Posted on 06/23/2007 1:28:02 PM PDT by Extremely Extreme Extremist
(AP) SALT LAKE CITY -- Mitt Romney said Saturday that criticism of his Mormon religion by rival GOP presidential campaigns is happening too frequently.
Clearly, any derogatory comments about anyones faiththose comments are troubling. The fact they keep on coming up is even more troubling, Romney said during a fundraising trip in the home state of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
The Mormon church is one of the fastest-growing religions and claims about 12.5 million members worldwide. But many evangelical Christians in crucial primary states such as Iowa and South Carolina consider the faith a cult.
Romneys remarks follow an apology from GOP rival John McCains campaign for comments about the Mormon church allegedly made this year by a volunteer.
Also recently, Republican presidential hopeful, Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas, issued a similar apology for a campaign workers e-mail to Iowa Republican leaders that was an apparent attempt to draw unfavorable scrutiny of Romneys religion. Former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani apologized after the New York Sun noted that a campaign aide had forwarded to a blogger a story about unofficial Mormon lore. Legend has it that a Mormon would save the Constitution, the story said. The campaign aide passed the story along with a note: Thought youd find this interesting.
Romney said in a large presidential race there always will be some volunteers or workers who cannot be controlled. But he said the difference between derogatory comments that originated from the McCain campaign and others is that the Arizona senator has not personally apologized to him.
In the case of Senator Brownback and Mayor Giuliani ... they called immediately. They each spoke with me personally. I dont have any issue with that at all, Romney said.
He said McCain can do whatever he feels is the right thing. Theres no need for me to suggest how people respond to things that go on in the campaign.
Tucker Bounds, a McCain campaign spokesman, said the McCain campaign has already apologized.
Its a very sincere apology. There is absolutely no place for those type of comments in our campaign, he said.
Romney, a former governor of Massachusetts, said he had not spoken with McCain since the last presidential debate, on June 5.
Romney used a fundraiser hosted by Utah Jazz owner Larry Miller to criticize the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law. It banned unregulated, unlimited contributions from corporations, unions and wealthy individuals to national political parties and federal candidates.
The bill ought to be repealed, he said. Its been the wrong course for American campaigns.
Romney said he favors unlimited donations as long as they are immediately disclosed on the Internet.
Romney was attending fundraisers in Salt Lake City and in Logan on Saturday.
Don’t take my words and twist them for your own glory!
not one thing against any Christian or non Christian religion has been said by any LDS on any of these threads.
I’m sincerely sorry that you have such a reading comprehension problem. This reminds me of George Bush derangement syndrome with a twist.
That’s really well done Elsie, the two letters showing punctuation and meaning.
I got stuck on “doodangs.” I can’t decide which: ketchup or mustard.
LOL!
Was it tasty?:)
No offense here. I agree 100% with the scripture you quoted. Mormon Doctrine and Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith are not considered Scripture, so, to quote them in a doctrinal discussion based on scripture, is IMHO, not keeping things on an even keel. I’d be happy to debate anyone if they can keep their discussion to the Scriptures.
As you are probably most aware, generally folks on these threads who are anti LDS are slinging anything negative and deceptive they can find in the vain attempt to make themselves look knowledgable, and to one up the poor misguided Mormons. That alone is a DU type activity, and unworthy of those who believe in the goals of FR. JMHO.
Thanks, I try. Apparently there are many that don’t. So they get less than intelligent. Quicker that way, and feelings are not injured in the process.
ROFLOL!!
Really, the only train of thought here is the refusal to answer directly. Apparently, you didn’t answer Delphi some time ago, & now your only answer to me is to ask me to show you. Not a bad debating technique, but not moving us forward either.
Your post left me feeling... Empty.
“So you dont like the word damn but pimp is alright with you!”
Uhhhh, uhhhh. Resty just used another bad word!!!!!!!!!!!
I seem to recall that exercise from an English text for college students ... I sold college textbooks in the early seventies. Read most of them. So applicable here! Thanx for posting it.
I only have time to address one point right now, but it is a cucial one.
“You said:FC: The Egyptian hieroglyphics have been translated and say nothing at all what Joseph Smith babbled on about, that is not a matter of opinion.”
[DU:Translations are always a matter of opinion.]
Absolutely false.
Translate this “Eres muy mentiroso.”. Let’s see if you come up with a different interpretation than I meant.
The fact is, if one thread in the Joseph Smith story breaks, the whole thing falls apart. If the Heieroglyphic were funerary calls to Egyptian Gods instead of the Book of Abraham, then Joseph Smith was a bald faced liar.
But your own Mormon hieroglyphic expert, Hugh Nibley, ended up believing Josph Smith’s translation was a fake:
[ While one has to depend upon Joseph Smith’s own story and the testimony of the Book of Mormon witnesses concerning the plates, in the case of the Book of Abraham it can be established with certainty that Joseph Smith had some ancient Egyptian papyri which were purchased from Michael Chandler while he was in Kirtland, Ohio. While there is no question about the papyri’s authenticity, many people have had. serious reservations regarding the accuracy of Smith’s translation. Unfortunately, while Joseph Smith had the papyri in his possession the science of Egyptology was in its infancy. Therefore, Joseph Smith’s work as a translator could not be adequately tested. To make matters worse, after Smith’s death the Mormon Church lost control of the papyri and it was believed that they were destroyed in the Chicago fire.
Since neither the gold plates nor the Egyptian papyri were available, it appeared that Joseph Smith’s ability as a translator would never be tested. However, on November 27, 1967, the church’s Deseret News announced one of the most significant events in Mormon Church history:
“NEW YORK—A collection of papyrus manuscripts, long believed to have been destroyed in the Chicago fire of 1871, was presented to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints here Monday by the Metropolitan Museum of Art.... Included in the papyri is a manuscript identified as the original document from which Joseph Smith had copied the drawing which he called ‘Facsimile No. 1’ and published with the Book of Abraham.”
After the papyri were recovered by the church, many Mormons felt that Joseph Smith’s work would be vindicated. Church apologist Hugh Nibley, however, was not optimistic about the matter and warned his people that there was trouble ahead. On Dec. 1, 1967, the Daily Universe, published at Brigham Young University, reported these statements by Dr. Nibley: “The papyri scripts given to the Church do not prove the Book of Abraham is true,’ Dr. Hugh Nibley... said Wednesday night. ‘LDS scholars are caught flatfooted by this discovery,’ he went on to say.”
Since Nibley was supposed to be the Mormon Church’s top authority on the Egyptian language, such a pessimistic assessment must have jolted Mormons who read his comments. After all, anyone could see that there were three rows of hieroglyphic writing on the right side of the papyrus which Joseph Smith used as Facsimile No. 1 in his Book of Abraham. In addition, another row of hieroglyphic writing appeared on the left side of the papyrus. Since the papyrus was surrounded by Egyptian writing, how could it fail to prove the Book of Abraham? If Joseph Smith really knew how to translate Egyptian, the writing would prove that the scene found in Facsimile No. 1 showed “The idolatrous priest of Elkenah attempting to offer up Abraham as a sacrifice.”
As it later turned out, when the writing found on the papyrus was translated by Klaus Baer, Associate Professor of Egyptology at the University of Chicago’s Oriental Institute, it became clear that the papyrus was a pagan document which had absolutely no relationship to Abraham. The translation, in fact, revealed that the papyrus was really made for a dead man named “Hor”—after the Egyptian god Horus. Experts who have examined this papyrus agree that it is drawing of Osiris, the Egyptian god of the dead, being prepared for burial by the god Anubis. The fact that this is a funerary papyrus is made clear in Dr. Baer’s translation of the line on the left side of the papyrus: “May you give him a good, splendid burial on the West of Thebes just like...” (Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Autumn 1968, page 117) Since the text of Joseph Smith’s Book of Abraham says that Abraham survived the attempt to take his life, there would have been no reason to speak of burial. Furthermore, the Egyptians would not have given a sacrificial victim a “splendid burial on the West of Thebes.”
Since the Egyptian papyri did not support Joseph Smith’s Book of Abraham, Hugh Nibley was not anxious for a translation to come forth. In the Spring 1968 issue of Brigham Young University Studies, page 251, Dr Nibley made this revealing comment: “We have often been asked during the past months why we did not proceed with all haste to produce a translation of the papyri the moment they came into our possession....it is doubtful whether any translation could do as much good as harm.” ]
Here’s a full analysis:
http://www.nowscape.com/mormon/papyrus/by_his_own_hand.htm
Joseph Smith even made his own drawings of the hieroglyphics, so if theose drawings show a man named Hor was the subject of the papyri, then all of Mormon theology collapses in flames.
Good luck explaining Hugh Nibley away.
FC,
YOU of course, are making a HUGE assumption
that by providing factual evidence, you MAY
change a committed mormon’s belief in the
authenticity of his or her church.
By now, you know that nothing can be further
from the truth. Nothing.
No matter how “dull and smelly the turd”,
it will be polished and re-presented to
you - after calling you the appropriate
names, of course - as a scurrilous attack
by those with an agenda! An agenda, mind
you!
It doesn’t matter if it is Joseph Smith
seeing people walking about the moon,
dressed like Quakers. (true)
It doesn’t matter if their High Prophet
tells you there are people living on
the sun wearing DKNY sunglasses. (true,
except for the sunglasses)
It doesn’t matter if it is JS telling
you how to shake hands with angels
to tell the good from the bad.
(true)
It doesn’t matter if it is an armed JS,
firing into the crowd. (true)
Once, one even told me Joseph Smith used
a Seer Stone, but it was because GOD was
“training him” in preparation for translating
those golden plates. (true)
In short, FC, FACTS do not matter. Nor does
it matter where the facts come from.
I could walk into the sub-terrainian LDS
vault located 1,000 feet below the SLC Temple,
select a document (that was signed by Joseph
Smith, including fingerprints, the statement
of 3 witnesses, and photos of him signing it)
where he confessed that moroni was really
what his niece called him and it seemed
appropriate for an angel, so when he made the
whole thing up, he went with moroni.
If I presented it here, it would be jumped
on as “not really considered scripture”.
That he was ill when he signed it. He was
forced to sign it. He was under the influence
of a drug someone slipped him. You would never
get the response, “Well, if JS said it himself,
by golly, maybe the whole thing really is a turd.”
No, the polishing cloths would be pulled out...
Before you knew it, Genesis would be amended
to say the future prophet would be forced
to recant... etc.
FC. Have you considered this?
best,
ampu
Only if it were a personal issue. This is an issue about a particular religion. It's an attack on the Mormon Religion and not on Romney personally. If the accusation was that Romney once had 3 wives or several childen from multiple women, then folks would wonder why if he simply ignored the accusations and attacks.
I will say that I’ve always wondered why people say that if you want your geneology done go through the mormons and I’ve always wondered why until recently.
I guess when a group of people are known to have more than one wife, that must be some tough genealogy work and excellent training.
If a Mormon cant do it, nobody can. :)
Placemarker
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.