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.
There's another lie from you. There are no "church-approved" internet providers.
BTW, Resty, I'm not a Mormon and have never been a member of Mormonism. Use a different screen name if you want to insult me so personally.
Long posts. Hmmmm.... In my opinion, I think if it relevant and not repetitive that should be acceptable.
Yeah, long posts at times are harder to digest. But I doesn’t think it kills a discussion. It may be harder to be frivilous with the responses and may require deeper thought. Hoever, I would expect if a there is a serious discussion at hand then a response in kind should be offered.
I don’t think it is necessary to delve into deep doctrine.
For some reason, the topics always turn that way. I don’t know why. I distinctly remember one poster, homeschoolmom, who very calmly and determinedly stated she would not vote for a mormon. She was reviled for being a bigot, hater etc. etc. Then she would simply state her opinion again, that Mormonism (to her) was a non-christian cult and she simply would not vote for one. Simple, straightforward, her opinion, period. I admired her for her candor, and for standing up for her beliefs despite being personally attacked. I think she was chased away from FR, just like some good Mormons....she hasn’t posted since.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/user-posts?id=40508
Why can’t some here accept it, that there are folks who will not, under any circumstances vote for a Mormon for POTUS. I am one of them. But labeling me a sinner, hater, failure, bigot isn’t really helping your side at all.
I don't think that labels such as "apologist" or even "anti" are harmful to a discussion, however, we have been labeled things that are definitely name-calling.
NAL, while this is a nice idea, we can't direct the actions of our fellow posters. I trust the mods to move the thread if and when it becomes necessary to the Religion forum where the stricter rules can be enforced.
I see your point and I agree (and sadly, I have been guilty of such behavior). That kind of bantering is not useful.
There are some annoying exceptions or stretches of time where it gets out of hand from both sides, however, for the most part and generally, I have admit that you guys can be reasoned with and tend to behave well.
That is exactly the way how I feel. Plus I am less than impressed with the way the leadership teaches shunning.
Love the illustration, LOL.
Agreed no heavy handiness from moderators. We should just personally encourage to avoid labels and hopefully good taste would guide others but at the same time we should not be surprised if it doesn’t take.
What different screen name?
I said SOME NOT all!
What wrong with convert, converts are people who move on, xers are folks who have an ax to grin with their old faith!
I have no ax to grin I just wanted more answers to my qustions that were obvious in the Bible that some area left unresolved issues!
Now the Book of Mormon and the standard works testify of each other!
MHGinTN brings up an important issue:
Another rule which should be agreeable to all parties is that there should not be a user hiding behind multiple screen-names. If someone suspects that a user engaging in such activity, I propose that the Moderators should be Private Messaged and the offender should be exposed.
Does everyone agree? I would gladly see this enforced.
You all demonize the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as a demon-inspired cult who brainwashes its members, spread a bunch of horrific lies about it and its teachings, claim that its members don't follow Jesus Christ - and then you say that people won't vote for a Mormon because of all the bile, venom, and lying that you just got done with. Your fling dung all over the Church and then say that no one will vote for a candidate who is a member of a Church that has so much dung all over it. And you wonder why your conservative allies who are also members of the Church get offended and some feel unwelcome here or repulsed by the bile, venom, and lies that you're spreading.
So what candidate are you supporting? What specific church does he belong to? Do we now have license to jump into every thread about that church and candidate to trash that church, its teachings, its founders and leaders, and spread all kinds of hate and lies? And if that license was taken by people who engaged in the behavior you all are engaging in here, what would Free Republic become but a huge religious flame war? The Catholics would trash all the threads about Protestant candidates. The Protestants and evangelicals would jump all over the Catholic candidates. The charismatics and fundamentalists would disrupt threads about Mormon candidates. We'd draw a bunch of lines based upon our religious alliances and just throw stones at each other all day long and the conservative purpose of this website would be forgotten. That is the precedent you're setting.
Religion is a sensitive area. That's why it is usually only carefully brought up in polite conversation. And if it is discussed, a good rule of thumb is always, 'If you can't say something nice about a person's religion, don't say anything at all.' I disagree with the specifics of every other religion on the planet except for my own. So do you. So does everyone who has joined a specific church or religion. But when I'm trying to get something done and work with the people around me, I don't focus on our religious difference and neither do they. We have the good sense to respect each other's faiths and focus on our similarities and common goals in order to accomplish our goals. Otherwise, nothing would get nothing accomplished and we'd be arguing about religion all the time instead.
I'm Catholic, and I have no problem with Romney being a Mormon. I don't support him for other reasons, but that's another thread.
You are free to attack the religion of any candidate you wish. That is your call. I think you will find that many here will defend your attacks and won't resort to tactics by saying things like these....
(you)...spread a bunch of horrific lies about it and its teachings,....and then you say that people won't vote for a _________ because of all the bile, venom, and lying that you just got done with. You fling dung all over the ________Church and then say that no one will vote for a candidate who is a member of a Church that has so much dung all over it. And you wonder why your conservative allies who are also members of the ___________Church get offended and some feel unwelcome here or repulsed by the bile, venom, and lies that you're spreading.
Can you defend against these things we say about your Church?
Don't you think that kind of rhetoric is just a bit over the top? I for one think Mormonism is a farce. I can back up that claim. You are free to defend it, and attack any other specious claim or church as you see fit. I wouldn't think your were lying or venomous. I wouldn't call your attack bile. I would address your concerns point by point. In fact we do that in our relisious discussions on FR all the time.
Religion is a sensitive area. That's why it is usually only carefully brought up in polite conversation.
That is said too of politics.
You including the Bible in that?
The Bible was always include
You amaze me being an xer I thought you would have known that!
Now the Book of Mormon and the standard works testify of each other!
You including the Bible in that?
*****
The children of Joseph has the Book of Mormon and the Children of Judah has the Bible
Ezekiel 37
15 ¶ The word of the LORD came again unto me, saying,
16 Moreover, thou son of man, take thee one stick, and write upon it, For Judah, and for the children of Israel his companions: then take another stick, and write upon it, For Joseph, the stick of Ephraim, and for all the house of Israel his companions:
17 And join them one to another into one stick; and they shall become one in thine hand.
18 ¶ And when the children of thy people shall speak unto thee, saying, Wilt thou not shew us what thou meanest by these?
19 Say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will take the stick of Joseph, which is in the hand of Ephraim, and the tribes of Israel his fellows, and will put them with him, even with the stick of Judah, and make them one stick, and they shall be one in mine hand
Oh, I knew it...just wondering if you bothered to include it, since most of you posts come from the “other” standard works, and you believe so firmly that what Joseph said is the absolute truth.
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.