I haven't stopped. I beat her senseless every time she doesn't bring me my Pay Lay Ale.
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.
Face It; Most of the Havard faculty, inded most of the MSM thinks that we Christians are equally deluded. But if they can accept tha fact that Bill Clinton was simply pretending to believe all that stuff, and that it didn’t matter. then why not accept Romney on the same terms? Or is it really that Romney denies too many tenants of THEIR faith?
"You and others like you are doing all you can to make Mormons feel very unwelcome on this forum. Let's ask the big guy if that is a permissable activity, especially in News/Activism threads, or if there is some guidance that he can offer concerning civility, especially as it relates to religious matters, in support of our common conservative goals. "
Very much agreed Spiff and thank you. I too have been deeply upset by the postings to which you refer. In some cases it is beyond disgraceful. How hurtful it must be to our Mormon brothers and sisters!
There is nothing wrong with Joseph Smith thinking there was no perfect church and that he should join none, that is perfectly understandable. Where you go to church doesn’t make or break a Christian. He was only 14 years old for Petes sake, give the guy some credit. He made a church, now people have joined. Do you really think everyone researches everything about the church they go to? I know I don’t. It’s just a place to worship where the ideas aren’t too far off from my own, other then that, I could care less about the history of how a church started. Most of the reasons were hoaky anyways, I don’t care if it’s Seventh Day Adventist, Baptist, Four Square, ect. They all started out hoaky, because people are hoaky, OK?
Thankyou. Yes, when?
I sure have. But the trouble for Mormons in general is that most don't have a clue about the difficult controversies. I'll illustrate this with a few points.
(1) Are you aware that the Law of Vengeance was part of the temple endowment until approx. 70 years ago? Do members today know its wording, even those that attend the temple?
(2) How many members know about the Kinderhook plates controversy that was introduced by the writings of William Clayton (scribe to Joseph Smith) that were transcribed and included in the 7-volume HISTORY OF THE CHURCH series? Church leaders and scholars used to defend it until non-destructive testing was done on one of the plates that was discovered in Chicago several years ago. Now its widely accepted to be a total hoax. However the LDS scholars try to excuse it by saying that Clayton must have gotten it wrong. Hmmmmm that's totally wrong when taken in-context. Clayton was a very reliable scribe who could've just easily gotten wrong several of the D&C Sections. If Clayton was so clueless then why keep singing "Come, Come Ye Saints" so reverently?
(3) How many members know that the church has in its possession the papyri that Joseph Smith bought from Michael Chandler in mummies that he got from the catacombs in Egypt? If the papyri was indeed written upon papyrus by Abraham himself then it would be about the oldest known writings in the whole world. But the church purposely doesn't let it out into the open.
(4) How much do church members know about Joseph Smith's teenager plural wives? In fact how much do they really know about their church history on polygamy? How many of them have read the text of the July 17, 1831 revelation on polygamy? Have you? If so then tell us what's in the text please.
(5) How many members really understand or even know about the Lamanite/DNA controversies?
(6) How about all the various versions of the First Vision?
(7) How about the text changes between the revelations in the 1833 Book of Commandments and the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants?
(8) What about the blacks in the church? Do they know the history on the priesthood ban?
(9) BTW who did Lydia Mountford marry in 1897? Do members know about this? Ever read her husband's journal from that era?
(10) What about the many versions of the First Vision? Or the plagiarisms of Masonry in the temple endowment?
Please don't go around asserting that the typical Mormon knows their history quite well when its quite true that the church has purposely sugar-coated and whitewashed things for years. I bear my testimony that the typical Mormon doesn't know their church history. In fact the lack of commitment and adherence of the church membership is very low. Just look at the census in New Zealand, Mexico, Brazil and Chile for examples on how approx. 2/3rds to 3/4ths of all Mormons there don't even acknowledge that they are Mormon. Only a minority of the church members attend regularly. Most don't and its oftentimes because they are tired of the willful deceit that goes on in the church. If the church claims to be true then they should sincerely strive to tell the truth about their history/doctrines.
My point is that Mitt Romney is paying a heavy price for his church's past policies on not being forthright and honest about their church history. He beats everyone in fundraising but can't seem to get a complementary share of the support on a national basis. Its alot like how life is tough for LDS missionaries. They work their rear ends off finding honest investigators who are seeking the truth. Then these investigators find "anti-Mormon" literature online and all the missionaries' hard work is for nothing but to build in himself a self-pity over so-called persecution.
Excellent, excellent post!!!!! : )
Informative, interesting and well-reasoned post. Thank you.
Well, I for one am familiar with all of those topics. Some other are easily dismissed. Some are more difficult topics. I am not familiar with the culture in Brazil or other countries but in America there is a significant large group of Mormon history buffs. I am familiar with them and I can say the vast majority are well versed in numerous topics including the ones you listed above.
But again, let me restate this. This not a unique problem with Mormons but it exists uniformly in all faith communities. I can list the numerous controversies found within the Catholic faith, Lutheran faith, and so on. A faith community would be doing a horrible job if all they did was rehash controversy. No, I would expect each faith community to emphasize their respective strengths.
Catholic have alot of strengths. Lutherans have alot of positive points. And likewise, the Mormon community has alot of fabulous things to discuss aside from what our detractors so breathlessly are eager to discuss. Sorry to say the detractors usually don’t bring any new insight into topics which have been covered long ago by the thoughtful Mormon community.
Now, if you doubt the veracity of my claim, feel free to go to anyone online LDS blogging community and attempt to test their knowledge on these topics. I expect you will find very thoughtful, thorough, vigorous, and engage discussion there. The answers may not be to your liking and it may help you see the topics and us in a new light, but it should show you that Mormonism does not thrive do to a lack of information, but rather do to an abudance of information, thought, and faith.
“but I stand by my statement that I find most decent, hard-working and God-fearing folk who are honest and trustworthy (apparently, Howard Hughes felt the same way about Mormons because that is all that he would hire for his inner circle)”
And that’s why they freak me out more than others because I live in Vegas and know too much about its inner workings. The Mormons who worked for Hughes and in the casinos were complicit in a fair amount of corruption along the way. That disconnect, which I have experienced a number of times here, will scare the knickers off you, it’s why the term Mormon Mafia exists.
“Yes, those Mormon bigots who thing everyone else’s religion is an abomination are quite a problem.
Roman Catholic church only true church, says Vatican”
And so, would your point be that Mormons are bigots, and Catholics are bigots as well? If so, just about everyone is a bigot, so the term loses its meaning. But oh, that was my point anyway.
When you consider the awful anti Mormon rhetoric we have seen on FR, I’d say Mitt Romney does indeed need to make that speech and I hope it will be as successful as JFK’s memorable speech.
FC:He is as innocent as O.J.
DU: You are as honest and forthcoming as O.J.
Is that an insinuation? Or a proven fact? Oh, I get it, you just insinuate things and that makes them so. So if I insinuate your head spins like a top, does that make it so?
On the other hand, Joseph Smith was an adulterer, a crystal gazer, a bank fraud, a charlatan hieroglyphic interpreter, a tinpot general with secessionist intentions, and he was a false prophet. To claim this is not so would (because of his prophecy and divine aspirations) require everyone else other than Mormons to completely suspend belief in reality to give you a pass. That is too high a price to bear just to preserve pleasantries. Sometimes a knave IS a knave.
“Every time you try this grifter bit you get the door shut on some portion of your anatomy”
I think that’s your nose you are talking about.
“because it’s only been proven in your mind, everyone else looks at the evidence and sees that there isn’t any.”
Come now, EVERYONE? Everyone sees there is no evidence that Joseph Smith was a charlatan? Au contraire, many if not most denominations I know of have statements otherwise.
“PULEZE, the Bank was one of many banks in it’s day printing denominations that did not make it into the next century, it also failed in part because of persecution, (like you are engaging in here on FR against mormons). You keep trying to spin that into JS was a Fraud.”
It failed because it wasn’t backed with anything but speculation, and as a result Joseph Smith was on the run for quite some time as he tried to avoid retribution for running an early Ponzi game.
But of course, according to you Joseph Smith was a Prophet/Man on the way to becoming God. So if even one of his failures turns out to be due to pure grifter instincts and can’t be spun to portray him in a divine light, your whole worldview collapses. Gotta be tough defending this sorcerer 24/7.
For a non-Mormon to give you a pass on the multitude of scams Joseph Smith pulled would require a total suspension of reality. Ain’t gonna happen.
“You seem to see frauds every where, why is that?”
I live in Vegas and meet Mormon frauds a lot (though I work with some decent ones too). I’ve known a few real mobsters ranging from the Mayor (Oscar Goodman, mouthpiece to the mob and Tony the Ant Spilotro, who ended up buried alive in a cornfield), to a union organizer hooked to the Buffalo mob, to many of the politicos involved in the current G-Sting scandal which traces to Mormon Reid. A typical Mormon fraudster would be Dario Herrera (now doing time for taking bribe money from Titty bar owner Mike Galardi), but I’ve run into others who shall go nameless to protect my sorry behind.
So, yeah, I think I know a Mormon fraud/carnival act when I see one, and Joseph Smith takes the cake.
I haven't stopped. I beat her senseless every time she doesn't bring me my Pay Lay Ale.
“FC, You are not making any sense. On one hand Mormons are the scum of the Earth, then in the same breath you say you personally know many outstanding Mormons.”
That is just a typical lie you do repeatedly. You cannot find a quote of me saying “scum of the earth”, nor anything bad about “most” Mormons. I have said Joseph Smith was an obvious grifter, I have said I have known Mormons in Vegas IN POSITIONS OF POWER whose Mormon beliefs magnified their failings, I have said I believe the pressures Mormonism brings A PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE make it impossible for me to vote for Romney.
“That it is not consistent reasoning. If you are making the case that Mormonism breeds evil people then demonstrate it consistently.”
Okay, Joseph Smith, Harry Reid.
“When you present mixed results as evidence, you are not making your case at all, but rather you are show that first, Mormons are just as human as anyone else (totally agree with that assesment) and second, your lack of judgement toward those of the Mormon faith.”
No I’m not. I am making a statistical judgement with a higher degree of probability than I’m comfortable with. For example, I believe it imprudent to start a bank with ex-con bank robbers - a statistical judgement most sane people would agree with though certainly a bank MIGHT succeed under those conditions. I certainly don’t believe most Mormons are evil, I have however witnessed Mormonism magnify bad judgement and corruption in positions of power here in Vegas.
“This reasoning echoes prejudgice of the past.”
No it doesn’t. It reflects a study of Mormon history and many business and political encounters. I have a prejudice against sticking pencils in my ears, is that a bad thing?
“For instance during the 1960’s there where people who mindlessly ignored the good found in those fighting for civil rights, but rather blindly focused on the bad behavior found with a small minority of that group as the defining rule.”
Except this isn’t about your civil rights, it is about mine. Do I have the right to choose according to my religious convictions or not?
“By the way, I was proud that George Romney had the judgement to be a leader in the civil rights movement. Sadly this judgement was sadly lacking in many of the other Government officials. While you would disagree with George Romney’s theology and probably hold the theology of those other officials as an indicator of being able to think straight, George Romney clearly had the better understanding and policy position.”
Great, I’ll stick a gold star on his forehead after I pull a lever for someone else.
“So you may ask yourself. A Mormon in the 1960’s was thinking straighter than most other politicians. Doesn’t that just blow a hole in you rationality reasoning? Most people who appreciate the value of civil rights would agree with me.”
Except civil rights isn’t the only issue on the table, and as far as I’m concerned was decided for the better 40 years ago. I’m more concerned with peoples souls and not promoting a religion based on an obvious fraud who has harmed generations.
“#...although I don’t believe Romney was partying as much as BJC he certainly was enjoying “missionary” work in France.”
Mormon missionaries don’t do much partying, FRiend. If you knew what their schedule was like, you wouldn’t be saying such silly stuff.
So, asking a question can be offensive, eh? Hmmmm. I guess it all depends on how sincere and truthful the questioner is.
“So, asking a question can be offensive, eh? Hmmmm. I guess it all depends on how sincere and truthful the questioner is.”
What are you talking about? You asked a facetious question, I gave a facetious answer. But ask away, if you want to know something for real just ask.
And as for my sincerity and truthfulness, I am dead cold serious and believe outing the liar Smith requires an adherence to the truth. If I didn’t think Joseph Smith’s charlatanism was the cause of countless grief and ruined lives I wouldn’t be here.
>>If someone wants to really understand the Mormon religion then I think they should go read the sermons of all 15 Mormon church presidents. They could also go read the sermons of the other men who served in the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and/or First Presidency. I’ve read thousands of their sermons and dozens of biography books on these men. Their writings, sermons and actions are the foundation of Mormonism philosophy.<<
That would be true only if one seeks a very deep understanding. My needs are only to see if a denomination is for me and failing that if there is any reason we can be friendly. Once I learn that Mormonism is not for me but they are good Christian folk basically on the same side, I see no call to read thousands of sermons.
>>The strongest argument against Mormonism is that many apologists will call certain sermons of these men “anti-Mormon” because the ideas of these historical sermons don’t mesh well with mainstream thinking in 21st century America<<
Honestly, the strongest arguments I hear have to do with the founding and claiming of additional gospels that don’t seem to fit.
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.