would think he was trying to be Joseph Smith in his own way.  And by the way, if the Bible is as he says the final and only authority, and if he really seeks the truth, he will have to acknowledge that it was fallible men who decided which infallible books belonged in the canon of Scripture.  The Bible did not fall from Heaven. 

    Now, more than ever, we need the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church to guide us through this smorgasboard of falsehoods that exist in our world.  None less than St. Thomas Aquinas said, " I would not believe in a word of the Gospel if not for the authority of the Catholic Church."  

  • Guest

    Happy New Yr. everyone!

    So are we taking our hangover out on Mitt, Huck and Rudy? Fine with me. Most of the objections voiced here have been very informative. We'll see who will be the official endorsement of this website.

    What, there won't be any? Then we'll divine the choice by asking Mary and each other a slew of probing questions. Finally we'll come up with our consensus choice and elect him. Wouldn't that be a great year?

    God's blessings to all.

  • Guest

    Techwrek…i sure don't understand how you think that values are defined w/o any kind of religion..helloooo???


    Bill…yes, i did read your entire post and will you are a bit harsh, you certainly tell it like it is.


    Doug…you need to check out the TruthSquad section of Huckabee's site (I'm not a Republican, but can easily support him over Mitt or Rudy…i think all your comments are way out of line)


    Mary…thank you so much for the original story here.  Excellently done as usual.  (Funny thing, I read it yesterday early morning, just after it appeared on the CE site and thot…oh wow…what a great article!  Had NO idea there would be two pages of comments attached to it?!!  WOW!)  Keep up the GREAT work!!


    –You have made us for yourself, O Lord; and our hearts are restless until they rest in You. — St. Augustine

  • Guest

    "zephyr: Yes, the universe (and time) had a beginning and God did not.  That is NOT what Mormonism teaches and you have completely misread me because you are attributing to me what I was explaining as Mormon doctrine. I certainly would NEVER say that the God of the Bible is imaginary; Mormon "gods" are, though. Please go back and reread the article more carefully."

    I read the article very carefully. It's not logical to say they have a "philosophical problem" in their beliefs because they believe "the god who created this world — the God of the Bible",  …as you put it, is (in) infinite regress..". If they believe their god is the creator god of the bible, then it's consistent to think he's outside the constraints of time. This is very simple logic, and a minor point. 

    It's easy to bash a false religion, but much harder to take the measure of a man who says he loves Jesus Christ. I'm curious why you would target Mitt at this moment in time when there are Catholic wolves in sheep's clothing running about? The Mormon religion is basically lying prone for anyone to walk by and give lashings to. It takes very little courage to do so, and in fact smacks with political ambition tis close to the Iowa caucasus. 

    Clearly, many Mormons are much more well behaved than other Catholics. If and when you decide to take on the REAL dark powers that be, like the pornography industry or the media, I'll be there to thank you. But I won't hold my breath waiting for this. 

    Romney in '08 for president.

  • Guest

    They don't think God is outside of the contraints of time; they think God had a beginning. And infinite regress IS a logical impossiblity. You really need to read it again. Maybe someone else on here can explain it to you.

  • Guest

    “It takes very little courage to do so, and in fact smacks with political ambition tis close to the Iowa caucasus. Clearly, many Mormons are much more well behaved than other Catholics. If and when you decide to take on the REAL dark powers that be, like the pornography industry or the media, I'll be there to thank you. But I won't hold my breath waiting for this. 

    Romney in '08 for president.”

    Zephyr, if you’re going to challenge the logic and motive of this article than why end your comment with the above statements? Because the Iowa Caucuses are a couple of days away therefore no discussion of candidate’s personal qualifications are warranted?

    Good behavior is just one qualification of a person for anything. It could be argued that the behavior of Pilate was far better than the behavior of Peter at a critical time.

    Porn and media will not be issues in this campaign. They should be but no candidate, including Romney will touch them. As a matter of fact this website runs articles and our comments on these issues. I liked it when I was in Salt Lake City that pornography was no where to be seen. I didn’t like it when I couldn’t buy a beer after work at the hotel bar. The bartender gave me an application to fill out and submit to become a member of the beer club at Doubletree. I considered it until I was told that it would take a couple of days to process.

    Finally you give it all away by being a cheerleader for Romney. That’s all fine but I question your timing, unless of course that statement was made outside of time.

    Romney may even get my vote when the (time) comes but I do have concerns of how much his presidency would give exposure and credibility to Mormonism which, to use Spock’s statement, is illogical.

  • Guest


    I thought we had run out the string on this one, but to let this fine article and discussion end on that note would be a travesty. I can only say to you that the unexamined life is not worth living.

    I find your remarks totally unworthy of the efforts made here at real thought, starting with your pinhead insistence on missing a clearly laid out point describing a major philosophical evasion in the Mormon religion, and then challenging the author to do exactly what she has already done in the article in the first place. It IS much harder to take the measure of a man, especially when the phrasing he uses may not mean the same thing to him as it does in common parlance. The whole effort here was to try to decide how to do just that. But instead of your doing it, you turn around and do exactly what you accuse others of doing, and that is to bash catholics on their own website. Surely, all your appeals to emotionalism will persuade us all to vote your way.

    So how would you take his measure? Surely, you know the way, because you have already found it safe to reach a favorable conclusion. Your method appears to be to play the victim card in behalf of a whole religion, thereby achieving the same result as a bigot, and shutting down any thoughtful consideration and discussion. I dare to think that Mitt would not approve.

    There are many problems with this election which haven't been addressed in this discussion, but it doesn't invalidate the necessity of this one.

    The truth is, that many people, Catholic and otherwise, have been noticing over time, that we keep getting the oddest choices offered to us as an electorate, and the game keeps changing so that the cons can become more effective, and it all goes to the point that we start to feel like we're really not in control of our own government anymore, and the system is being played by competing interests who won't expose each other because they are like mafia dons compensating each other's losses, but who won't respond to the desires of the electorate on crucial issues. Meanwhile, fine candidates who would be very good to excellent fits for Catholic voters, such as a Duncan Hunter, get no exposure and no momentum for their ideas and political stance, and therefore, no bargaining power for their constituency at the higher levels.

    As we are facing an election that will be resetting the course of America for potentially decades to come, it is very important, even extremely important, to worry the details a little, so that we can avoid advancing interests that would rip America from its foundation, or degrade it in any way.

    These battles we are facing we have been facing for a long time, and it is tempting to look for the quick and easy "no brainer" surface answer, that may have real problems hiding underneath. It is easy to think that the "right" leader would be the one to solve our dilemmas, when in fact, that is the solution the world prefers, because it wants to remain disengaged from the effort, thoughtful and otherwise. As the generations have changed, the new one with its shoulder to the wheel must become more engaged in our problems at every level, and then we can produce and inform leaders who will help the electorate arrive where they want and need to go, based on time tested truths and principles.

    We can't hide the complexities, and we can't avoid the real everyday effort with end-runs that control or fix nothing. The leader we choose this time will need to have the requisite wisdom and strength to face a world of change and crisis that is just waiting to approach.

    We are entering a time when it will not be sufficient to just get some of it right, and the fundamentals will dictate success. We can't take the bait of charging off on a crusade against only a few emotionally captivating enemies, giving in to our frustrations. We must keep our eyes on the essentials in every confrontation in a coordinated way to achieve real progress, and to avoid horrific damage that can come in inches, much less yards. And if we don't nourish ourselves with prayer, we'll never have the energy to sustain our efforts.

    The real dark powers hide everywhere these days, in benign places, as well as in movements whose bread is malice, and it is no easy task to identify them and to apply the proportionate power to resist or to oppose them. So the last thing we should do is hold our breath, when it is our discussions as honest men and women that is our best resource in exposing them, and maintaining our own sense of health.

    And no need to thank us, just join us, and do the hard work of actually applying sense to a problem, and maybe even you can learn something too.

  • Guest

    Doug Parris,

    In all earnestness, THANK YOU!  Even though you twisted some of what I said & ignored other parts, still you have proven my point better than I!  Right off the bat, let's take a look at your #4 ("He supported the Lawrence vs. Texas Supreme Court decision") – where does that accusation come from?  That paragon of Catholic virtue, Ann Coulter!    Here is Huckabee's side of her story – http://www.mikehuckabee.com/?FuseAction=TruthSquad.Coulter

    Third parties that I respect such as Deacon Fournier, Michael Medved, and more have vouched for & verified what Huckabee has said over his opponents.  His record is easily checked with 3rd party places like http://encyclopediaofarkansas.net/encyclopedia/entry-detail.aspx?entryID=108 & http://www.factcheck.org/

    The fact that Huckabee was elected to executive office 4 times while Romney won once but didn't run again because it was a well known fact that he could not win again is a major factor.  When your own constituency won't re-elect you, that speaks volumes.

    Now I am not planning on further hijacking this section on Mormonism to debate Huckabee's candidacy by answering each one of the accusations you parrot from his opponents.  But even if all I did was compare his word against others as you claim, why should I embrace as truth the accusations of people who have an agenda that profits by Huckabee's downfall as you seem to suggest I should?  That would truly be naive.

    As would blindly trusting Mitt Romney's convenient conversions on vitally important moral issues when we have nothing to go by but his word that he will be faithful to the pro-life constituency even though he has yet to prove himself to be this new man.  Not only that but his core opposition (48%) is on a par with Hillary Clinton's – worse than any of the GOP candidates.  (McCain & Huckabee have the least)  Even if Romney wins the nomination, he is registering as the most unelectable candidate with Rasmussen.  So even if he is worthy of the blind trust of social conservatives, we'll probably never find out…

  • Guest

    "And no need to thank us, just join us, and do the hard work of actually applying sense to a problem, and maybe even you can learn something too. "


    ha ha that's pretty funny. made me laugh. I prefer Duncan Hunter myself, but will only vote for him if he has a chance to win, or the race has already been decided between Romney and Guiliani. I firmly believe Romney is the only one who can beat Hillary, but I could be wrong. thanks