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 ...
Neither. Do you place your faith in the words of a man that married other men’s wives?
I could care less about Mitt’s religion. He isn’t running for Pope is he? I want to know his politics and his political history.
And Joe Smith’s date of birth and death refute Greg’s post in what way?
Simple: LDS leaders' historical role models (former LDS leaders) and the LDS god all have exhibited examples that it's OK to flip-flop on key social issues...Having seen that's it's "OK" to do this, some (like Mitt) follow suit. I call this the "Gumby" pattern. Let's first look at Mitt's "gumbility" (gumby flexibility). And then let's see what LDS role models he had where this kind of "gumbility" was perfectly fine:
Romney was against legal fake marriage ("gay marriage") while being for legal fake marriage (civil unions and dometic partnerships).
Romney underwent a pro-life "conversion" in Nov 04 only to be forcefully "pro-choice" at a press conference in May 05, followed by expanding Commonwealth mandated "healthcare" in '06 where he further subsidized the abortion industry. Now he says everything he did as governor was "pro-life" and that he never "felt" he was "pro-choice."
In '94 in 2 back-to-back sentences, Romney spoke about the rights of the Boy Scouts of America to determine its own policy, and in the very next breath say that the Boy Scouts should be open to people of any "sexual orientation."
Romney was twice endorsed by the Log Cabin Club of MA only now to have ads run against him by the Log Cabin Club.
Romney was in favor of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act before he was 'agin' it.
Romney came alongside Catholic social services to help them keep homosexuals from adopting thru their agency before telling them that "No...can't help you."
Romney was in favor of embryonic stem cell research and then underwent a "conversion." He was in favor of Roe until he was against it.
Question: Now, how may have the evolution of Mormon theology influenced the evolution of Romney's theologically laced social stances?
Example 1: The Book of Mormon was anti-polygamy; but then its original prophet WAS a polygamist (along with many to follow); but then the LDS church cracked down on polygamy; but then polygamy is still supposedly being practiced forever in the celestial kingdom (IOW, "right now"--as much as "eternity" can be "now").
Example 2: LDS leaders said black skin was a "curse" and prevented blacks from the priesthood. Then they changed their mind in 1978.
Example 3: LDS were largely anti-slavery in history. But then you get curious pro-slave owner "Scriptural" passages like Doctrine & Covenants 134:12.
Example 4: Except for the doctrine of grace and some others, just about all of the major distinctions between LDS & the historic Christian faith doesn't even come from the Book of Mormon. What that means is that LDS theology itself "evolved" (one God in BoM; multiple gods later...no priesthood in BoM; priesthood later; no created God in BoM; LDS god a created God later; no 3 degrees of heaven in BoM; 3 degrees later; no baptism for dead or geneology works or temple works in BoM; all of that later...I could on and on)
Example 5: LDS position on abortion. If you read the LDS position on abortion (particularly the one I've seen written for LDS bishops), it initially comes across as "pro-life." But as you read it carefully, you realize that the holes in this cheese makes you ask, "Where's the cheese?" I mean there's an exception for rape. An exception for generic "health." (And guess who gets to define "health"?--that's right, the abortionist). An exception for if you pray to God about it and then you make God an accessory to murder by saying, "He answered 'Yes'." An exception for life of the mother...
Conclusion: When folks point to Gumby Romney waffling on this or that, I guess I have to ask, "What's the big deal?" (That's what LDS leaders have done from the get-go)
Christians understand, but atheists would not.
Acts 10
34 ¶ Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:
35 But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.
The “rogue” Joseph Smith was the founder and main “prophet” of Mormonism. To point out that the tree is rooted in error and sin is an act of love and is done at some small risk to myself, as the tenor of your response shows. Is the truth “hatred?” I think it is the reverse.
Read post #18, which applies to a contemporary Mormon male, not simply an historical Mormon male.
But even then, Greg F is right. Why? Because LDS don't simply believe that Smith is an historical figure. They believe he is alive & well right now governing both his own planet and his own plural-wife family.
It's time for Mormons to 'fess up on the "myth" that they "don't believe" that the practice of polygamy is ill-legit. The fact is, they do believe there's a time & place for it...that time & place isn't no longer on earth...BUT it is supposedly carried out on LDS colonies "beyond the veil."
Anybody really think the MSM won't ask this question repeatedly in '08?
Imagine this: MR wins the R nomination. BObama bounces past the D leader due to some future or past scandal. Do FREEPERS really think this matter wouldn't be a HUGE issue in '08 if this was the match-up???
Because some folks don't have internet access? www.mormon.org
I think he plays piano at a Searchlight NV House of Ill Repute.
I think you meant "a Searchlight NV Senate of Ill Repute".
Attacks on the Mormon faith are immoral, change the word “Mormon” to the word “Jew” and you get a David Duke speech. The United States does not force a religious test on its politicians.
That said, Romney does not seem to take his faith very seriously. His policies do not reflect the views and opinions of most Mormons. His Mormonism is like Clintons Christianity, a nonfactor in his political life. Which makes attacks on his faith even more inappropriate.
LOL!!
Well hells bells...I've been around agnostics and atheists that were great moral people. And yes, better than some Christians I've known.
But that doesn't make what they believed correct.
See Hilaire Belloc for more understanding regarding the Spanish Inquisition.
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.