Posted on 08/08/2007 8:00:00 AM PDT by greyfoxx39
Mitt Romney's own Republican Party has made religion fair game, and Romney will be asked how his faith would affect his policies.
-SNIP-
But Mitt Romney is a serious contender in 2008, rich and disciplined, and he's running in an era when presidential candidates are virtually expected to parade their religiosity. This is particularly true in the Republican camp, where religion and politics are now routinely intertwined; indeed, candidate George W. Bush upped the ante in 2000, when he said that his favorite philosopher was Jesus, ''because he changed my life.''
So it's no surprise Romney is facing questions about his lifelong devotion to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the breakaway theology that considers itself humankind's ''one true church.'' He had hoped to stonewall this issue, insisting in a TV interview 18 months ago that ''I'm never going to get into a discussion about my personal beliefs.''
But today word is circulating that Romney will discuss his faith in an autumn speech - and seek to disarm the skeptics much the way John F. Kennedy in 1960 dampened fears that a Catholic president would take orders from Rome.
Romney is dealing with potential hostility, fair or not, on several fronts. Many Christian fundamentalists, particularly southern Baptists, dismiss Mormonism as a cult (thereby imperiling Romney in the GOP primaries, particularly in pivotal South Carolina). Many secular voters are uncomfortable with the church's passion for proselytizing and its superior attitude, particularly its scriptural insistence that all nonbelievers are worshiping ''the church of the devil.'' Pollsters say that at least 30 percent of voters won't back a Mormon.
Romney's biggest problem is that skeptics are simply weirded out. They cannot quite envision having a president who believes that a man named Joseph Smith dug up a book of golden plates, long buried in a hillside, with the help of an angel named Moroni in 1827; that these plates, written in Egyptian hieroglyphics, spelled out the precepts of the true Christian faith; that Smith translated these hieroglyphics by wearing decoder glasses and burying his head in a hat; that Jesus visited North America after the resurrection; that the Garden of Eden was really in Missouri.
-SNIP-
Some questions do seem appropriate. First, the Mormon faith puts a high premium on ''faith-promoting'' information, sometimes at the expense of unpleasant facts. As a high-ranking Mormon leader said in a famous 1981 speech, ''Some things that are true are not very useful.'' Would Romney be able to assure swing voters that he would not merely perpetuate the faith-based thinking, and the rejection of empirical reality, that has trapped us in a ruinous war?
Second, since the Mormons consider themselves stewards of ''a quintessentially American faith'' (Romney's words), and since Mormons believe Jesus will return and rule the world from U.S. territory, does this suggest that a President Romney might wave the flag a bit too fervently, at a time when we need to repair our relations around the world? The Mormon faith is heavily rooted in what is commonly called ''American exceptionalism,'' the belief that we are special and we know best. Would Romney govern accordingly, and, if so, would that be a help or a hindrance in the war on terror?
-SNIP-
What matters, in other words, is not whether he really thinks Joseph Smith met an angel in 1827. The crucial issue is whether, or how, a devout Mormon would apply his faith on the job in 2009. His supporters have suggested that any such questions are symptoms of religious bigotry, but it is the Republican Party, over the past several decades, that has put religion front and center. They have made Mitt Romney fair game.
Kidding aside, a topical guide is a useful reference tool, but is by no means the end all. It’s limited in it’s scope, but cross referenced with themes, topics, etc, especially useful for searching between eh Old and New Testaments for prophecies cross referenced in both, etc. Don’t knock it, you just might learn something.
Oh, and BTW, tools are only as good as the input it gets. Ask DU, he’s a programmer. ;-)
I bet I can still use the tin foil antenna cap on my head. I’m still getting messages from the mother ship, dontchaknow ;-)
That’s actually a link to the “Guide to the Scriptures,” a useful, but much more abbreviated, index to the LDS canon.
Here’s the LDS Topical Guide itself:
http://scriptures.lds.org/en/tg/contents
I’m afraid I was at a friend’s house “having a life” at the appointed hour.
Sorry to have broken the lines of communication.
Have fun catching up, I hope its’ worth your time. ;-)
Getting a message from the mothership now, are you synched as well? ;-0
BUMP
~”There is flat out virtually nothing deeper
than “topic searches” and point to words.”~
You don’t seem to like it when we point you to FARMS, though...
Now, in our defense, I have seen mainstream Christians take a verse and use all kinds of deep linguistic study, extraneous logic, and copious explanation to try to justify how it upholds their point of view.
We Mormons tend to read the verse and follow what it says. We look to other verses (including, yes, works not considered by mainstream Christians to be scripture) for additional context and clarification; but we try to fit our doctrine to what we believe to be God’s word.
Many Christians take a different approach: they come up with an idea, then try to make the verses fit their doctrine. In my opinion, the traditional view of the Trinity and the faith vs. works debate are two examples of this phenomenon. When I disagree with their viewpoint, it is because I obviously haven’t “studied” the verses enough to understand the convoluted explanations that these Christians want to apply.
Given the choice between that and the plain, precious, and simple truths of the Gospel that I know, I’ll take the latter every time. For example, the following questions are answered simply and plainly in LDS Doctrine, but not always so plainly in mainstream Christian doctrine:
-What is faith?
-What is repentence?
-Where do we come from?
-Why are we here?
-What is the purpose of our existence?
-Where do we go when we die?
-What is the nature of God?
-Why do bad things happen to good people?
It all makes sense to me, thanks to LDS doctrines. These ontological “mysteries” and not mysterious to me, and this is a great comfort - particularly when the knowledge is solidified in my mind and heart by the testimony of the Holy Ghost as to its truthfulness. And then mainstream Christians get flustered that I fail to accept their viewpoint - after all, they’ve studied it and learned it and thought about it at great length.
What they don’t understand is that their religious viewpoints to me would be like trying to eat a Hershey’s chocolate bar after having become accustomed to eating the pinnacle of the art of the Swiss chocolateer. It’s just not satisfying to the soul to try to understand the convoluted and watered-down doctrines of mainstream Christianity when I have sampled of the pure, refined, unadulterated, and perfected truth of God and Christ my Savior.
Does that mean you have to stop eating Hershey’s? No. I can do no more than offer to share with you my premium Swiss. I can’t make you taste it. But you will understand, I hope, when I likewise decline to share your King Size; and you will also understand, I hope, when I attempt to defend the virtues of my premium Swiss when its quality is deprecated by those who choose to eat Hershey’s.
AMPU, I rather like how this explanation has turned out, though I am under no illusions that you will agree with it. Therefore, I am pinging my LDS friends, not for argument, but rather for edification. My friends, remember Moroni 7:45-47.
Makes you kind of wonder how Paul and Peter and James and all the early apostles had any success whatsoever in spreading the Gospel, seeing as how they and their converts lacked significant study of structure, context, words usage,
original language, history, etc., in a unified whole of
interpretation, etc...
I mean, Paul didn’t even have a doctorate in Theology!
Thank you tantiboh
Salvation, Exaltation and Eternal Life Robert Millet, Dean of Religious Ed.
scriptures
http://scriptures.lds.org/en/contents
Idaho’s gots a WIZARD??
Because when you don't, the new lurkers in each thread just have to wonder what you are hiding by your silence; or inability.
You seem to confuse hypocrisy and mockery.
And we use it to point out what we consider conflicting things in it, and confusing things in it, and incomplete doctrines in it.
--MormonDude(Scholar I ain't)
Then just what DOES it indicate?
I've done searches of the LDS organizations website, but I can't seem to find the detailed instructions in scripture that would have been needed to create the Temple Rites.
Given the choice between that and the plain, precious, and simple truths of the Gospel that I know, I’ll take the latter every time. For example, the following questions are answered simply and plainly in LDS Doctrine, but not always so plainly in mainstream Christian doctrine:
-What is faith?
-What is repentence?
-Where do we come from?
-Why are we here?
-What is the purpose of our existence?
-Where do we go when we die?
-What is the nature of God?
-Why do bad things happen to good people?
17 It no sooner appeared than I found myself adelivered from the enemy which held me bound. When the light rested upon me I bsaw two cPersonages, whose brightness and dglory defy all description, estanding above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other—This is My fBeloved gSon. Hear Him!18 My object in going to ainquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)—and which I should join.19 I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all awrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those bprofessors were all ccorrupt; that: “they ddraw near to me with their lips, but their ehearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the fcommandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the gpower thereof.”20 He again forbade me to join with any of them; and many other things did he say unto me, which I cannot write at this time. When I came to myself again, I found myself alying on my back, looking up into heaven. When the light had departed, I had no strength; but soon recovering in some degree, I went home. And as I leaned up to the fireplace, bmother inquired what the matter was. I replied, “Never mind, all is well—I am well enough off.” I then said to my mother, “I have learned for myself that Presbyterianism is not true.”
The basic creed of Reformed churches, as most familiarly known, is called the Apostles' Creed. It has received this title because of its great antiquity; it dates from very early times in the Church, a half century or so from the last writings of the New Testament.
I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
the Creator of heaven and earth,
and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord:Who was conceived of the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried.He descended into hell.
The third day He arose again from the dead.
He ascended into heaven
and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty,
whence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and life everlasting.Amen.
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.