Skip to comments.BBC interview with LDS leader earns controversy [An Lds 'apostle' 'lie' about Romney's oath-taking?]
Posted on 06/07/2012 5:50:38 AM PDT by Colofornian
Posted // 2012-06-05 - A BBC investigative journalist's interview with Jeffery R. Holland, a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, raises intriguing questions about the LDS Church and its beliefs.
The documentary, released in March but yet to be broadcast Stateside, is called The Mormon Candidate and featured a sit-down interview in the LDS Church Headquarters in downtown Salt Lake City between British reporter John Sweeney and Holland.
Among Sweeney's questions were several relating to whether U.S. presidential candidate Mitt Romney would have pledged to cut his own throat or disembowel himself before revealing the secrets of the LDS temple ceremonies. In edited footage, Holland said, "That's not true." He later says that vows would have been made "regarding the ordinances of the temple." Such penalty oaths were taken out of the temple ceremony some time ago, one Sweeney interview subject said, albeit after Romney would have taken his temple oaths.
Sweeney asked Holland about church members shunning those who leave their faith. Holland noted that he would choose not to cut out of family life one of his children if they decided to leave Mormonism.
Others highlights of the interview include questions relating to the baptizing of dead Holocaust victims, similarities between the LDS Church and Masonic organizations and whether the LDS Church is a cult. By this point in the interview, Holland's distinct unease had unraveled to almost cavalier frustration. "I'm not an idiot," he told Sweeneynor, he implied, are the 14 million members-plus members of his growing church.
Sweeney also brought up the "Strengthening the Members" committee, a group within the LDS Church that polices polygamists and other vocal apostates or breakaways from the church. Holland acknowledged their continued existence as a group dedicated to protecting the church's membership from dangerous critics.
Perhaps the most interesting question is why the interview took place at all. The LDS Church is not known for allowing media to interview its hierarchy.
Given that Sweeney was responsible for a controversial BBC documentary on the Church of Scientologyincluding an infamous on-air rant by Sweeney against church media handlersthe wisdom of agreeing to a sit-down with Holland is a head-scratcher, particularly given the way Holland struggled to answer some of Sweeney's unabashedly direct questions.
A PR firm for the church hand-delivered to BBC offices in London a letter complaining about the "ambush" interview, according to The Guardian.
The documentary will be broadcast in the United States later this yearpresumably before the election.
How CAN you say such vicious and hurtful things?
Color coding explanation:
Added stuff... Changed stuff... Rearranged stuff... Removed stuff...
*(UNDERLINED stuff is the DISTRACTING reference on every tenth word or so that infuses LDS 'scripture' online.)
You are getting sleepy - VERY sleepy....
Faith is NOTHING minus who that faith in placed in...
IOW, a Satanist is part of "people of faith"...
well yeah...it is the same...in as much, as it has the same effect.
and I could say that your premise is stupid, but we here are suppose to avoid personal attacks....but I guess you feel that you are above that.
According to a transcript of the recorded remarks carried by ABC News, Mr Obama told his Russian counterpart: “On all these issues, but particularly missile defence, this, this can be solved but it's important for him to give me space.”
Mr Medvedev responded: “Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you.”
Mr Obama then said: “This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.”
Mr Medvedev replied: “I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir.”
As per our exchange begun last evening on another thread, notice if you will how the anti-romney responses are framed. Yes, vaquero raised the political specter without prompting, but notice the vitriolic posts that have ensued and from which posters more than delighted to blend the opposition to the cult of LDSinc with the political question. When folks are quick to impugn the convictions of others over the political reasoning they privately use, patterns start to emerge. The enemy media will exploit this issue to whatever degree We The People allow them to exploit it, eventually working to cause the mormon vote to slink away from the Republican brand and drag a significant number of Catholic voters with them. Attacking with vitriol plays right into the hands of the DNC operatives being paid to smear conservatives, smear any opposition to Barry Soetoro, andmaintain the deep divisions being opened in Aemrican society.
Telling me that my non support of that liberal called Romney is the same as voting for BHO, is personal.
I said the premise is stupid, that is not personal unless you thought I was talking about you which would be on you not me.
You want to support a pro-abortion, pro-homosexual, pro-man made global warming, pro-government mandates, pro-government health care, pro-bigger government guy be my guest, I will not.
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
I don't see any value in going tit for tat, it just degenerates into a wrestling match and to what end? Both “sides” on FR need to remember that once this election is over, most all of us will still be here. Can the past actions on both sides be forgiven and forgotten?
Otherwise friendly relationships on FR are being irreparably damaged. Their choice, though...think before you hit post.
Are you really sure you want to call someone on FR a deragatory term just because you are ideologically opposed to their point of view on a topic?
It’s the RF, I’m not “allowed” to try and read the mind of the OP. ;^)
But to take the position that because one is against Romney makes them pro-0bama is undignified and should give FReepers pause to level such an accusation against other FReepers.
I hate Romney but will happily vote for him if he is the repube candidate...I will be voting for the lesser of 2 evils....a time honored American tradition.
If they were same...same, I would stay home. As bad as Romney is, I do not believe he hates America...can’t say as much about the Marxist currently in the oval office
I, for one have written off some former FRiends because of their vitriolic nastiness while lecturing some Inmans on their choice to not support Romney.
One former Inman has changed his cloak to the point of looking ridiculous as he "spews", not against Obama but against other FReepers.
I recognize the right of anyone to vote their conscience, but I don't approve ANY right to refuse to recognize that others have the same right.
It has become evident that on FR, WE, the non-Romney supporters "are the resistance".
I voted for Newt Gingrich in the primary yesterday and will write in whomever I please in November.
I will not vote for Mitt based on his past record.
Thank you very much for the ping.
I am following these threads, while side tracked with some other projects, but I am watching all this too. Responding requires more than dropping a phrase or two. Later.
Also behind on FReepmail. :( But, I am reading it! Have a great weekend coming!
You too, Rita.
Viking Kitty - Par excellance
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.