| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 12/13/2007 11:50:58 PM PST by Jim Robinson, reason:
Discussion continued here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1939278/posts |
Posted on 12/12/2007 6:27:59 PM PST by jveritas
Dear FRiends
It really pains me to see some of those vicious anti-Mormons attacks we see on Free Republic disguised under the “freedom of speech. Attacking people based on their Mormon faith is really disgusting and it is an insult to this great forum. People who do not like Governor Mitt Romney based on his positions are free to express their opinion as such, but people who attack him because he is a Mormom should be ashamed of themselves and must not be allowed to do so.
I greatly hope that Free Republic members and moderators will get together and help in stopping this anti-Mormon vitriol, this great Free Republic must not be tainted by these shameless acts.
That doesn't answer the question.
Is it any less "slick" than leading people down the path of a "guilt by association" logical fallcacy to get them to conclude that Romney is a racist on their own, without actually coming out and saying it?
Come up with a better reason.
You are missing my whole point. Let me go at this from another direction. My husband is an atheist. I love him dearly. He is a wonderful person. I would not vote for an atheist for President. I wouldn't vote for my husband if he ran for President.
A person does not have to be the devil incarnate for you to disagree with his ideology and not want to vote for him because of that ideology.
There is no religious test for candidates to run for the office of President, but that does not mean that each and every individual does not take into account the different candidates ideologies when they are making a decision on their vote. There is nothing un-American about wanting to vote for someone that shares your own ideology.
Asking questions about another person's faith and questioning them about their beliefs is not bashing if it's done in a respectful manner. The problem that we have here is not that people are questioning and debating about the Mormon faith, but that a few rude people are being disrespectful and a few thin-skinned people are getting bent out of shape because anyone dares to question at all.
Shouldn’t we all be educated about what it is that they actually believe?
If that request had any sincerity behind it, you would know exactly what to do. Instead of harassing individual candidates you would go straight to the LDS web site where all your valid questions would be answered officially. The same applies to all the candidates and their various religions.
A second benefit would be to reduce by a factor of ridiculous, the pinhead questions repeatedly asked the candidates not out of a sincere desire for anything other than a chance to catch any of them out and then proceed to bash them unmercifully. It is a damned if you do damned if you don’t so why do.
I like the way Fred Thompson refused to be led by the nose ring during the recent debate. Now if someone would just explain to Helen Thomas what kind of Moron she really is to the point that there is no doubt in her feeble mind, maybe the media would have a stupid question epiphany and we can get on with more important issues. I’m not holding my breath.
That request has been posed by several posters, the few examples given were quite lame. If you want some examples of where the vitriol is coming from and from which side of this issue check out the examples cited by greyfoxx39 in reply #477.
“If someone believes in our Lord Jesus Christ than he or she is a Christian. If you want to have a religious/theological debate on who is Christian and who is not then Protestants will be fighting Catholics and Catholics will be fighting Orthodox and every sect will claim that they are the real Christians and others are not based on just strictly narrow dogmatic views. Do you want Free Republic to descend to this level? I do not.”
Actually, this is not true at all. All the above mentioned denominations of “traditional” Christianity believe in the same Jesus. THAT is the main difference between “traditional” Christianity and Mormonism. The nature of God. It is not a small point. Had Mr. Smith not redefined the nature of God from the start, none of this would matter. The fact is, he did. Therefore the debate will continue.
Call if bashing if you wish, jerivitas, but in truth, it is simply honest theological debate. I am sorry if you are unable to tell the difference. I question and examine my own faith constantly. I am secure in it. Someone else’s critisism of it cannot and will not lessen it. If you truely believe all that is inherent in the history and doctrine of the LDS church, then admit it and proclaim it from the rooftops. Don’t hide from honest debate about it. The fact that you do want to hide from it tells me that perhaps you may have real questions. Blind faith is just that; blind.
Merry Christmas, and may God bless you and your family in this wondrous season.
You commit the basic logical fallacy here of "begging the question". To accept your conclusion, one has to accept your premise that pre-defines Christian to fit your conclusion. When the framing of your argument presupposes that "Christian" is to be defined as "those who follow Evangelical doctrines", then naturally you come to the conclusion that non-Evangelicals are not Christians. But, of course that would also make other Churches with non-Evangelical doctrines, such as Catholic and Orthodox, not Christian by your definition.
What truly follows from your argument is that Mormons are not Evangelical Protestants. I doubt Mormons would argue with that.
No it says nothing about Romney personally, but the fact remains that he belongs to a church which, until 1978 (15 years after the Civil Rights Act) blatantly discriminated against blacks solely on the basis of the color of their skin. Romney was not a convert to Mormonism after the decision to rescind that teaching. This was something that was taught to him during his formative years and which he did not publicly reject until AFTER his church had made the decision to reverse itself on that issue. Romney was not a leader in bringing this change, he was a follower of those who promulgated it.
I left the Mormon Church long before the Mormons decided it was no longer politically correct to discriminate against Blacks on the basis of their skin color. I was a witness to the private conversations of many "good" Mormons who used the "N" word rather indiscriminately when describing people of African descent. Because of the teaching of the LDS Church that these people were not valiant during the war in heaven in the pre-mortal existence, it was logical that many Mormons (like Hindus) thought that their lot in life was what they deserved because of their behavior in the pre-existence.
The LDS Church has changed the rules, but they have not apologized for the blantant racism that permeated their church for 150 years. They will not apologize because they now claim that it was never the "official" doctrine of the LDS Church.
That, my FRiend is pretty slick, wouldn't you say?
I hear crickets...........
If it says nothing about Romney (or any other candidate) personally, what makes it relevant in the context of conservative political activism?
I like Romney better than McCain, Giuliani, Huckabee.
I’d vote for him.
Yet I don’t understand how you can remove from the table
1) A presidential candidates ideology
2) The organizations a candidate belongs to.
People can disagree about how important these things are, and how they should be discussed, but to say they shouldn’t be considered or talked about at all is wrong in my opinion.
FR rules should be imposed for repeat offenders.
Yes, yes...off with their heads!!
ROFLOL!!
I'll join your call for curtailing anti-Mormon sentiment from anti-Romney folks if you'll likewise endorse a call to refrain from any and all claims of religious bigotry by Romney folks.
If we start talking about character and actually living a Christan lifestyle....proportionally....the Mormons whoop the Baptists....hands down. Having grown up in a dry county...in the midst of Baptists....I found over half of them who professed “faith”...were actually without character and very unchristian-like. I’m almost 50 now...my old hometown church and its deacons? At least three of the deacons are KKK members and two are absolute heavy drinkers, with one guy who has arrested once for violence against his wife.
My political correctness is basically turned off, and I’m on true-observation mode. Being in or associated with the military for 30 years....I’ve known over twenty Mormons. None of them were drinkers...none were ever arrested for bringing harm to a family member...and none were of a behavior that I thought questionable. I have yet to meet a “bad” Mormon.
I can’t do a blessed thing in my old home town to improve the image of Mormons because the Baptist confirm it there...as a “cult”. Even my brother sits there and laughs about the labels that the minister has placed on the group...and sitting in the back of the church...are at least eight teenage guys who have red-eye balls from heavy drinking and partying the night before. The minister doesn’t say much to correct their action.
In my book....actions speak louder than words. This isn’t about tolerance or intolerance. Its about respecting folks who have real Christian behavior, and display it on a daily basis. I’m purely sick and tired of commercialized religion...who just sign up for something to be in the “in-crowd” and don’t want to live the lifestyle. That never was the reason behind Christianity.
You are a damn liar.
False assertion your part, lol. Your own words damn yourself in post #360 and you continue your dammed justification of the extermination order in post #433.
You also failed to address the following:
- Do you think the pogrom at Haun's mill (3 days after the extermination order was signed) which resulted in 18 deaths was a defensive action?
- Furthermore, was Missouri wrong in 1976 to express a "deep regret for the injustice" of the 1838 extermination order?
21 Now this king of Egypt was a descendant from the loins of Ham, and was a partaker of the blood of the Canaanites by birth.
26 Pharaoh, being a righteous man, established his kingdom and judged his people wisely and justly all his days, seeking earnestly to imitate that order established by the fathers in the first generations, in the days of the first patriarchal reign, even in the reign of Adam, and also of Noah, his father, who blessed him with the blessings of the earth, and with the blessings of wisdom, but cursed him as pertaining to the Priesthood.”
27 Now, Pharaoh being of that lineage by which he could not have the right of Priesthood, notwithstanding the Pharaohs would fain claim it from Noah, through Ham, therefore my father was led away by their idolatry;
Isn't it obvious that CURRENT LDS Scripture supports a curse upon the Seed of Cain?
Tenth LDS President Joseph Fielding Smith wrote, “It was well understood by the early elders of the Church that the mark which was placed on Cain and which his posterity inherited was the black skin. The Book of Moses informs us that Cain and his descendants were black” (The Way to Perfection, p.107).
Smith also stated that “there is a reason why one man is born black and with other disadvantages, while another is born white with great advantages. The reason is that we once had an estate before we came here, and were obedient; more or less, to the laws that were given us there. Those who were faithful in all things there received greater blessings here, and those who were not faithful received less” (Doctrines of Salvation 1:61).
The fact that Blacks were being punished for something they couldn’t even remember doing makes this doctrine even more offensive. However, while lifting the ban may have put the LDS Church in a more positive light socially, it demonstrated once more the instability of its doctrines and the fickleness of its God. The decision made in 1978 also demonstrates that the LDS people will accept just about anything their leaders tell them. When it comes to accountability, the leadership of the LDS Church answers to no one. Latter-day Saints may respond by saying their leaders are accountable to God, but what does this really mean when they are allowed to make decisions that contradict what Mormons have historically considered to be God’s unchanging will?
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.