Posted on 05/24/2011 4:07:08 PM PDT by ken5050
As we enter the GOP primary season, I'm starting to notice more and more an annoying trend here in FR. It seems as though everytime there's an article, or someone posts a comment about Romney, either pro or con, it nearly always devolves into an extended, and acrimonious discussion about the Mormon faith. Those who defend it, and those who, for whatever reasons, can't abide it, both sides seem determined to wage an "end of times" batte on all the FR threads. Frankly, I'm tired of it, and just wish it would stop. I think that probably 99% of others here feel the same way.
Um...
Ok...
Not by much, but the facts are what they are.
Although I can see the OP’s point of this thread, the impetus for this thread is another thread hijacked by one who was attempting to denigrate the character of another because he didn’t like the comment made there.
He dug up information on the poster that was not germane to the thread/comment and then proceeded to dig himself a hole he could not escape from.
But instead of castigating that poster, the OP appears to have taken the tact that the “SAME” individuals were responsible for the thread hijack, when in fact they weren’t.
That Romney, Huntsman and any temple endowed mormon has taken oaths that put their church above all else, should be a cause for concern as it relates to their political office.
Where their allegiances lie is a legitimate question and should/needs to be addressed. Just as we do for moslems.
Well, let's break this down.
Q #1
Tell us, Ken, if you go up to complete strangers and tell them they are "annoying" to you...
...[your vanity stated, "I'm starting to notice more and more an annoying trend here in FR."]...
...could that easily be interpreted as...
(a) mild feedback?
(b) neutral feedback?
(c) in no way offensive feedback?
(d) (None of the above)
I say "D" none of the above. If we were family...then, yes, what you said could easily be "mild." But it's culturally uncouth, Ken, to just go up to complete strangers and call them "annoying." (Or didn't your momma teach you that?)
So for you to revisit this vanity so much later, and try to redefine your original statement as being something other than what it was, well...that's not very popular among people who don't appreciate historical revisionism.
Q#2: Is this original claim of yours true: That "It seems as though EVERYTIME there's an article, or someone posts a comment about Romney, either pro or con, it nearly always devolves into an extended, and acrimonious discussion about the Mormon faith. Those who defend it..."???
First of all you are guilty, Ken, of a strawman...saying "EVERYTIME there's an article"...I looked up FR articles with "Romney" in the title...and that wasn't true of most of them over just a few pages of May articles on Romney. You are guilty of exaggeration, Ken. And those who agree with you are fellow straw men. Strawmen argumenters are seen as "empty" because they tend to be too lazy to back up their contentions with facts or true nuances. They see something happening several times and they project that into everything. "Every" becomes an "all or nothing" to them & so they exaggerate.
You also said "Those who defend it, and those who, for whatever reasons, can't abide it, both sides seem determined to wage an "end of times" battle on all the FR threads."
Ken, if you were describing many of the FR battles during 2007-2008, I'd say you were closer to the mark here. But you're not. You say this is happening now. The problem with your comment is that most of the Mormon FReepers have either been zotted for malicious against-the-rules behavior or they've realized Mormonism is not defensible here, and have seized trying (for the most part). Oh sure, there's a few exceptions. But it's not the pitched online discussions of years past.
These have been trifle of late in comparison to before. And if FR weathered it before despite a few whiners about it; hey FR can handle it now since the Romneybots of 2007-2008 have gone under cover and the FReeper Mormons have been held accountable.
So, it will continue to get worse..and it debases FR..as was said, that's why mainstream conservatives ignore FR..and then there will be a needed correction by those in charge.
Why don't you ask JR about how many "mainstream conservatives ignore FR"? He has stats...you pull these comments out of your butt to suit your agenda.
Jim can't have made plainer the status of Romney and his MittBots on FR.
Excellent concise statement made to ken5050.
We want candidates who aren't gullible...who might fall for any fantasy thinking. And if a candidate thinks he's a "god-in-embryo" -- what true-believing Mormons think they are...who are on their way to godhood, that's Ggullibility with a capital G!
We want them to have good foreign policy judgment. And since true-believing Mormons label the entirety of Christianity as an apostate religion, then guess what? They get it badly wrong on what this world religion is!
If they can't identify what their base is, how can we be assured they can properly assess what Islam is? (And isn't that already a current problem with our sitting president? Why would we want more of the same?)
What we really see with Ken and his supporters are people who generally want "religion" to be controlled.
Of course, that level of "control" they want varies from person to person. But generally speaking, and certainly risking overgeneralizing for some who I'm sure have other motivations that I'm not considering, they like to see "religion" properly boxed.
Keep it reduced to Sunday morning in certain church buildings, please, seems to be the overarching expressed attitude.
If it can't be "contained," then that becomes an "exposure" issue. (And that's risky to consciences, ya know)
Seems like a common "out" Mormons have going back to Joseph Smith.
Instead of seeing "Mayor Smith" as a criminal mayor who ordered censorship & the destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor printing press, Mormons have written it off as "Mayor Smith" being "baited with tactics" & therefore Smith couldn't be held criminally responsible for what he did.
Those bad baiter boys. Naughty of them.
My intent is NOT to try and "control" anyone.. First of all, to me, Romney's religion is not an issue. I personally don't like him, nor want him as the nominee, because of Romneycare and because I don't want a retread. However, Romney, if he gets the nomination, will be far preferable to another 4 years of Obama.
With regards to your views about the Mormon Church, and why being a member should thus disqualify Romney from serious consideration for the nomination, let's assume that I concur with your thesis.
However, is it necessary for every political thread to raise the same points, the same issues, the same theological discussion. Every thread becomes an endless "cut and paste" job. And what does that bring to the table? IMHO, nothing..just surf through this thread, and 90% of the commentary has been posted before, hundreds of times.
In 2008, while Rudy was running, the same thing happened. It was impossible to discuss Rudy, anything he said, without triggering the same type of flame war on the threads. Nobody was listening to the other side.... everyone's views were set in cement.
Ultimately, Jim Robinson felt that Rudy's liberal social views were not reconsileable with the values that he wants FR to stand for. So he cleaned house, banished many people. I have no quarrel with that decision. It is his site, he's free to do whatever he wishes.
And it appears now that we are on the same path whenever Romney's name arises. I would hope we don't come to that, but it won't be my decision. I thought that as a possible alternative we could separate the religious commentary from the political threads.
Judging by the responses here, that's not going to happen voluntarily. OK..I tried..now I'll just navigate away from those threads..
"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not consider the book of Enoch to be part of its standard canon, though it is believed that the original book of Enoch was an inspired book. The Book of Moses, found within the scriptural canon of the LDS Church, has several similarities to the Book of Enoch, including names that have been found in some versions of the Book of Enoch, and is believed by the Church to contain a condensed record of Enoch."So, we are restoring lost knowledge that predates the council at Nicea, the council at Jamnia, but was known and quoted by the apostles and Jesus Christ.
There's criticism and then there's persecution, and then there's violent suppression. Some people think they're all the same thing ~ but they're not!
I cannot help but note the continued existence of congregations of Mormons in and around Nauvoo and Kansas City ~ do you imagine they were all slaughtered and brought back to life?
Not to argue, but like aren't all Mormons the same and in a sort of theological lockstep?
Those materials were pretty much Orthodox ~ or Greek in origin, the church in Jerusalem having been successfully disposed of by the Romans in 70AD.
Today folks can be found singing them at morning worship services totally oblivious to the fact they are using purely Orthodox materials.
So, using the Christian Church movement as a proxy for Christian Orthodoxy in their first conflict with Smith himself and Mormonism, these practitioners of something fairly close to first century Christianity WALKED AWAY from Smith.
I wish more of the DOC had walked away from a later prophet named Jim Jones, but they didn't. They were immersed in Liberalism.
I think no debate is complete without throwing in a kitchen sink eh!
Alexander Campbell (Hey, that rings a bell, right?) certainly took notice of the early Mormons. At the same time one of Smith's Witnesses was a Christian Church minister.
UNKOWN CULT? ~ we are at the very heart of the foundations of Mormonism and we have someone in this discussion who doesn't have a clue ~ please tell me that's not true.
Romney Care will be used as a club to swing at Republicans. I can hear liberal media screaming from the rooftops, "Romney did it first!" That reason alone is enough to make him unelectable.
Problem is, Romney and Mormonism seem to be inseparable on FR. Recall what I said earlier about the bug zapper. Nearly 500 posts now...
“The Constitution of the United States is a glorious standard; it is founded in the wisdom of God. It is a heavenly banner;” (Joseph Smith, HC, vol. 3, p. 305. March 25, 1839.)And there's a lot more at the site. Want some mustard for that crow?
You said: I personally don't like him, nor want him as the nominee, because of Romneycare and because I don't want a retread. However, Romney, if he gets the nomination, will be far preferable to another 4 years of Obama.
Unfortunately, my response to this is indeed a "cut & paste" job -- something you've just lamented against. But my response below is one I've haven't posted "hundreds of times." Only once. On a distinct thread as a response to Grunthor. Just last night.
Grunthor said on that thread: The reasons that I will not vote for Romney in the primary has everything to do with his politics and nothing to do with his religion. I will vote for whoever eventually wins the G.O.P. nomination. This nation will not survive another 4 years of Obama.
Here was my response to Grunthor (please especially take to heart the bold-faced comments):
Grunthor, we both know Romney cannot beat Obama, right? Surely you concede that, don't you?
Think of it: 30 yo Mitt as a member of a church denying blacks the ability to be a priest.
The MSM would make it mostly a referenda on racism: White racist Mitt vs. Obama!
Now, if people would only think that through, then they'd know that casting a vote for a candidate that will lose is wasting their vote.
But your 'tude -- along with anybody else who thinks that way -- would only allow Romney to extend the inevitable: He'll lose; and the GOP would be the biggest loser long-term by suffering irreparable damage for putting forth its weakest candidate ever!
Social conservatives/Evangelicals would steer clear of him. Pro-life Democrats wouldn't vote for such a waffle iron. Of the three groups polled several years ago that identified the groups least likely to vote for a Mormon POTUS, it was actually moderates who were 11% less likely than conservatives to vote for one...so he wouldn't get the moderate vote.
He wouldn't get the African American vote, or minority vote identifying with Romney's racist past.
The GOP would be in horrendous long-term shape if it put forth Romney as its candidate!
Well, I am certainly glad to have this good conversation with you. Thanks. I’ll mull it over.
MY goal is to warn innocents of heresy that will lead them to hell.
Bringing out the truths of mormonism will either convince them or not. The only conversion I'm interested in is one that God instills in their hearts when their mind is flushed of the lies that are provided by the mormon corporation.
Do you personally know anything about mormon doctrine? If not, your condemnation of those who DO is unwarranted when mormonism's goal is to "convince and convert" the entire population of the earth. Do you believe mormons will give YOU a pass? If you aren't converted on this earth, you will be converted after you die.
Colorcountry put this succinctly in an earlier post: "Everyone must earn exaltation, except those who have never heard of it and died before they did and IF they died without doing their own works, then a good, worthy Mormon must earn it for them by doing works, BUT by then, the deceased (who spent some time in spirit prison waiting for some worthy Mormon to do their Temple Work) has been meeting with worthy spirit missionaries who taught him the lessons so he would understand the Mormon necro-baptism that just took place in his stead in the Mormon Temple where god dwells, but not really because god dwells in heaven in his body of flesh and bone - then after the ordinance is performed in absentia and the spirit lessons taught, the deceased now has the opportunity to choose whether or not the baptism and ordinances are accepted. If the dead guy now accepts those works, then he is allowed to go and do more works so that he too can progress and become a god."
"“Few men on earth,” said Elder Bruce R. McConkie, “either in or out of the Church, have caught the vision of what the Book of Mormon is all about. Few are they among men who know the part it has played and will yet play in preparing the way for the coming of Him of whom it is a new witness. … The Book of Mormon shall so affect men that the whole earth and all its peoples will have been influenced and governed by it." … (Millennial Messiah pp. 159, 170, 179.)
Mary was a virgin when Jesus was born.
_____________________________________________
Sweetie how soon you forget
You or your mormon friends have told us in the past
Mary was still a virgin because she didnt have sex with a man
Mary was still a virgin somehow because she had physical sex with the mormon god and thats different
the same but different
Howevcer you or your mormon friends always seem to want to retire or wash your hair when asked to explain
how a human girl could have her hymen broken in physical sex with the mormon god
and yet still be a virgin
SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
mister-know-it-all
explain how Mary was still a virgin after the mormon god impregnated her
“the natural way”
Feel free to call your bish for help
his full time plumbing expertise probably gives him an edge on religious matters
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.