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.
http://www.sdnhm.org/scrolls/description.html
A friend of ours visited the Dead Sea Scroll exhibit in San Diego recently and he is not a Mormon but called us with an excited voice. Very interesting! Read this from the “Alma Scroll”:
“Latter-day Saints find this scroll of particular interest, because it specifies “Alma son of Judah” as one of the people involved in the agreement on the fourth line and at the bottom of the document. This text contains the oldest known occurrence of the name ‘Alma’ outside of the Book of Mormon.”
FYI.
http://www.sdnhm.org/scrolls/description.html
A friend of ours visited the Dead Sea Scroll exhibit in San Diego recently and he is not a Mormon but called us with an excited voice. Very interesting! Read this from the “Alma Scroll”:
“Latter-day Saints find this scroll of particular interest, because it specifies ‘Alma son of Judah’ as one of the people involved in the agreement on the fourth line and at the bottom of the document. This text contains the oldest known occurrence of the name ‘Alma’ outside of the Book of Mormon.”
See your doing it again, it’s about HEARING HIS VOICE. How many times do I need to post the John reference? You take what I say and twist it to meet your own interpretation of what I say.
Actually, it wasn’t. The Messiah, Son of David, King, a Person, was sent to fulfill the prophecies of the Nation of Israel, restored in the land with their King. The Gospel, based on His death and resurrection and ascension was offered these were completed, to the new body, the Church.
Um, where in your rebut is it any different than what I just said at the top? The key here is PRIOR to the crucification...
Oh, and I didnt’ over look your point about the John reference. I looked over your interpretation of it and found in inconsistent with other references. We will certainly have to disagree on that one, because we’ve about hashed that one to death.
38 What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same.So whether Jesus visits everyone or his servants do, it is the same, your instance that Jesus will have to visit everyone may be your belief, but it is not ours. Your belief does not even make sense according to the Bible by itself for God commanded his disciples to "Go ye into all the world and preach my gospel unto every creature.
“You take what I say and twist it to meet your own interpretation of what I say.”
Mandatory time out for you to find your peaceful center!
“Um, where in your rebut is it any different than what I just said at the top? The key here is PRIOR to the crucification...”
NO Gospel for Israel at all. Instead, a King. The Gospel is for the Church.
Delphi,
You certainly have a right to post wherever you wish, but
remember that I asked you not to post to me again.
best,
ampu
In the case where a Freeper asks you for the courtesy and then rails against your beliefs, there is nothing preventing you from responding in a similar manner, academically and at arm's length, by rebutting the claims to "all."
However, to prevent silly "he touched me!" flame wars that would put both parties on the Moderator's radar - neither party should quote the other in making an academic, arm's length argument.
Religion Moderator, here is the history from my own point
of view, so that you will understand my request...
I spent months responding to Delphi and realized it was an
exercise that was pointless. His posts drag on and on and on
endlessly. Further, when I did post in good faith, he accused
me of lying, twisting, distorting, etc. His personal attacks
were in almost every post, which made any attempt at
discussion pointless...
...and he couldn’t seem to distinguish between a criticism
of mormonism versus a criticism of himself.
Finally, I asked him to no longer post to me. I wish it could
be otherwise, but that’s what happened. I have nothing
against him, but I realized it wasn’t worth my time to be
involved in responding.
I do post about mormonism. I never critique this poster at
all, however. It would be like touching the tar baby... and
life is too short.
best,
ampu
Delphi,
I do not wish you to post to me. I do not need to
forgive you for anything. I do not want to restrict
your presence on any thread. I only requested that
you would no longer post to me. This is yet one more
request - now numbering at least three.
Earlier, I placed a placemarker on this thread. I will
make sure I never do that again in a way connected to
you.
I do not post about “mormons”, but about “mormonism” -
specifically that it is not a Christian doctrine. You
can believe otherwise and argue for your side in whatever
way you wish. I do not have a desire to have you do otherwise,
but I do not wish to have you post to me. It is quite simple.
Having tried to clarify this in the presence of the RM,
I will not longer be responding to you and I’d ask you
to do the same. Life is too short as it is...
best,
ampu
Attributing motives to another poster or otherwise reading his mind is “making it personal.” Stick with the issues and you’ll be fine. When in doubt, double check your use of pronouns before hitting “post.”Telling me what I, or my religion believes is a personal attack and should not be allowed.
On the Religion Forum, it is tolerable to attack other confessions, authors, religious leaders, deities and such. It is NOT tolerable to attack another Freeper.
Likewise on the Religion Forum, I can and do intervene to prevent posters from "making it personal." There is nothing I can do to keep posters from "taking it personally." Discussion on the "open" threads are treated as if they are occuring in the town square. They are often contentious.
We do provide for "closed" threads on the Religion Forum. They are treated as if they were a meeting behind the closed doors of a church. These include devotionals, prayer threads and caucuses. Caucus threads cannot remain closed if the article or replies include any discussion of another confession's beliefs.
I doubt an one who would post the following flawed logic because it fits a current political agenda for a particular Mormonism candidate will honor your request: “Telling me what ... my religion believes is a personal attack ...” It appears the Romney Mormon political platoon wants this mischaracterization to work toward squelching discussion/opposition to Mormonism, as a way to stop it from being a topic Mitt has to face. It is unusual for them to be so blatant in admitting this is the goal though.
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.