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!
On my computer I’ve REMOVED the stupid thing!!
(Unfortunately, I’m on my wife’s.)
Just WHO was the bozo that it should reside right next to the “A” anyway?
I know, it came with the old typewriter spacings, but on those you could FEEL the extra pressure when you pressed it!
He might have thought that since you asked if he wished “to play, too” in 363, the same adjectives sent A’s way would apply to him as well.
Now repeat after me:
I feel pretty Oh so pretty I feel pretty and witty and gay And I pity Any girl who isn't me today I feel charming Oh so charming It's alarming how charming I feel And so pretty That I hardly can believe I'm real See the pretty girl in that mirror there? Who can that attractive girl be? Such a pretty face Such a pretty dress Such a pretty smile Such a pretty me! I feel stunning And entrancing Feel like running And dancing for joy For I'm loved By a pretty wonderful boy
Then what good is baptism for he dead?
I wish we could get back to the original question about the cahnging and unchanging nature of god in the Mormon faith. You seem to be digressing into other points not on topic.
So far it’s only you ...Yes, I know. Me. You say this over and over again. Only here is the problem: the topic of this thread is not me, however much you may want it to be me, however much you may wish that it was me. The topic of this thread is the Mormon confession and its relation to normative Christianity. Since this is obviously a topic that does not interest you, since this is apparently a topic to which you have nothing to say, and since you seem to be incapable of staying on topic in any case, I wonder if you would please consider removing yourself to a forum more consonant with your goals and interests. Think it over.
>>>> Please refer me to the post wherein I called you stupid.<<<You're disrespecting the entire group. And please note: nothing you have contributed here is, you know, on-topic. What do you actually have to say about the Mormon confession? or about normative Christianity? or about anything? To insult random bystanders for no apparent reason appears to be the best that you can do. Prove me wrong.
I find your posts amusing and at times instructive, so please take a bit of friendly advice, to prevent being banned from FR: stop referring to TG, or posting to him, or making demeaning comments about him. That is bad from for which you can be banned and it comes across as trying to bait the fellow freeper.I don't know what you're talking about. I'm not "referring" to TG, posting to him, or making demeaning comments about him; I am posting publicly, to a public forum, and commenting on public posts consonant with the goals, norms, and values of freerepublic.com; that he happens to a participant here is only happenstance.
‘Tain’t working.If you repeat that often enough it might come true ... or not.
I like your poem — but that self-appraisal sound more like if came from big A — particularly the ‘gay’ part. Based on what we have seem of his modesty, It does seem to fit, doesn't’t it?
Great flick, it's a hoot.
re; 384
:Yes, I know. Me. You say this over and over again. Only here is the problem: the topic of this thread is not me,”
>>>> it’s not me, either, manure brain, so why don’t you quit pestering me with your arrogant horse dump?
re: 386
Shove it, revolting.
Yes, and no. What you are doing is lumping the basic principles of the gospel with higher ordinances. Christ and the apostles clearly taught that unless we are obedient to the commandments and are baptized, then we can't enter into the kingdom of God. The principles of the Gospel are no different in the LDS doctrines. Faith, Repentance, Baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost are the ONLY requirements to gain salvation and enter Heaven. What you are lumping is something different, it's like what Paul saw when he was caught up to the THIRD heaven, not the first.
Corinthians 12:
2 I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) such an one caught up to the third heaven.
3 And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;)
4 How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.
The principles of the gospel are simple, and in order to gain entrance into heaven, one must simply follow the commands of Christ, His example and teachings are the milk. What you seem to be doing is striving after meat.
This will probably come across as very condescending, and for that I apologize, but I think it needs to be said. We get truth line upon line, precepts on precept, grace for grace, one thing at a time. Trying to understand the things of God without the Holy Ghost to help discern truth can be dangerous.
1 Cor. 3: 2
2 I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able.
re: 387
CONGRATULATION!!!! You just won first prize in the Liar of the Year contest.
No, it's not.
re:388
“If you repeat that often enough it might come true ... or not.”
>>>> That’s one of the big differences between you and me — your cowflop hasn’t a chance in hell of ever being true. You don’t even know the meaning of the word, you bloody liar.
That is an incorrect understanding. The only thing that is universal is the resurrection. After that, all men will stand before Christ and be judged.
Here’s 2 references that may help you understand our doctrine on this better:
1st Corinthians 15:
40 There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.
41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star cdiffereth from another star in glory.
42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:
43 It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power:
44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.
And also this one from the D&C: It gets right to it about verse 70: Warning, Section 76 is Meat!
“Here is the sad part: now I am off-topic too.”
>>>> What’s new? That’s where you have been for several days now; busily making a jackass of yourself and harassing me about the very same thing — for answering your lies, innuendos, egotistical twaddle and general pig feces. <<<
“This is how trolls work.”
>>>> If anyone should know about that, it is you, you crummy pest.
I’ve tried being civil and asking “A” to stop posting or commenting in your regard. You see the response I got for that civility. So now I’m going to ask you to —for the good of the forum which is sullied by these interactions between adversarial posters— please push the abuse button (the link at the start of the thread where ‘report abuse’ is cited) and request from the administrative moderator that post “A” be put on notice to stop posting to you or mentioning you or your posts. I’ve had a whining Mormonism Apologist do that with me, so this isn’t a slam on you, just a suggestion of how to stop this baiting “A” keeps offering ... even I have noted he followed you from at least one other thread, to make personal comments to/about you, so you have every right to report that which is clearly upsetting. FreeRepublic doesn’t need these ‘xchanges’ generated from such behaviors.
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.