Posted on 06/10/2007 7:24:29 PM PDT by Reaganesque
Sally Denton uses today's Los Angeles Times op-ed page as a launching pad for the movie based on her book, "American Massacre: The Tragedy at Mountain Meadows, September 1857," and as a means to propagate more anti-Mormon bigotry at the expense of Mitt Romney. Denton insists that Romney has to respond about the nature of his faith if he expects to win the nomination for the Presidency -- and uses a lot of 19th-century examples to "prove" her case:
MITT ROMNEY'S Mormonism threatens his presidential candidacy in the same way that John F. Kennedy's Catholicism did when he ran for president in 1960. Overt and covert references to Romney's religion — subtle whispering as well as unabashed inquiries about the controversial sect he belongs to — plague his campaign. None of his responses so far have silenced the skeptics.
Recent polls indicate that from 25% to 35% of registered voters have said they would not consider voting for a Mormon for president, and conventional wisdom from the pundits suggests that Romney's biggest hurdle is his faith. Everyone seems eager to make his Mormonism an issue, from blue state secularists to red state evangelicals who view the religion as a non-Christian cult.
All of which raises the question: Are we religious bigots if we refuse to vote for a believing Mormon? Or is it perfectly sensible and responsible to be suspicious of a candidate whose creed seems outside the mainstream or tinged with fanaticism?
Ironically, Romney is the only candidate in the race (from either party) who has expressed discomfort with the idea of religion infecting the national dialogue. While his GOP rivals have been pandering to the evangelical arm of the party, Romney actually committed himself (during the first Republican debate) to the inviolable separation of church and state.
First, Denton is hardly an unbiased pundit in this regard. She's flogging a book and a movie about an atrocity committed by Mormons 150 years ago. For Denton, 1857 is relevant to 2007, but for most Americans. The suggestion that Romney needs to answer for Brigham Young would be as silly as saying that Democrats have to answer for Stephen Douglas or that Lutherans today have to answer for the anti-Semitic rants of Martin Luther.
Denton first off would have people believe that all Mormons are "tinged with fanaticism," but does nothing to advance that case. She discusses the beginnings of their church in great detail, but her history lessons appear to end at 1857. In the only mentions of any connection to the present, she uses the HBO series Big Love and Warren Jeffs, neither of which has any connection to the modern Mormon church or to Romney's faith. Both the fictional account in Big Love and the unfortunately non-fiction and despicable Jeffs involve polygamist cults -- and in the TV series, are showed as in mortal opposition to the Mormons.
Denton includes this helpful instruction at the half-way point:
It's not a church's eccentric past that makes a candidate's religion relevant today, but its contemporary doctrines. (And it's worth noting that polygamy and blood atonement, among other practices, are no longer condoned by the official Mormon church hierarchy.)
So what contemporary doctrines does Romney need to explain? Denton never says. Instead, she spends her time writing about how Joseph Smith once declared his intention to run for President -- in 1844. She discusses how John C. Fremont's candidacy died on the rumor that he was Catholic -- in 1856. She mentions 1960, in which John Kennedy dealt with anti-Catholic bigotry, but only barely notes that he prevailed over it -- and that was almost 50 years ago.
Denton then frames the question that she feels Romney has to answer:
Do you, like the prophet you follow, believe in a theocratic nation state? All the rest is pyrotechnics.
Unfortunately for Denton, Romney has answered this question every time it gets asked. And somewhat incoherently, Denton appears to forget that she herself acknowledges this near the beginning of the column:
While his GOP rivals have been pandering to the evangelical arm of the party, Romney actually committed himself (during the first Republican debate) to the inviolable separation of church and state.
Romney has no need to enter into the field of religious apologetics in his campaign for the presidency, no more than does Harry Reid in order to run the Senate. He certainly has no guilt to expiate on behalf of a massacre committed almost a century before his birth, and for people like Warren Jeffs who do not have any connection to the Mormon church. In other words, Denton has taken up space at the LA Times to exercise her bigotry and to not-so-coincidentally sell a few books and movie tickets. She and the LA Times should be ashamed.
UPDATE: One commenter suggests that people opposed Keith Ellison on the basis of his religion. Er, not quite. We opposed him on the basis of his association with the notoriously anti-Semitic group Nation of Islam and its leader, Louis Farrakhan, and his association with CAIR, which has supported terrorist groups like Hamas. If Romney had spoken at Warren Jeffs' compound for political donations, then the analogy would be apt. Ellison's problem isn't his religion but the company he keeps, politically, a fact that he and his apologists like to wrap in a false cloak of religious antagonism.
AMEN!!
I loathe that dinky little keypad!
A small mouse for me!
If ya can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with...
HMmm...
And WE get in trouble for telling LDS members what THEY believe!
Indeed!
See #220!
“Unbiased? Well, are you aware that jesus stated that man comes to the Father but by Him? God IS biased. So no, I cannot offer to you an unbiased source.”
>>>> Did God PERSONALLY tell you what His truth is, or are you relying on writings and traditions that have been translated re-translated, fiddled with, edited, manipulated and corrupted for centuries?
I might add here that truth by its very nature is biased, but I have found that biased opinion very seldom is truth.
“But if you’re of a mind to hear the biased truth, I’ll gladly share the Gospel of Jesus Christ with you and you can go find a church you feel fulfills your needs as God lays them upon your heart, as in ‘work out your own salvation in fear and trembling’ (as in live it before men knowing you will on occasion fail and be very embarassed by the failure but you will find God never leaves you or foresakes you once you’re in His family).
>>>> Very generous of you and nicely written, but irrelevant. This thread is about Mormons and their beliefs, not me and mine.
“Mormonism claims that ALL Christian witness following the death of the last Apostle and prior to the advent of Joe Smith has been apostasy (roughly 1500 years contradicting what Jesus told His Apostles regarding the gates of Hell not winnign against The Church).”
>>>> That’s not exactly correct, but exactly when the apostasy began and why are not important at this point in the discussion — accuracy is.
“You will not see me shrink from exposing the Mormonism doctrines if for no other reason than that proclamation at the start of the smithianty religion. But going further, I seek to share the Gospel rather than a church. Are you interested?”
>>>> Nope. I have listened to enough misinformation in my life. If you are going to expose something, it behooves you to get it right. and leave out clever little snide trash like “smitianity”, that only cheapens your argument.
They’re clean all right. Haven’t worn them since 1980 when I was pregnant with #3. They never touched the ground or even other dirty clothing....they are THAT holy.
I was delighted to find a maternity pair I wore, since I threw out all my other garments years ago. This pair I found is “old style” one piece and extra large to facilitate the big belly of pregnancy, but I have the evidence now for all I say containing markings and style, etc.
It’s infuriating when these LDS posters claim I don’t know what I’m talking about or that I’m lying.
Why don’t you just STFU if you can’t contribute something worth discussing, you sickening clod?
That's because their stuff CAN'T stand scrutiny, and that's the only plays left in their book!
(BTW, my wife brought me home some new shorts just last night because my others were getting to near to perfection.
They were that holey!
LOL
re;294
Excellent article. What you wanna bet Assy won’t read it?
The last pargraph is particularly appropriate here.
Save all the old holey underwear. On Halloween you can go as the Holy Ghost.
Morning all!
re; 212
Once again — this is not about what I believe or my opinions on the matter — which I have not stated. It is about YOUR opinion. You debunkers name Mormons heretics. I merely asked by whose definition, and why you think that definition to be the final truth in the matter.
Please stay on subject or drop it.
Good luck on getting an answer to that one. That's one of the little details that just get ignored in the debate here. I asked a similar question and the only answer I got was "crickets chirping".
Hey, Binger! Did you save any of yours? We could go trick-or-treating together. Pay Lay Ale!!
Here is a definition of heresy from Dictionary.com:
her•e•sy –noun, plural -sies.
1. opinion or doctrine at variance with the orthodox or accepted doctrine, esp. of a church or religious system.
2. the maintaining of such an opinion or doctrine.
3. Roman Catholic Church. the willful and persistent rejection of any article of faith by a baptized member of the church.
4. any belief or theory that is strongly at variance with established beliefs, customs, etc.
I simply pointed out what I find to be a glaring inconsistency in the Morman view of god. In doing so, I have used Morman sources - Moroni 8:18; Mormon 9:9-10. I could add “For behold, God knowing all things, being from everlasting to everlasting, behold, he sent angels to minister unto the children of men, to make manifest concerning the coming of Christ; and in Christ there should come every good thing.” Moroni 7: 22.
The Book of Mormon shows an unchanging God. The King Follett Discourse shows a changing god. “In order to understand the subject of the dead for the consolation of those who mourn for the loss of their friends, it is necessary they should understand the character and being of God; for I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined that God was God from all eternity. [That he was not is an idea] incomprehensible to some. But it is the simple and first principle of the gospel-to know for a certainty the character of God, that we may converse with him as one man with another. God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth the same as Jesus Christ himself did, and I will show it from the Bible. –KFD http://mldb.byu.edu/follett.htm
Joseph Smith describes an evolving and changing god, which is inconsistent with the Morman documents and the also with the Bible. This is heresy against the BOM and the Bible.
I merely asked by whose definition, and why you think that definition to be the final truth in the matter.
These are not my opinions. These are direct quotes from Mormon documents. By any definition of heresy, it is with Joseph Smith and the religion he founded.
Boldly stated. What kind of Ale do you prefer? I'm a Budweiser and Carlsberg guy.
I’m more of a white zinfandel kind of girl. But if you’re going to Pay for Ale, Budweiser or Carlsberg would be good enough! Who knows, it might even get you the “Lay” part.
Pay Lay Ale!
re: 235
“Here is a definition of heresy from Dictionary.com:
her•e•sy –noun, plural -sies.
1. opinion or doctrine at variance with the orthodox or accepted doctrine, esp. of a church or religious system.
2. the maintaining of such an opinion or doctrine.
3. Roman Catholic Church. the willful and persistent rejection of any article of faith by a baptized member of the church.
4. any belief or theory that is strongly at variance with established beliefs, customs, etc.
>>>> So once upon a time folks who believed the earth was round, or that it was not the center of the universe, or that blood circulated through the body were heretics (the Church even burned a bunch of them). Does that mean that those folks were wrong? Therefore, it would seem that calling someone a heretic is kinda silly and an empty opinion based on little more than arrogant declarations of alleged truths.
“I simply pointed out what I find to be a glaring inconsistency in the Morman view of god.”
>>>> And I will point out another source of doxens of inconsistencies — the Holy Bible. Does that make ALL christian sects out to be heretics?
Think on it?
No problem.
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.