Posted on 11/26/2007 10:32:04 AM PST by Zakeet
Mitt Romney appears to think that, in respect of the bizarre beliefs of his church, he has come up with a twofer response. Not only can he decline to answer questions about these beliefs, he can also reap additional benefit from complaining that people keep asking him about them.
[Snip]
It ought to be borne in mind that Romney is not a mere rank-and-file Mormon. His family is, and has been for generations, part of the dynastic leadership of the mad cult invented by the convicted fraud Joseph Smith. It is not just legitimate that he be asked about the beliefs that he has not just held, but has caused to be spread and caused to be inculcated into children. It is essential. Here is the most salient reason: Until 1978, the so-called Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was an officially racist organization. Mitt Romney was an adult in 1978. We need to know how he justified this to himself, and we need to hear his self-criticism, if he should chance to have one.
[Snip]
Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., has had to be asked about his long-ago membership of the Ku Klux Klan (which, I would remind you, is also a Protestant Christian identity organization), and he was only a fiddle-playing member, not a Grand Kleagle or whatever the hell it is. Why should Romney not be made to give an account of himself? A black candidate with ties to Louis Farrakhan could expect questions about his faith in the existence of the mad scientist Yakub, creator of the white race, or in the orbiting mother ship visited by the head of the Nation of Islam. What gives Romney an exemption?
(Excerpt) Read more at slate.com ...
For that reason, I don't like Hitchens. He doesn't like Mother Theresa or any religious figure.
Personally, I'd rather have a Mormon than an atheist or agnostic. At a mininum Mormons acknowledge there is a higher power that they will have to answer when the day comes. I can't say the same about an atheist.
I also like what Joseph Smith had to say. “I teach them correct principles and they govern themselves.” Also from the Doctrine and Covenants 58:
26 For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward.27 Verily I say, men should be anxiously engaged in a good cause, and do many things of their own free will, and bring to pass much righteousness;
28 For the power is in them, wherein they are aagents unto themselves. And inasmuch as men do good they shall in nowise lose their reward.
29 But he that doeth not anything until he is commanded, and receiveth a commandment with doubtful heart, and keepeth it with slothfulness, the same is damned.
I used to be surprised when strangers asked me about my underwear, but now I assume this is just out of healthy curiosity. It is healthy, right? Seriously, I know where you are coming from. Adult Latter-day Saints who have been to the temple make sacred covenants to follow Christ. There, they receive what is called a "garment" to wear as a personal, private reminder of those covenants. It's related to the Biblical concepts of priestly robes and vestments and "wearing the whole armor of God," with the garment itself representing the garments God gave Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden. There are also other outer articles of clothing worn only in the temple.Also from Isaiah 61:10The temple garment is modest underclothing. It's not exactly Calvin Klein, but it's not necessarily funny looking, maybe just a little more modest than usual. Promoting modesty is one of the intentions, I think, in addition to remembering covenants of integrity and virtue.
"I will greatly rejoice in the Lord, my soul shall be joyful in my God; for he hath clothed me with the garments of salvation, he hath covered me with the robe of righteousness".You can also go here Temple garments
Like members of many religious faiths, Latter-day Saints wear religious clothing. But members of other faiths — typically those involved in permanent pastoral ministries or religious services — usually wear religious garments as outer ceremonial vestments or symbols of recognition. In The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, garments are worn beneath street clothing as a personal and private reminder of commitments to God.Garments are considered sacred by Church members and are not regarded as a topic for casual conversation.
They are not considered sacred by me and are funny enough to elicit casual conversation.
Sacred protective underwear indeed. Feh.
Do you also make fun of other peoples religious clothing? The cross that many Christians wear? The yarmulke that Jewish men wear? The collars that many pastors and preachers wear? How about the robes the Catholic priests wear and what the Pope and cardinals wear? If you want to regard this as a casual conversation, so be it. I tried to answer your comment with what we believe.
When they run for president, yes.
The cross that many Christians wear? The yarmulke that Jewish men wear? The collars that many pastors and preachers wear? How about the robes the Catholic priests wear and what the Pope and cardinals wear?
No candidates I know of are wearing any of those things.
But Romney?
Magic underwear for sure.
Where is this? I pull up Jacob 2:27 where it says plainly "one wife" and "concubines...none." Where is polygamy promoted in the BoM as you say in post #81?
“Grig, you say “doctors” but in the U.S. 90% & up of the abortions are not done in either hospitals or doctors’ offices but rather in free-standing abortion clinics.”
Irrelevant since they would not be the appropriate medical authority. The woman’s regular, trusted OB-GYN would be however. As has been said to you many times before, just because the appropriate medical authorities judge the mother’s life at risk doesn’t automatically mean aborting is the right thing to do.
“Under your scenario for every time God might reveal that a woman is going to die if she doesn’t get an abortion, there might be 1,000 to 10,000 women who have a “false” “personal revelation” that God “told” them to get an abortion.”
I believe that personal revelation is effective and valid, and if you examined what LDS women actually do in cases where the church permits abortion you would find many of them choose to carry the child, and that by talking with God about it that they found courage and comfort.
If some woman wants to be dishonest and falsely claim she is justified in aborting, that is wrong and she will be held to account for it by God. I find it hard to believe that a woman so intent on aborting that she would tell such a lie would be restrained by any position taken by the church. She would have to be seriously out of step with the culture and spirit of our theology to act like that. The church strongly discourages abortion and any faithful Mormon woman would make being absolutely sure they are doing the right thing before they would go ahead.
If you are going to claim a potential abuse justifies denying an exception for everyone, then you would have to support jailing everyone who killed someone claiming self-defense. Some of them might have been lying about having to defend themselves and actually committed murder.
“This is absolutely chilling!!!”
What, the idea that God has a legitimate right to decide matters of life and death? Do you dispute that he has that right? Do you dispute that in the Bible there were times God commanded (and other times where he directly caused) the death of people? Perhaps you need a reminder...
1Sam 15
2 Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt.
3 Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.
Now if God can righteously command that ‘infant and suckling’ be destroyed like that (and you can bet some of the women there were pregnant too), how can you claim God has no right to give a raped woman, or a woman who God knows would die from trying to carry a child to term, an OK to abort that child? BTW: God also has the right to tell the woman to carry the child anyway, even if it means she dies in the process.
I suppose if you don’t have faith in the goodness and wisdom of God it would be chilling to think of someone taking his advice. Also, if someone doesn’t have the understanding of the principles that govern personal revelation I suppose it would be hard for them to make a distinction between a fraudulent claim that is contrary to those principles and a valid claim, and so fail to comprehend the reliability of personal revelation. I don’t take “Under the Banner of Heaven” as a reliable source, but if the event you describe in it actually happened, is clearly a case of people dishonestly trying to use God to justify their own evil and not evidence against the principle of personal revelation.
“My questions, Grig, are “Why stop with parents of pre-borns? If it’s OK for this to happen a few inches up the birth canal pre-birth, why not post-birth?”
If the child is already born all the relevant issues in relation to abortion are moot.
“You need to understand that a good chunk of ancient slavery was not comparable to plantation slavery.”
I studied Latin in high school, and the courses included a lot of the history and culture of the Roman Empire. Slavery back then had it’s share of horrors too, and now and then there would be a revolt by slaves.
“As for Onesimus, note that Paul (a) did consider him worthy of the gospel; and (b) sent him back with the understanding that Philemon would receive him “no longer as a slave, but better than a slave, as a dear brother.” [We don’t know if Onesimus was one in the economic slave category or not]”
As I said before, we didn’t consider anyone unworthy of the gospel. Also, Paul had no power under the law to free the slave of another man. Philemon had the power to free Onesimus and all Paul did was express his hope that now that Onesimus was a fellow Christian that Philemon would take that into account and be merciful, perhaps to the point of freeing him. It should also be noted that Onesimus was on the run when he converted and likely didn’t reveal that he was a slave until after his conversion.
“As for D&C 134:12, the worst of what you try to explain away & can’t is this phrase: ...interference we believe to be...unjust... Please explain how it’s an injustice to share the gospel with a slave minus owner permission?”
It is unjust because it can needlessly put their lives at risk. Since we believe those who don’t get a chance to accept the gospel in this life get it in the spirit world, there is no need to put their lives at risk like that. For the same reason we don’t go sending missionaries into a country unless the government of that country consents to our conducting missionary work there.
“I also like what Joseph Smith had to say. “I teach them correct principles and they govern themselves.””
Yes, but the man-made religion isn’t about letting people govern themselves, it’s about ruling over them. That is why the idea of leaving an important decision up to a member to work out on their own with God really grinds their mental gears.
“Where is this? I pull up Jacob 2:27”
Nope, look 3 verses down...
Jacob 2:30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.
I’m just the opposite. I don’t like discussing my reasons on an open forum simply because there’s too many Mormons who I respect personally.
You can't slip away that easily. Please tell me in the eyes of God what's the difference of Him receiving a prayer from a Mom whose about to give birth vs. receiving a prayer from a Mom who just gave birth?
Irrelevant since they would not be the appropriate medical authority. The woman’s regular, trusted OB-GYN would be however.
(Plenty of "trusted OB-GYNs" are part-time abortionists. Their open disrespect for life while making $ at this horrid practice already shows that the LDS church is bowing down to their "expertise").
As has been said to you many times before, just because the appropriate medical authorities judge the mother’s life at risk doesn’t automatically mean aborting is the right thing to do.
Which is another way of saying that if the Abortionist is determined to kill the child, the Mom is determined to kill the child, and the Mormon god is determined to kill the child, if all three of those planetary configurations are in alignment, presto, a dismembered baby!
I believe that personal revelation is effective and valid, and if you examined what LDS women actually do in cases where the church permits abortion you would find many of them choose to carry the child, and that by talking with God about it that they found courage and comfort.
See my last comment, which applies for the flip side of those who don't choose to carry the child,--who didn't find "courage and comfort" from the Mormon god.
If some woman wants to be dishonest and falsely claim she is justified in aborting, that is wrong and she will be held to account for it by God. I find it hard to believe that a woman so intent on aborting that she would tell such a lie would be restrained by any position taken by the church. She would have to be seriously out of step with the culture and spirit of our theology to act like that.
Yup. Exactly. But if the entire theological system on which she is in is already "seriously out of step" with the Kingdom culture of God and the Holy Spirit, who'd blame her if she did get an abortion? (And of course, this system is exactly set up to not only not find blame and responsibility, but is geared to actually sanction the abortion..."She prayed about it; God said OK; we're good to go with that.")
The church strongly discourages abortion and any faithful Mormon woman would make being absolutely sure they are doing the right thing before they would go ahead.
Which is an absolutely pathetic answer right there...to say that dismembering a defenseless baby-creature can ever be "the right thing" (your words) in anything but a self-defense ectopic pregnancy (about the only real sure real life threat to a Mom).
the idea that God has a legitimate right to decide matters of life and death? Do you dispute that he has that right? Do you dispute that in the Bible there were times God commanded (and other times where he directly caused) the death of people? Perhaps you need a reminder... ...combined with what you said in previous post: God has the right to determine matters of life and death. God commanded the armies of Israel to slaughter men, women and children (and even their livestock) in cold blood at times. Do you charge God with murder because of that? The obligation on the mother is to find out from God what his will is and then do it.
Previously I said this was "chilling." Just look at how inconsistent you are. Later in your last post, you said: If the child is already born all the relevant issues in relation to abortion are moot. And my question based on your slaughterhouse graphs written above is "Why?" "Why are they moot?" Didn't you just repeatedly lecture me on two posts that...
(a) God has a legitimate right to decide matters of life and death? (Isn't that true of the brand-new born, too?)
(b)God commanded the death of people in the Bible (So I guess this could be true of "personal revelation" slaughters of the newborn, too, eh?)
(c) God commanded the armies of Israel to slaughter men, women and children (and even their livestock) in cold blood at times. (So I guess since these slaughters indeed included newborns, that "precedent" would also allow moms of all newborns to pray for personal revelation as to whether or not their newborns were fair game, eh?)
Don't you see how chilling it is to say:
(1) God TOOK THE INITIATION to tell people to slaughter in the Bible--including the slaughter of pagan babies. [BTW, this is a big difference than what you and LDS preach...in the Bible, it's always God who takes such an initiative...it's not God's people constantly going around praying, "God, is it him I'm to butcher? Or how about her?"]
(2) And then to conclude that because God initiated such an action, that people now have this same "freedom" to initiate such an action?
Yet, when I point out that God's authority to take life and death matters into his hands applied to the already-born, what do you do? You repeat what you said before, but then try to slyly retreat and suddenly draw this non-Biblical line at birth. You can't go around citing passages like 1 Sam 15 which talks about killing an "infant and suckling" and then turn around in blatant hypocrisy a few graphs later and say, "Oh, BTW, what I said about God's authority to kill, including his authority to kill an infant and suckling, well, if the child is already born all the relevant issues in relation to" slaughtering are moot
What a hypocrite! You sound all high & mighty defending God's right to kill an infant and suckling. I ask if the "personal revelation" prayer applies to infants. And then you sound anything but high and mighty by saying, "Oh, that's a moot issue." Be consistent. If a girl has the right in your eyes to torture her pre-born to death and to have it blessed by God, based upon passages like 1 Sam. 15, then certainly 1 Sam 15 which directly addresses infants and sucklings would allow the same "personal revelation" prayer to be prayed!
I suppose if you don’t have faith in the goodness and wisdom of God it would be chilling to think of someone taking his advice.
OK, you still don't get it. There are certain things God has already clearly communicated: Intentional, pre-meditated killing of human beings is one thing that you don't do unless you're (a) a safety officer defending life; (b) a soldier; (c) a capital punishment extension of the state. [Self-defense is automatically eliminated because it's not usually pre-meditated]
I mean, imagine you're a dad of a minor teen-age daughter. She comes to you and says, "Dad, I was thinking. My boyfriend wants me to have pre-marital sex with him. I'm going to pray about this and if God tells me, 'Yes,' then I will."
I mean the entire premise is wrong!!! (As if God was some immoral explicit permission giver that justifies such behavior!) There's absolutely no difference re: you & LDS advocacy of praying about an abortion for say a minor, then that same minor praying about whether premarital sex is OK. The issue is never the holy ground upon which you want to place the decision--the "wisdom and goodness of God." The true issue is that not everything a person says is a "revelation from God" is so...and if you don't believe me, read the chilling chapters in Krakauer's book, UNDER THE BANNER OF HEAVEN. (Go on. Just try telling me that the "personal revelations" received were acted upon according to the "goodness and wisdom of God.")
Also, if someone doesn’t have the understanding of the principles that govern personal revelation I suppose it would be hard for them to make a distinction between a fraudulent claim that is contrary to those principles and a valid claim, and so fail to comprehend the reliability of personal revelation. I don’t take “Under the Banner of Heaven” as a reliable source, but if the event you describe in it actually happened, is clearly a case of people dishonestly trying to use God to justify their own evil and not evidence against the principle of personal revelation.
So, you're telling me that if a minor teen prays to God, and she concludes God has told her to have premarital sex, that it's possible for two things to happen:
(a) God says 'yes' and such activity is perfectly justifiable; but perhaps for another girl, the answer might be...
(b) God says 'no' but if the girl says God told her 'yes' she is to use your words dishonestly trying to use God to justify their own evil?
You're saying that such activity can be both good and wicked at the exact same time in different places on the planet...all according to whether the "personal revelation" green light or red light went on? (The activity itself is not moral or immoral...it just all depends upon moment by moment whims of a God deciding each moral act moment by moment?) This is absolutely chilling!!! My questions, Grig, are "Why stop with parents of pre-borns? If it's OK for this to happen a few inches up the birth canal pre-birth, why not post-birth? Does God get the 'blame' then, too, for telling Mom & her abortionist to 'slaughter' (your concession) the baby?
+++++++++++++
Would you like me to start posting what “regular” churches say about each other?
But then again, this is about Mitt, not your “missionary to the mormons” half truths.
+++++++++++++=
Anything about the canadates background is good.
You:Would you like me to start posting what “regular” churches say about each other?
Fproy, look, here's the difference. I'm being right up front with you. If you want to have this as an opinion about every church and every sect, please feel free. It's a free country and folks are entitled to their opinions.
Same thing for Mitt. Same thing for Joseph Smith.
If "regular" churches want to post opinions about other churches, same thing.
So everybody's on common ground at this point when it comes to opinions. (That's what so great about the First Amendment).
Now what's the difference? The difference is that even when "regular" churches are quoting Scriptures and applying them to other churches or sects, while the verses themselves (the source) are God's revelation, you can't assume the target is being 100% applied correctly.
When you look, for example, at the first 3 chapters of Revelation, we see that God is speaking very specifically to 7 specific churches. While someone can come along and say, "You, Church XYZ, are doing the exact same as the church as Laodicea," while that might very well be true, we don't have a "Thus says the Lord" attached that those words indeed apply beyond the church at Laodicea.
I don't say something and then say, "Well, you see, Colofornian 3:16-18 says that other churches or sects are XYZ." Other folks are not automatically obligated to accept what I say as direct revelation from God.
This is likewise true when "regular" churches comment about other churches. Yes, they are often applying Scripture; yes, they may be right; but it's also possible they are wrong and what's most important is that it's extremely, extremely rare for anyone inside of those churches (& certainly NOBODY outside) to pretend that those comments are direct revelations from God.
This is NOT true when it comes to LDS "Scripture" of Joseph Smith-History in the Pearl of Great Price, vv. 18-19.
LDS don't have the luxury of taking or leaving these passages. They bear the weight & authority as...
(1) LDS "Scripture"
(2) Alleged Direct revelation from God
(3) The very foundation of the Mormon faith (the First Vision)
(4) One of the top three doctrines in which LDS missionaries are trained to teach (the doctrine of the apostasy & restoration). I would even say it's No. 1 because if there's no 100% apostasy, then there's no need for a restoration. (Oh reformation...sure...the church has always & is always seemingly in need of that).
So you see, Smith never pretended that this was only his opinion. He claimed to speak for God on this matter. So, won't at least one Mormon concede this difference?
Apparently a lot of FReepers think a man’s faith is irrelevent. Faith in God is just a hobby, or a way of creating a visage of respectibility.
Others think that one’s relationship with God shapes his character and his world view.
And a third group thinks as long as you believe in some sort of god, you’re OK.
wrong place to debate this, will take it up in a proper posting.
Very good point (see same point I made in #45). [I'm glad someone's using their head].
Oh yeah, so in that case most of our founding fathers would not have received your vote. This includes Thomas Jefferson, Samuel Adams, and Ben Franklin among many others. So who needs to use their head now?
I find that the fact that you must have an elected official with your same exact religious beliefs shows that you have little understanding of our political process. In America, of all places, you can have a man who does not see God the same way you do, who will still do a very good job of keeping your religious freedoms secure. Once again, I challenge any of you to prove to me how Mitt Romney will not be able to uphold our religious freedoms and other conservative values just because he is a Mormon.
And, BTW, I can still remember how excited the religious conservatives became over the fact that President Bush proclaimed he was a Christian. And I fully believe that he is a Christian, but just because a man is a conservative Christian, does not make him politically fit to be a President.
Is not the ability to distinguish between truth and lie an ability a leader needs?
So Ben Franklin was a political failure, because he was a Deist?
I agree that the Mormon religion is a ridiculous religion that has no basis in reality and is full of fictional history and criminal founders, but even so, this does not mean Mitt is unable to defend your religious beliefs.
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.