Posted on 05/04/2007 5:46:36 AM PDT by Saundra Duffy
Any religion that bases eternity upon legalism is bound to crush its adherents and all those around them.
And the article that generated this thread, while fairly well written, is precisely the sort of 'negatives generator' that the DNC goon squad loves to exploit. Just look at how easily negatives have exploded into view, if anyone doubts it.
Well said, Marvin. And, I might add, this essay should have been posted in the Religion forum.
Me, too - not quite so much as you, but I understand.
Okay, you're losing the train of thought here as to why we went down this conversational road to begin with. My point was never, "evaluate every group out there on the basis of the worst-case member of that group." Refocus here.
I didn't bring up fundamentalist polygamists to imply they are either mainstream LDS or that they are accepted by mainstream LDS. In fact, I brought them up to show exactly the opposite.
Let me retred the ground for you: You said pro-life atheists aren't likely, implying a straw man argument on my part. I said there are some, just like even tho LDS polygamists aren't likely, there are some.
The Village Voice, a leftist-slanted paper, has a vocal pro-life writer. (Tho I'm not sure what his religious affiliation is). Do you think the fact that pro-life atheists, albeit that they are to use your words "a tiny minority" exist, do you think they are "accepted by the mainstream" atheists? No. Just because I point out their presence doesn't mean I think they are representative.
Likewise do you think if the 20+% of homosexuals who voted for Bush came out of the closet and admitted they did so, do you think that would be "accepted by the mainstream" homosexual activists? (No way) So am I trying to build a case that it is representative of homosexuals? No way.
So do I think Jim Jones is representative of Christianity? No. But that wasn't my original point.
So let's get back to it and stop shooting off into rabbit trails because you don't want to answer the consistency question: Are you saying that if, let's say, a pro-life Village Voice religiousless writer matched the most number of "hits" that aligned with your set of ideals in a candidate, his religiousless is totally irrelevant to you?
And that, I believe, belongs to the category of individual voter discretion.
Absolutely. I can't stop someone from voting for or against Mitt just because he is a Mormon. But if that's all they base their vote on, they are looney.
So, it doesn't bother you that Romney made this vow as part of a mormon temple ritual:
"You and each of you covenant and promise before God, angels, and these witnesses at this altar, that you do accept the Law of Consecration as contained in the Doctrine and Covenants, in that you do consecrate yourselves, your time, talents, and everything with which the Lord has blessed you, or with which he may bless you, to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, for the building up of the Kingdom of God on the earth and for the establishment of Zion.
Are you certain that if Romney took the presidential oath of office it would supersede this oath?
Actually I included those who at least addressed the subject, not just those who used such a label.
So you did make your point.
This is the year 2007
No trial, no judge, no jury.
Breaking news!
(Stay tuned. More in almost 8 months for more developments...)
LOL
Romney is a Moron, mon.
Did you know that in the piece of fiction Joseph Smith came up with called the "Book of Mormon" that there is a land in it called, "The Land of Moron"? Honestly, there is.
Here is one reference to it in the Book of Mormon, from the book of "Ether";
7:1 And it came to pass that Orihah did execute judgment upon the land in righteousness all his days, whose days were exceedingly many.
7:2 And he begat sons and daughters; yea, he begat thirty and one, among whom were twenty and three sons.
7:3 And it came to pass that he also begat Kib in his old age. And it came to pass that Kib reigned in his stead; and Kib begat Corihor.
7:4 And when Corihor was thirty and two years old he rebelled against his father, and went over and dwelt in the land of Nehor; and he begat sons and daughters, and they became exceedingly fair; wherefore Corihor drew away many people after him.
7:5 And when he had gathered together an army he came up unto the land of Moron where the king dwelt, and took him captive, which brought to pass the saying of the brother of Jared that they would be brought into captivity.
7:6 Now the land of Moron, where the king dwelt, was near the land which is called Desolation by the Nephites.
Here is a Mormon site where they are trying to figure out where it is located:
http://www.mormonstudies.com/geo2.htm
I know where it is. :-)
The Mormon holy underwear is for a temple ceremony.
That could very well be.
Newspaper ads for women sometimes did include NINA...
Newspaper ads for men with NINA were exceedingly rare.
I would also want to know if he agrees with the Declaration of Independence that our rights are granted by God and are inalienable.
If an atheist agreed with that and was pro-life and generally agreed with my other conservative values, then yes, I would be willing to vote for him. Not a likely scenario, but I would.
Must be an interesting ceremony.
The Mormon holy underwear is for a temple ceremony.
A slight correction, NNN. After a "worthy" mormon (one who has obeyed all the rules and paid his/her required 10% tithe) is allowed to enter the temple and take part in a secret "endowment" ceremony, he/she must wear his "temple garments" at all times, (under the regular underwear for women.) There is another set of special clothing that is put on the corpses of temple mormons for burial.
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.