Posted on 05/04/2007 5:46:36 AM PDT by Saundra Duffy
Would you criticize his beliefs, or how he lived them out (e.g. his behavior and positions on issues)?
Wave a magic wand over any belief, designate it as sacred and therefore untouchable to criticism, and you can get away with most anything.
I don't recall saying that one cannot criticize another faith. The issue I've been discussing is the lunacy of voting against (or for) someone simply because of their 'faith label'.
Well, I guess we can't be too hard on Clinton for having a religious belief that life begins at birth."
Uh, abortion is a political issue, so it would seem to me quite valid to vote for or against someone based on their position on this issue.
In fact I'm technically a High Priest.
I am convert and was converted by the power of the Holy Spirit so there is nothing technically about it!
Unless you are one of those who never had a testimony?
In my mind I was questioning not judging?
DU, read that paragraph again to yourself. Seems a little callous and unfeeling to me. "Just don't go" isn't gonna cut it with loving parents that have looked forward for years to seeing their child married. And you accuse parents of just wanting to be there so they can chat and take pictures? Cold. "Nobody is forcing anybody!" Lovely.
Both.
Listen. This is perhaps the best illustration on record: Hitler did not simply start rounding up Jews early in his political career. He first kicked into gear a smear campaign against Jews. In other words, beliefs about Jews preceded Krystalnacht and all that followed.
Whenever a people group has gotten in our way, we simply defined them out of existence. The heritage of the U.S. is not always worth defending: If Native Americans' land ownership was in the way, we simply labeled them as "savages" and took the land. If lack of currency prevented Southern plantations from employing enough crop laborers, we simply labeled them as "chattel" (Dred vs. Scott labeling) and took their free labor. The Nazis did the same thing w/the Jews: They simply labeled them as non-Aryans, and took their lives and all they owned.
With the pre-born, our country and the world simply defines them out of existence ("unwanted," "choice," "potential life" etc.) because, they, too, get in the way of our careers, relationships, economic goals, etc. Clinton, too, settled in on this definition of "potential life" and made it easier to choose no defense on their behalf.
It's this ability to first reconfigure people according to a less-than-human mindset that serves as a precursor to actual treatment as less-than-human.
I don't recall saying that one cannot criticize another faith. The issue I've been discussing is the lunacy of voting against (or for) someone simply because of their 'faith label'.
OK. I'll take your word for that. (I was actually broadening the focus to "folks around here" & you say that doesn't include you. Fine).
Uh, abortion is a political issue, so it would seem to me quite valid to vote for or against someone based on their position on this issue.
Yes. But you're missing my point: My point is that abortion is a political issue, but it's also a religious issue. It intersects and transcends both dimensions. But just because it's a religious issue, doesn't mean it's off-limits. My point is that Mitt's religious beliefs is both a religious issue AND a political issue, since his religion is tied into his character and values, and we evaluate candidates politically on both counts. So, likewise any candidate's religious beliefs intersects and transcends his political life.
Sorry you lost you testamony Degaston I have found that science and religion are compatable.
First of all there is a Creator for all this order.
That so be ones benchmark, that you work on your theory until it squares with the originator!
The only reason abortion is a political question at all is because of people’s RELIGIOUS beliefs.
Please show me where he said this and in what context, and not just whatever snippet is posted on your ammo sites. I want to see what you refer to if you make such a claim. Blacks were and have been baptized into the church practically from day 1, in 1830. Priesthood privileges were denied them until 1978, but thousands and thousands joined the church prior to that time.
However, the 'faith label' someone wears doesn't automatically tell you what position they take on abortion. You have to look at their positions on the issues and their behavior to determine that. So again, voting for or against someone solely on their 'faith label' is not smart.
Zero, I am so sorry for your pain. I pray that your daughter will come home to you.
Yep, that's a behavior.
In other words, beliefs about Jews preceded Krystalnacht and all that followed.
I could agree that his beliefs drove his behavior, but clearly, when he was smearing Jews, you could see how he was interpreting the beliefs (although I don't think Nazism even existed before Hitler, so 'interpretation' isn't the right word).
My point is that abortion is a political issue, but it's also a religious issue.
Yes, it can be both. But one's 'faith label' doesn't automatically indicate that individual's position on abortion.
My point is that Mitt's religious beliefs is both a religious issue AND a political issue
I could agree if you are also saying that his behavior, how he lives out his beliefs, his positions on issues are what you consider to be part of his religion and not just the fact that he is a Mormon. In point of fact, it is relatively recently that Mitt indicated he is pro-life. Previously, on this particular issue, his position was in opposition to that typically considered to be the position of the Mormon faith.
When you get right down to it, politically, I have quite a bit in common with most Mormons on social issues, because they are very socially conservative. And that is why I don't support Mitt - because his 'conversion' to social conservatism is recent enough to be suspect.
You simply started out your answer with a dodge. To me it appeared that you were hoping most people wouldn't read farther than the first sentence. I am well versed in the many ways Mormonism presents its "truth." Women say prayers all the time in Sacrament meeting. The blessing of the sacrament is a priesthood function though, so no, they don't.
Color, this is really beyond the pail! You accuse me of deception when I clearly stated the facts. And you also rail on me because I can't read minds (what greyfoxx SHOULD have asked)
I didn't' start with a dodge, I told the truth. If you honestly think readers will read 1 sentence and leave the thread without reading the next sentence, then you have absolutely no respect for the majority of FReepers, lurkers, or otherwise. Let me say it again for the 3rd time, so EVERYONE can understand.. Wait, wait for it, it's coming, just past the next sentence...
Are you all still here? Here it comes...
Don't go away, it's right here, after this first line...
Ready, ok, I'm letting it roll! 3rd times a charm...
"Women say prayers all the time in Sacrament meeting. The blessing of the sacrament is a priesthood function though, so no, they don't."
Now, sorry to get all rousted up, but that really gets my goat! It is one of my responsibilities in my calling to get prayers fro Sacrament Meeting each week. I usually alternate between men and women during the same meeting, and it makes no difference what sex says the opening or closing prayers. Likewise, countless other times, Sunday School, Relief society, Ward Council, etc, etc, etc., women say the prayers.
Color, would it surprise you to know that our Relief Society President comes to our Priesthood Executive Committee meetings too, even though she technically isn't supposed to? We value her insight and judgment, and perspective and spiritually that she can and does bring.
Please stop trying to paint me into your already defined discriminatory corner. Thanks!
Me too. Other faiths do similar things, and that's too bad.
Of course, this issue has nothing to do with whether or not to vote for someone.
Thanks.
I’m calming down now, I’ll try to be nicer.
I cannot imagine anyone saying anything so utterly cruel.. It is found in the Journal of Discourses, Volume 22, p. 234.
There is an old version of the book "The Church and the Negro" by John L Lund published in 1967. It's sick and disgusting.
"When people rebel against God's commandments, either during their pre-earth life or while in mortality, they are given a dark skin so that those who are of the chosen seed will not intermarry with them."
"Each Individual was judged according to his faith, talents and individual worthiness. Each was assigned to come to earth in a particular race, time and nation commensurate with their works and use of their free agency in the pre-mortal sphere. In other words, all those who are descendants of Cain (blacks) have been restricted concerning the Priesthood because they were unworthy in the pre-existence."
This choice book was written during the height of the Civil Rights Movement, and during the time that Mitt was reaching the age to become a deacon.
Thousands and thousands of blacks joined the church prior to 1978?? Oh by all means, please let me see your references.
In the meantime perhaps you should peruse this site
http://www.irr.org/mit/Skin%20Color%20&%20LDS%20Church.pdf
You don’t understand Mormonism very well do you? We have sevenbak and DelphiUser giving each other high fives ‘cuz they finally have caught up to the official Sunday School lesson and are on the same one as the rest of the 12,000,000 members worldwide.
The LDS machine tells you what you must teach on any given Sunday no matter what holiday it might be, what country you live in, or what disaster may have befallen your congregation. Any deviation from the “lesson plan” must be corrected as soon a possilbe.
The LDS Church sets rules (guidelines) on how many earrings you may wear, how short your shorts can be, what you may eat or drink, and the exact language of prayer (ye olde english, of course). There isn’t a great deal of diversion among the LDS, and when there is you hear about it. Harry Reid is a prime example. Do a search and see what Mormons think about how he colors outside the lines.
When you say Mormon, you ARE in fact stating where someones posistion probably lies. If their posistion deviates too much, you have someone like me, a Mormon who is ostracized.
Again, Saundra was complaining about her husband not being called on in a prayer meeting. My question addressed whether she felt the same slight about only men being allowed to pray on some occasions.
There was no statement of precedence in my question. It was about feelings. She felt he was slighted.
I belong to a church that "allows" women to be ministers, elders, deacons, board chairpersons. No one need feel slighted there.
And, I stated that since the LDS is running a massive PR campaign to be considered "mainstream", perhaps they might consider the "sisters" who are considered unworthy for performing some ordinances.
Color, was their not a recent action by the general authorities in SLC removing the Ladies Relief Society from the leadership of women and substituting men?
I’m so sorry zero, truly I am.
I have heard that. I am not familiar enough with the Relief Society to comment.
Except that I am completely surprise to hear sevenbak say the Relief Society (women’s organization) attends priesthood meetings.
This simply would not have been allowed to take place in any Ward that I was part of.
Paul and the saints tried to maintian the Word until the last apostle was killed off or take from the earth!
1 John 4
2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
1 John 2
18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.
19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.
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.