Yes, Romney needs to answer questions about his religion

Salt Lake Tribune ^ | August 7, 2007 | Dick Polman

[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.

[greyfoxx39]

I’d like all the Christian candidates to address their ‘religion’:

I'd like Christmas all year long too. As soon as a member of my church starts making headlines every day and news articles about him/her are posted on FR, ad infinitum, I'll consider your request...or is it a demand?

[colorcountry]

I take it you would not vote for someone who believed in those things. Am I correct?

I totally think it is your perogative to judge each candidate on any criteria you see fit.

The specific problem that Romney has, is that his religious belief are quite out of the mainstream (unlike all those you just mentioned). The majority of US voters are not that well aquainted with Mormonism, and so they would like him to reassure them that his beliefs are in line with theirs.....it isn’t that Mormon beliefs are not any more “strange” to people, but this is a Christian nation, with Christian voters...and if Romney wants those votes, he may, perhaps should and will, address the voter’s concerns.

That’s the issue.

[Spiff]

I should have known by the hysteria of her posts.

Matthew 7:3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

[sauron]

I can't vote for Romney.

Either he's not intelligent enough to realize he's a member of a cult which is profoundly UN-Christian, or

He's fully aware of it. And like the Great Huckster Joseph Smith, he follows in his footsteps and is himself just another dishonest man.

Romney, IMHO, is either a fool or a fraud.

And neither a fool nor a fraud should govern over us.

SAURON

[sauron]

Excellent post.

There is no rejoinder that can be made to the points you raised.

At least, no honest rejoinder.

SAURON <>

[svcw]

As soon as I run for President of the United States I will.

[Diamond]

6. explain your belief in the 7-day creation.

It was in six days, not seven.

Cordially,

[Degaston]

Some questions I have about the other candidates running in 2008 (and JFK in 1960). Have any of them ever been in a leadership position that’s the equivalent of being a Stake President in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

A Stake President (SP) is the highest local church official overseeing about 6-10 congregations and 2500-5000 members. A SP is called to their position in the church by the church’s top council of 3 men called the First Presidency. A SP interviews each person for worthiness who is going to serve as a Bishop, on the High Council, be a full-time missionary, get married in the temple, apply for admission to a church school, attend the temple for the first time or get ordained to the Melchizedek Priesthood. A Stake President oversees all church disciplinary councils in their Stake. Members of the church address them with respect by their title of President. Throughout their Stake the members treat them with as much respect and spiritual dignity as the devout Catholics do towards the Bishop of their Diosces.

As far as I know, Harry Reid has never been a Stake President. Neither has Gordon Smith, Orrin Hatch, the Udall cousins in Colorado & New Mexico or John Doolittle.

[Degaston]

My point is that its different for a religious leader running for political office who has had thousands of followers than it is for a lay member who hasn’t had such a ministry. People want to understand their background better. And questions about their religious background will come up. For example, 20 years ago we saw Pat Robertson run for President and he got alot of questions/heat. So is President Romney

[MHGinTN]

Ho boy, now you’ve done it! One of the Mormon platoon of Romney operatives will now have to post how Jesus has been framed the same way, either a fraud of a fool. Do you suppose they think there’s something supernatural about the Mittster or his candidacy?

[Vigilanteman]

Thanks for the encouraging comments TA. Even though I may not subcribe 100% to your faith or theirs, I think we all do a service to this forum when we shine the light on the cockroaches whose sole purpose seems to be to demean others or distort what they beleive. Once we get enough of us on this forum to play whack-a-mole, maybe they’ll crawl back into the woodwork where they belong. Pls feel free to ping me if you see such opportunities in the future.

[restornu]

you run across someone who has been all through this stuff on FR RF in 03-04. I have cover many of these things and you are just posting repacking of the same old canards!:)

If I get time I will do a few more!

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?

****

Since no actual translation was ever forthcoming, and since there is no actual evidence for a translation being made, most believing LDS conclude that it is safe to assume that no translation actually occurred.

There is one more observation. The plates were first brought to Nauvoo on 29 April 1843. Clayton’s journal entry is for 1 May 1843 and Charlotte Haven’s letter is dated 2 May 1843. On Wednesday (3 May) or Thursday (4 May) the Times and Seasons noted: “We are informed however, that he purposes returning them for translation; if so, we may be able yet to furnish our readers with it” The indication here is that no translation had yet occurred. It seems reasonable to me that what we get in Clayton’s journal is largely the product of the rumor mill; hearsay, and not what actually transpired. (Actually, we know that his description of the plates discovery is entirely erroneous, leaving us to speculate on the issue of translation).

As a last comment, Clayton was certainly with Joseph much of the day on 1 May, but, not “all day,” and certainly there were other things occurring. Among other things, Joseph’s marriage to Lucy Walker at which Clayton officiated.

http://www.fairlds.org/Misc/How_Do_We_Explain_Early_Comments_about_the_Kinderhook_Plates.html

[DelphiUser]

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?

No, because we are supposed to be acting like Christians.

As for expecting our detractors to behave like that, well what they do often speaks louder than what they are saying.

[Spiff]

No, because we are supposed to be acting like Christians. As for expecting our detractors to behave like that, well what they do often speaks louder than what they are saying.

And that was exactly my point. Don't worry, I don't intend to go into any threads about other religions or candidates who are members of a specific religion to trash a specific religion, its doctrines, or its founders and leaders. As you say, it is not a Christian behavior.

[DelphiUser]

Can you defend against these things we say about your Church?

CC you know we feel we have, but instead of continuing to a close, we see you run to another thread and start all over again, witness my current attempt to get FastCoyote to actually back up what he is saying, I posted a Link to FAIRWIKI, he has yet to post anything but unsubstanciated allogations, and now is claiming he doesn't have the time (which may be true) but seems a bit convenient to me.

I don't have time to back up what I said because I didn't have any evidence when I said it and now must go and find (manufacture) some. is what it starts to sound like to me, but on the other hand, time happens to us mortals, who can tell? It just seems a bit convenient when he just admitted he doesn't have the evidence now to back up what he just said and wants to have time to gather some.

[restornu]

You may not see it this way but when you call those who follow “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints” and the Servants of Jesus Christ who were called by Jesus Christ to restored His Church as also being either as a fool or a fraud.

I cheerfully welcome to be counted among them!

For I know this is the TRUE Church of Jesus Christ!

And all of your whatever you think you are doing will not make a dent!

[DelphiUser]

Youtube is not the Source of the any of videos posted on there; isnt that very obvious to you? And the irony is that you take someone as dubiously deceitful as a Joseph Smith jr. is taken as having a pipeline to God. ROTFLMAO

A) Yes, you toube is not the source of the videos, it is merely a place to post yours, I could make a video purporting to tell everyone you believe in Baal, that would not make it true, or false.

B) "dubiously deceitful" So you doubt he was deceitful? or you are trying to say he was obviously deceitful? Can you prove he lied (Lying is not being mistaken, it takes intent), can you prove it? If you can then do so.

C) We all have a "Pipeline to God" I believe Even Hitler's prayers would be heard, so don't we all have what you are laughing about?

You see, IMHO, your post is opinion, not backed by rational thought, analysis, or even having the honesty to state that it's your opinion. You slander and move on, it's a well recognized pattern.

I also cannot help but note that Weedly is the proverbial noob, here since May, no home page, and constantly attacking others in one genre only (he does post on military forums as well, bu never seems to attack there), in short, smells like troll to me.

CC, you are NOT IMHO a troll, for you have been here, and keep being the same person, you are consistent, that is also IMHO a good thing to be on a board like this.

[DelphiUser]

Well, I was born into it, so logic didn't enter in.

Come on you guys, this is just too hard to resist.

A) Still doesn't.
B) Apparently it never did.
C) Is it too late?

I mean seriously, I could play off of that one sentence for days, so STOP tempting me.

(I could also say Get the behind me Anti-Mormons, but Somebody might be offended, I know, I'll end with a humor tag like this /Humor, will that work?)

[DelphiUser]

He got chased out of Ohio and opposition to him became severe that, on January 12, 1838, Smith left Kirtland for Far West in Caldwell County, Missouri. At the time, there were at least $6,100 in civil suits outstanding against him in Chardon, Ohio courts, and an arrest warrant had been issued for Smith on a charge of bank fraud.

Please learn a little about what you are talking about.

Kirtland Safety Society

Hey, FastCoyote, I think I found you some one to help with finding stuff, so you can defend your baseless attack.

[DelphiUser]

Those polygamous Mormons are all about keeping women barefoot and pregnant, aren't they? ;-)

Hey! As we speak, my wife is barefoot (we run a shoeless house) Pregnant, and in the Kitchen.

She is also a Graduate with Honors from BYU and a registered pathologist, so if you say mean things about her, she can slip something into your food that will be really hard to trace.

Watch yourself...