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.
Now try real hard to understand this - etc., etc.Your contribution was all about me, which is odd because the thread, as I understand it, is about the Mormon confession and its relation to Christianity. Please forgive me, but I refuse to allow you to bait me into yet another futile flame war. So I will try, again, to gently and respectfully lead you back to the question at hand. Once again: Mormonism is inconsistent with normative Christianity as it is inconsistent with the canons and creeds issued by the primitive church, e.g. the canon of scripture, The Nicene Creed, The Apostles' Creed etc. It is on these grounds that I would say that the Mormons are not Christians, in the same sense that Manicheans or Ebionites are not Christians.
To the Mormon church, anyone not Mormon is a heretic.
I give you Padre Hidalgo.
He instigated the Mexican War of Independence against the Spanish oppressors. He was captured, tried by the Inquisition and found guilty of heresy and treason.
After execution by firing squad, they decapitated him and stuck his head on the wall.
Think George Washington falling into the hands of the British army.
I consider the dude a saint. (Padre means "Father", he was a priest.)
You sweet, lovable heretic, you...
... He was captured, tried by the Inquisition and found guilty of heresy and treason ...Tragic. Lots of Jews and Muslims got tortured or executed by the same institution after the Reconquista. But has anyone advanced the claim that Mormons are not good people? Or that Mormons cannot be heros? Or that Mormons are not great Americans? I think Mormons are great. I think Mormons rock. This world be a better world were there more of them. But are they Christian? Well, no, I would argue. This would be a different question.
I'm also bright enough to recognize when someone is avoiding a question by tossing out something similar.
Since JS received a revelation from GOD completeing, correcting and restoring all the perceived errors in 'christianity', one would think that GOD, in His infinite wisdom, would have eliminated the bigotry found in the earlier versions.
I guess He didn't want to; or else is waiting to deliver more stuff in a future pronounceation from the LDS' living prophet.
Agreed, but I don't want someone who falls for such wacky ideas making decisions in the White House.
Agreed, but I don't want someone who falls for such wacky ideas making decisions in the White House.I believe that you get closer to God when you separate milk and meat. In fact, we have 2 sets of dishes, and 2 sets of pots and pans, 1 for dairy foods, 1 for meat. That's pretty whacky, don't you think? And you should see us at minyan every morning entwined in our tefillin, wrapped in our tallitote (prayer shawls), mumbling insensibly and rocking forward and back. Wow. That's whacky, wouldn't you say? And yet, wouldn't you want one of us in the White House? Well, probably not. Because what if something came up on Shabbat? We couldn't even pick up the phone! Anyway, here is my point: whacky is a relative term.
RE; 341
Why did you lie in your profile? Your PhD can’t be in Rhetoric. A pest who is to dumb to understand LEAVE ME ALONE is capable of earning a degree in only one subject — Stupidity.
Go bug someone else, troll.
Why did you lie in your profile?Dude. First: chill. This is a website, not RL. Second: Please understand, everything that happens in this world is not about you. I am here because I want to discuss this topic. And I am. You just happen to be here. But you are obviously not here to discuss this topic. Regard your pattern: Someone poses an issue. You insult them. I pose a question. You attack me on personal grounds. So the question then becomes, why are you here, and why are you so angry at the rest of us? And why do you want to bait us into a flame war?
Once again: Mormonism is inconsistent with normative Christianity as it is inconsistent with the canons and creeds issued by the primitive church, e.g. the canon of scripture, The Nicene Creed, The Apostles' Creed etc. It is on these grounds that I would say that the Mormons are not Christians, in the same sense that Manicheans or Ebionites are not Christians. There. Does that make sense to you? Ask whatever questions you wish if you need further clarification.
I would be happy to vote a Jew into office, you guys worship God.
(And tell us where you hid the Ark!)
What?
You's sum 'splaning to do Lucy!! hehehe
How so?
And if you would....define anti-Mormon....and anti-Christian, please.....
There was no avoiding of the question. I answered the question by simply highlighting that before one mounts the supposed moral soapbox and sanctimoniously criticizes the perceived racism/bigotry in the Book of Mormon that the same standard of scrutiny and criticism is required to be applied to the Bible.
I think Christ said it best in Matt. 7:3-5
3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.
Not trying to be polarizing...it's just a question.
You seem pretty hostile to folks who disagree with that religion.
Are you that way with those who question the beliefs and tenets of Islam?
And before you get hed'up about that question...I DO NOT mean to compare the two religions. Substitute Hinduism...or, whatever. It's just a question....
Thanks in advance....
I think the same level of scrutiny that’s being applied towards the Book of Mormon should be applied towards the Bible, Koran or any other religious holy book. Its just that Mitt Romney is a Mormon who is running for President (i.e. a job that spends more of my gross earnings than I do) and his religion calls the Book of Mormon the most correct book on earth. If its so correct then why is it so fully of bigotry and racism?
My questions are from a sincere belief to understand.
Is this at exactly at the time of death?
Seems pretty clear from the text:
For behold, if ye have procrastinated the day of your repentance even until death, behold, ye have become subjected to the spirit of the devil, and he doth seal you his; therefore, the Spirit of the Lord hath withdrawn from you, and hath no place in you, and the devil hath all power over you; and this is the final state of the wicked
we have a probationary period
Can you point to the scripture that supports this?
Therefore the sacfrice of Jesus has everlasting properties
On a going forward basis. Still don't see the "backward" nature. Seems to say exactly the opposite.
re; 354
“To: Turret Gunner A20
Are you a Mormon?”
>>>> nO.<<<
“Not trying to be polarizing...it’s just a question.}
>>>> iT’S ABOUT TIME SOMEONE ASKED IT.<<<
“You seem pretty hostile to folks who disagree with that religion.”
>>>> If you’ll look again you will find that I only get hostile when people get hostile with me first, or try to put me down. <<<
“Are you that way with those who question the beliefs and tenets of Islam?”
>>>> I would ask the same questions and act the same way if they proclaimed the same kind of stuff without proof of proper foundation. I guess it’s the lawyer in me.<<<
“And before you get hed’up about that question...I DO NOT mean to compare the two religions. Substitute Hinduism...or, whatever. It’s just a question....”
<<<< Why should I get ‘hed’up”? You asked a pertinent question in a civil manner, and deserved an answer in like manner.<<<
“Thanks in advance....”
You’re most welcome.
OOOOPS!!!
Looks like I had better be a bit ,more careful with my caps lock — and read over my posts before punching the button.
Sorry.
And temper. Re: 351
>>>> I would ask the same questions and act the same way if they proclaimed the same kind of stuff without proof of proper foundation. I guess it’s the lawyer in me.<<<Well, no, I would argue, this doesn't follow, because Lawyers in particular and jurists in general rule on principle and precedent, and the criterion you specify above--proclamations without proof--is qualitatively different from challenging assumptions or interrogating claims, which is what the rest of us are doing between your sudden and unprovoked fits of pique.
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.