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.
Well, interesting, it looks like you are conversant in the Book of Mormon. If you notice, according to those verses, once we enter the eternal world, then for the wicked there is no turning back.
Is this at exactly at the time of death?
In my opinion, it is the day of Final Judgement when we are resurrected back into our physical bodies. Until the day of Final Judgement, we have a probationary period in which Jesus Christ offers himself as the sole mediator of ALL worlds, ALL people, and ALL of Heaven to as the Book of Mormon says:
Helaman 3:27 Thus we may see that the Lord is merciful unto all who will, in the sincerity of their hearts, call upon his holy name.
28 Yea, thus we see that the gate of heaven is open unto ball, even to those who will believe on the name of Jesus Christ, who is the Son of God.
29 Yea, we see that whosoever will may lay hold upon the word of God, which is quick and powerful, which shall cdivide sunder all the cunning and the snares and the wiles of the devil, and lead the man of Christ in a strait and narrow course across that everlasting gulf of misery which is prepared to engulf the wicked—
30 And land their souls, yea, their immortal souls, at the right hand of God in the kingdom of heaven, to sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and with Jacob, and with all our holy fathers, to go no more out.
Notice, the above verses says a few things. Christ’s Atonement overcomes an everlasting gulf. Therefore the sacfrice of Jesus has everlasting properties. It bridges the gulf between God and Man. It puts one in the presence of God. It also places the righteous at the right hand of God which many scriptures allude to as a place of honor, and as place to govern under God (see Revelations as an example) as a Joint heir with Christ. And finally, this verse relates to man’s soul as immortal, in a fashion it is immortal like God’s. Is it of God’s quality? No not even close, but it is through Jesus that it does achieve that So then, what is the place of man in God’s universe? Well, it is for the righteous to be placed within his bossom and to have a place in his kingdom at his right hand.
Do you have any documentation for this assertion?
As an observant Jew, how do you feel about the fabrications Joe Smith made to Torah? Regardless of the parsing NAL offers to do on the verses added by Smith, what is the Jewish verdict of such additions to Torah ‘in these latter days?’You really can't add anything to the Torah. The Torah is just the first 5 books, what you might call the Pentateuch. As I understand it, all the rest of the Tanakh, what you might call the old testiment, is commentary, of fairly equal rank to other commentaries (Mishna, Talmud etc). (We really don't have a cannon; what we have are texts that are accepted by tradition to varying degrees. For example, the Zoharic sages accept the Davidic Psalms as of almost equal value to Torah.) What happened at Sinai is the seminal event; the testimonies of every other generation since, whether prophets, sages, or rabbis, reduces to meditation, interpretation, and commentary on that event, trying to make sense of it, trying to figure out how to live our lives in light of it etc. So I'm not sure the Jews even have a verdict on Mormonism any more than they would have a verdict of any other gentile faith or tradition. I think the sages and rabbis would simply say that it isn't Jewish and leave it at that.
Dang!
Sounds like I'd be interested in hereing this!!
Come on: post some stuff that shows how we are alike.
Is this a ONE way street??
Will you now...
...asked questions about the so far unproven opinions concerning the “heresies” the LDS members claim against Christianity?
It 'shows' that Moroni 8:18 was NOT believed, yet, it wasn't challenged by 'believing' Mormons!
Is this a yes or a no??
So much for turning the other cheek!
depends on what you 'believe', I guess...
Why not?
Are you expected to just take whatever headquarters publishes??
Phooey on those: what about poor, ol' Emma??
Quit posting our output!
Don’t you know you’ll create doubt in some people?!?!?
—MormonDude
Uh...
I think that's what the references addressed...
Answer these before we answer you!!
Exactly..
Different as night and day.
Are we so enlightened NOW??
Maybe you're in over your depth....friend.
FWIW-
Some are; and the rest of us may disagree... ;^)
I thought you were bright enough to recognize a rhetorical question. If the answer isn’t apparent enough in the rhetorical question and the accompanying Biblical scriptures, let me state in plainly: Before you scrutinize and criticize the text of the Book of Mormon for its perceived racism/bigotry perhaps you should scrutinize the Bible using the same standard you seek to apply to the Book of Mormon. Is that plain enough for you?
But are Christians Jews? No, certainly not.
Some are;I happily accept your correction. Yes: some Jews are Christians.
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.