Posted on 08/04/2007 2:34:44 PM PDT by mmanager
Mitt Romney engaged in a heated discussion about his Mormon faith with a prominent Des Moines talk show host off the air on Thursday morning. The contentious back-and-forth between Romney and WHO's Jan Mickelson began on the air (video link courtesy Breitbart.tv) when the former governor appeared on the popular program that has become a regular stop for GOP presidential hopefuls. But the conversation spilled over to a commercial break and went on after the program ended, where a visibly annoyed Romney spoke in much greater detail about his church's doctrines than he is comfortable doing so in public.
The footage was captured by the station's in-studio camera and posted on its website. But Romney, who is careful to portray a sunny and upbeat public image, clearly did not know he was being recorded. The candidate reveals a private side that is at turns cutting, combative and sarcastic, but most of all agitated at being forced to defend what he and his church stand for.
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
If you have a link, I'd be interested in the official take.
I am certain he will make his own determinations; that's his call and I'll live with it. It doesn't change my opinion that the privilege he is extending to these threads is being sorely abused by the posters.
>>I don’t want Bible based Christianity aligned in any way shape or form with this man made religion of convenience. I will never vote for a Mormon, or a Muslim. We have NOTHING in common.<<
There are lots of Christian denominations that have things about them I disagree with.
But if they worship the God of Abraham, ask forgiveness in the name of Jesus, they love their neighbors and their works are good then any problems with their faith are for God alone to judge.
For me they are fellow Christians.
Being Christian is a lot in common.
“I believe your counting of the angels on the head of a pin has broached a record.
Here is the salient point,...”
[Ah, the old “lost the argument, so change the subject” trick. < /agent86 >]
Actually, the only argument you have is “liar, Strawman”, repeated tediously but which I have yet to see convincingly shown. And in turn you conveniently ignored the documentable fact that Joseph Smith was a charlatan, secessionist tinpot general/adulterer/ bank fraud/ con artist/crystal gazer. Guess you already lost that argument, so you didn’t even try to refute it.
Moreover, you refuse to acknowledge the validity of my religion, FastCoyoteism, which I guarantee you is no more bizarre in it’s tenets than Mormonism. FastCoyote’s Reformed Reformed Mormonism provides the backbone of revelations from which I pontificate on my God-Planet Earth.
“Since (according to you) it is inopportune to attack someones religion in this forum though it be at the heart of political mores, using your rules you should have no response if I tell you my religion commands silence of you and your fellows.”
[Your sarcasm aside,]
It’s not sarcasm. I believe FastCoyoteism is ten times as correct as Mormonism. Since you’ve chosen to ignore my GodCommand that you not address my religion in an insulting or attacking way (a command no more bizarre than deifying Joseph Smith and following his path), I must say that you have violated your rules against speaking about religion “in this forum”. Hypocrite.
“you still fail to construct a valid logical argument. Your posited religion holds no command over me, nor is it necessary for me to debate it. I simply ignore it.”
Dear God (Me), you ignore and insult the religion of a Presidential Candidate (Me), who has only come here to speak of political issues (Me and how You can Serve Me!). You ignore my religion, as if what I posited - that only atheists would be allowed here if we followed your rules - were somehow untrue. Then you go and reject my religion in a quite atheistic fashion. Thank God (Me) you are sooo smart, or I’d think your logic quite confused.
“But seriously, FC, you have put forward that to be allowed into the political arena, one must be able to logically defend the basic premise of their faith. That is something that no one can do; faith is, by definition, a belief held beyond objective proof. The only way religion can be debated at all is if both parties agree on some axiom beyond the debate, such as the existence of the Divine.”
How right you are, one cannot defend the logical basis of ANY religion. Therefore, since you disagree with me, you cannot debate the logic of my GodHood, FastCoyoteism, else you would be attacking religious beliefs which are (as you state) beyond objective proof! I command you to bow down and kiss my objective bunions (in a religious way) because your subjective belief cannot disprove my religious belief that my bunions are holy religious artifacts!
“If you are going to require such a standard for political participation, it is only right that you pass the same test. Therefore, what is the basic premise of your religion?”
That you worship me in every way and vote for me for President! Then, since religion (by your own statements) is totally subjective, do not assail my religion with nasty logic trying to disprove it and disrupt my presidential aspirations! ! ! A central tenet of my religion is that I can only rise to greater Godhood by becoming President of all those deficient enough of character to believe religion has no place in political discourse. So, remember, vote FastCoyote for President, it is a religious imperative, and you wouldn’t want to insult logic by bringing religion into a political discussion!
“(and by the way, if big words are too hard, maybe you could use a dictionary)”
[It isn’t the words that were hard, it’s the poor syntax in which they were used.]
I’m soooo hurt that the grammar cop on the beat has taken umbrage (i.e., cried like a little girl) to my word selection. Where is the grammar moderator when you need one?
[Oh Great Rapid Trickster!!!
I, in my unworthyness, will vote for you TWO - no; wait! — THREE times!]
And well you should. Because to not vote for me, would be to insult my religion, on a political thread.
Well then: do you consider Jehovah Witnesses to be 'christian'?
(Glad you fixed my misspell!)
Re: your link. Thank you for laboring at a thankless task. I understand your reasoning, though I still think the privilege is being abused to mock, rather than debate or criticize.
gondramB, thanks for this post, very well said.
And I absolutely love your tagline!
Is your God so weak?
Man is infallible, God is not.
God is not weak, and I am cringing that you would say such a horrible thing. He is the creator of heaven and earth, and is the Father to us all. The weakness is us, me and you. We are nothing. Even His servants are human Color, even those closely associated with our Savior in the flesh were mortal men, denied Him, betrayed Him. Why would any of us be any different?
Cheers
www.fairlds.org
Oh, really. Tell me then, what was Mickelson's purpose in asking Romney to address his allegation that as someone who was once pro-choice, Romney was subject to excommunication from the LDS church?
It's a skillful, but devious, "Do you still beat your wife?" question. If Romney agreed he was subject to being expelled, he would look less pious of a Mormon, which would be bad for his image. If Romney disagreed (as he did), Mickelson could accuse him of being ignorant and/or disingenuous about the tenets of his own faith.
Then Mickelson had the gall to suggest that he's only trying to help. Like hell.
But it appears that he knows mormonism is such an issue that he is avoiding talking about it in order to not make it the focus.
It shouldn't be the focus! Instead of repeating like a robot that Mormonism is all anyone wants to talk about, why not move past it and talk about REAL issues, as Romney is trying to do?
Romney's Mormonism is just as relevant to what he would do as President as whether or not Hillary would have either PMS or hot flashes. Nobody's bringing that up, as well they shouldn't. So why are you egging on the dumbing down of the electorate?
So Joseph Smith could have been, and in a likelihood was wrong about polygamy, and it took God 50 years to correct it?
>>For me they are fellow Christians.
I don’t know much about them. A few Jehovah’s Witnesses have stopped by the house and we’ve read the bible together.
From the Wikipedia article it sounds like their doctrine is needlessly harsh toward other Christians and they seem to over-focus on certain parts of the bible but they certainly sound like Christians and I would not have any basis to say otherwise.
The larger point is God has not empowered me to judge the faith of others. I can see their works and hear whether they proclaim themselves as Christians.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah’s_Witnesses
>>gondramB, thanks for this post, very well said.
And I absolutely love your tagline!<<
Thank you. I was moved by hearing a gentleman speak who was saved and promised God he would minister to every person he ever met. Then he got drafted. It was a little hard to break formation and minister to the sergeants and other recruits. He found he could most effectively keep his promise to God by not always using words - by living and acting as a Christian.
His story made a big impression on me but now, I can’t even remember his name, just his message.
Thank You, Moderator.
>>So Joseph Smith could have been, and in a likelihood was wrong about polygamy, and it took God 50 years to correct it?<<
In my experience and from reading of history, God does not seem to prevent his churches from doing wrong.
When did the Inquisition start -1260, I think and not end until the time of the American war between the states. 600 years this was allowed to go on.
We are expected to go back to principles and correct what our churches are doing wrong - God does not seem to choose to stop us from doing wrong in his name, at least not on earth.
Perhaps a better analogy would be the Salamander letter hoax and the Kinder-hook Plates hoax. Joseph sought to acquire them, and did so. But he never made an attempt to translate them, and found it unwise to proceed with them. That speaks volumes.
All the same, the message is great, thanks!!
But the Temple ceremony is found nowhere in the LDS Scriptures. Perhaps you are being led astray with your new names, secret tokens, sacred oaths. How do you know when your porphet is a fallible man or a prophet of God?
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.