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.
Really, I'm starting to wonder.
What are we suppose to do ignore the source CC, how crediblile they are etc? I never heard of such sillines not to check it out as though that is a bad thing!
It’s perfectly fine and dandy to slander the LDS all you and the tanners want, but when the tables are turned and you hear negative things about those who you hold dear and precious, it’s a new ballgame.
These anti LDS threads are so one sided, because we sut don’t do what you do all the time. You are free to live your religion and worship Christ, and I am free to do the same. Why make it your life mission to tear down other people?
What the Tanners fail to mention here is that the city charter of Nauvoo gave the Nauvoo City Council the legal right to shut down the Expositor for "creating a public nuisance." What the Tanners also do not mention is that the Expositor was set up for the express purpose of provoking such a response from the City Council. This provocation would then give them the excuse to arrest Joseph Smith and later to destroy Nauvoo and drive it's inhabitants out.
When they arrested Smith, however, they did not charge him with destroying the press, knowing full well Nauvoo had the legal right to do so. They charged him with "treason against the state." Previously, they had arrested Smith on other false charges, with the intent to have him extradited back to Missouri where Gov. Bogg's extermination order would have meant certain death for him, only to have Smith's lawyers get him released on a writ of habeas corpus.
The "treason" charge, entirely bogus given that you can't commit treason against a state, was the only thing they could arrest Smith under where habeas corpus didn't apply. This gave them time to hold him and eventually murder him.
So, for "in-depth" historians, the Tanners tend to leave out a lot of stuff. While what they talk about is, for the most part, truthful, omitting relevant facts is every bit as dishonest as an outright falsification.
There are plenty of respected non LDS Scholars out their and critic that hold a high standard.
Clue me in.
What is the lie?
” I never heard of such sillines not to check it out as though that is a bad thing!”
I agree. Do we trust the DNC to tell us all the “pertinant facts” in regards to their history or the history of their candidate?
Abolutely NOT!
Would we allow them to call us bigots for not supporting their own rendition of truth?
Better to get facts from all sides don’t you think? The Tanners do not stand alone in the field of Christian apologetics. Fine, you don’t like the Tanners? Try reading this site. http://www.mrm.org/
Or this one: http://www.irr.org/
Or this one: http://www.carm.org/
Let me guess....they all lie???
I know zactly what you mean.
Notice the chronology offered by the text: “windowed by her first husband” and then “later marriage to Brigham Young”. In fact her first husband died 9 years after Brigham.
Here is the actual timeline of events:
7 Mar 1841 Marriage to Henry Jacobs
27 Oct 1841 Marriage to Joseph Smith
2 Jan 1842 Birth of Zebulon Jacobs, fathered by Henry Jacobs
27 Jun 1844 Death of Joseph Smith
2 Feb 1846 Marriage to Brigham Young (Zina was 8 months pregnant)
22 Mar 1846 Birth of Henry C. Jacobs, fathered by Henry Jacobs
3 Apr 1850 Birth of Zina Young, fathered by Brigham Young
29 Aug 1877 Death of Brigham Young
1 Aug 1886 Death of Henry Jacobs
Some key elements bear review:
* Zina was married to Jacob in Nauvoo by Mormon clergy. It was a legal and lawful marriage by both US law and Mormon law.
* Both Zina and Henry were active believing members before their marriage.
* Joseph Smith took Zina in a celestial marriage a mere 7 months after she was married to Jacob.
* The marriage to Jacob was obviously still recognized by Zina and Henry since she bore 2 children with Henry after the marriage.
* Brigham Young and Heber Kimball married all of the Joseph Smith “widows” following his death regardless of their relationship to their first husbands.
* Zina did not need to be taken care of; she had a husband who was active in the church.
Questions
* Henry never left the Church, he died in Salt Lake City.
* Henry and Zina were never divorced.
* Brigham Young’s relationship with Zina went beyond taking care of a widow since she was no window and he sired a daughter with her.
Given the above information, the Church’s official biography can only be seen as a lie. This information is well known inside and outside of the Church.
These dates can be verified at http://www.familysearch.org/:
Henry Bailey JACOBS (AFN: 1ZH6-9X)
Zina Diantha HUNTINGTON (AFN: 8R65-S9)
Brigham YOUNG (AFN: 3ZD8-KC)
Zebulon William JACOBS (AFN:234B-S6)
Henry Chariton JACOBS (AFN:1875-4N)
Zina Presendia YOUNG (AFN:1CK9-M2)
You can also read FAIR’s bizarre response to this at:
http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2006_Zina_and_Her_Men.html
It reminds us when our soldier in Iraq shut down and destoryed the press in Sadr city was it where the terrorist burn 4 of our soldiers?
Lying is stupid.
With the internet, most lies can be brought out into the open.
They need to correct that.
How do you like this smear job on Sandra Tanner and the smearing of the dead husband?
Thank you for the official LDS rendition of history. I think the readers can form their own opinion given both sides of the story.
Now I must ask the reader. Do you trust Mormonism to tell you the truth in these regards to historical fact? Do you trust them to tell you the truth about Romney.
Ask yourself that one question. Then ask yourselves, do you like being called a "bigot" by these people who believe only propaganda should be "allowed."
These are very real and very serious questions. What other State will you see Romney carry by 80% in a straw poll. Did the Catholics support Kennedy in this fashion. Why are the Mormons supporting Romney in such high numbers when he obviously is not a right-wing conservative. Yet we are told constantly on this site that Utah is THE MOST conservative of all States.
Do you trust what is going on? If you do, then fine, it is your own decision. If not, you'd better be prepared to fight against this type of name-calling, nonsense. It will split our party, and when the general election time comes it will all be fodder for the Dems.
Glad to see that attempt at civility is going well for you.
I have said nothing uncivil. Telling the truth is not uncivil and I have yet to name-call. Never, not once, have I called someone a hater, a bigot, a bitter old hag, Imam, unAmerican or furryball.
I have however been called all of these things. Some of them by you.
I am responding to a challenge, I have been called a bigot on FreeRepublic and so has any other Republican who dare to withold a vote for Romney because of his beliefs in a specious faith. Am I allowed to respond to that challenge? I certainly hope so.
But thanks R-esque, for posting a thread calling me a bigot and then accusing me of incivility for responding. Perhaps if you quit posting such inflamatory articles you would not get that response. ..Or are you looking for it?
I never called you a furryball CC and that is one of endearent names.
Hands off my furryball sister!:)
Much of the anit-mormon world has Ed Decker and the Tanners to thank for the cheap ammunition that is shot our way. For people to expose The Changing World of Mormonism without a fair examination of the facts is just begging for them to be exposed for their tactics.
I give you The Changing World of Tannerism
Exhibit B
I’m sorry, you are right, you called Fast Coyote a furryball. (I added that one because it was so hillarious it stuck in my mind)
Call me to repentance, but personally, I’m getting pretty tired of wading through all the garbage you through out.
And so, before I say something I will regret, have a good night all!
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.