I see Byron has been perusing Free Republic.
Posted on 12/16/2007 1:01:26 PM PST by greyfoxx39
Kathryn – It seems to me that the race issue is where religion and politics most clearly intersect in Romney's case. Like it or not, if Romney becomes the Republican nominee, Democrats will bring up the "Mormon racism" charge again. You can just bet on it. But more immediately, it will be interesting to see what role, if any, it will play in voters' decisions in the primaries. The fact is, it has become a staple of political campaigns for candidates to be asked about their association with institutions that discriminate. There was a huge uproar in the 2000 campaign, for example, about George W. Bush and Bob Jones University. (Although my favorite, if trivial, example was the time Bill Clinton was asked about playing golf at an all-white country club, and he responded, with a completely straight face, that he had only played nine holes.) In any event, it's common practice to ask about country clubs, social groups, schools, etc.
The issue now is whether that kind of question also applies to Romney's church. And the problem, for Romney, is that, to my knowledge at least, he has not said simply that the LDS church was wrong to exclude blacks from the priesthood and top leadership positions before 1978. Voters don't mind it – they even like it – when a candidate says something in the past was wrong but that now it is right. But today, on "Meet the Press," Romney wouldn't say that.
-SNIP-
i asked about the revelation several weeks ago, when a few of us in the NR Washington bureau met with Mormon Elders M. Russell Ballard and Quentin L. Cook, who had come to Washington to meet with staffers of several publications. (They were concerned about the image of the church; they did not discuss Romney or his candidacy and offered no opinion on it.) When I asked why the church changed position in 1978, the answer was, if I recall correctly, that they did not know. It wasn't a flip answer; they were saying that they could not know why God had given that revelation to Kimball at that particular moment. They were not inclined to say that the church had been wrong before. That's a built-in dilemma of the system; if a church says it is led by revelation, and then says it was wrong, it's kind of like saying God was wrong.
MORE AT
"Political Neutrality
The (LDS) Church’s mission is to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ, not to elect politicians. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is neutral in matters of party politics. This applies in all of the many nations in which it is established."
PING
I see Byron has been perusing Free Republic.
The apologists have spent months discrediting McConkie on FR, so NOW the LDS Church spokesman approves him. Delicious.
And the problem, for Romney, is that, to my knowledge at least, he has not said simply that the LDS church was wrong to exclude blacks from the priesthood and top leadership positions before 1978. Voters don't mind it – they even like it – when a candidate says something in the past was wrong but that now it is right. But today, on "Meet the Press," Romney wouldn't say that.
From the article, Byron York observes:
“That’s a built-in dilemma of the system; if a church says it is led by revelation, and then says it was wrong, it’s kind of like saying God was wrong.”
I disagree with York’s conclusion here. The problem is not with God, He is never wrong.
The problem for LDS is that if they say the “revelation” was wrong, they are saying their prophets were wrong, therefore false prophets.
"I asked about the revelation several weeks ago, when a few of us in the NR Washington bureau met with Mormon Elders M. Russell Ballard and Quentin L. Cook, who had come to Washington to meet with staffers of several publications. (They were concerned about the image of the church; they did not discuss Romney or his candidacy and offered no opinion on it.)
From your first comment:
So, the LDS CHURCH LEADERS who do NOT "meddle in politics" met with National Review and LO! National Review ENDORSES MITT!
I'm impressed. In a matter of seconds you manage to contradict your own post. The author explicitly says they (two church leaders with a group of staffers from several magazines, not the editorial board of NR) did not discuss Romney nor his candidacy and yet this, to your mind, is proof positive that they not only did discuss Romney but that NR's endorsement of Romney is a direct result of this meeting.
It takes a talented propagandist to make such a leap of logic. I hope you limbered up before making that stretch.
When Christ told Paul that the gospel was no longer to be taught to just the Jews but the Gentiles as well, did that mean that God was wrong when he instructed that the gospel be preached to the Jews only?
And you think I'm the ONLY person who will make the connection between NR meeting with church leaders and an endorsement? BTW what about the donation Mitt made to a NR affiliated organization?
You really must think people are naive.
So was Romney right to not answer Russert’s question about his church being wrong before 78?
Jesus did preach the gospel to the Samaritan woman at the well. She put her faith in Jesus. God did choose to initially work through the Jews. They were to be a light to the nations. When they rejected their Messiah God allowed the gospel to be preached to the Gentiles. In the end times God will again deal with the nation of Israel. It was to be preached to the Jews first, not only, and then to the Gentiles.
I am not a Mormon and I am not as yet a Romney man, but it seems to me that it wasn’t the Mormons that gave the slaves a boat ride and later bought and sold them as slaves. Weren’t those non-Mormons religious?
‘The Mormons excluded Blacks’ mantra is getting old.
I wonder how many of these “holier than thou balls of spit” have slave owners in THEIR ancestry. I know that I do, I am not ashamed, I don’t apologize and I am not a racist.
Could somebody please tell me when the Catholic’s finally decided that it wasn’t ok for Priests to be pedophiles... or have they?
We are in a war for our very survival, yet a we find this silly crap important.
Perhaps God should end it all and try that funny dinosaur experiment all over again.
>>The issue now is whether that kind of question also applies to Romney’s church. And the problem, for Romney, is that, to my knowledge at least, he has not said simply that the LDS church was wrong to exclude blacks from the priesthood and top leadership positions before 1978. Voters don’t mind it – they even like it – when a candidate says something in the past was wrong but that now it is right. But today, on “Meet the Press,” Romney wouldn’t say that.<<
The important thing about this issue is WHY the LDS excluded blacks. Everything is about why.
Once that little tidbit comes out, they will be hard pressed to get ANY black votes beryond those blacks that, through ignorance, joined the church after the rules changed due to “divine” revelation.
Since it wasn't well know BM (Before Mitt), I'm sure that there will be much more of it.
BTW, what "balls of spit" are you referring to? I have no "slave owners" in my ancestry, but I do have "racist mormons" in my family tree.
We are in a war for our very survival, yet a we find this silly crap important.
This "silly crap" has to do with an election for the leader of our country. You standards for same are yours, and not universally shared, it seems.
When I was a young impressionable Mormon we were taught that the reason that Blacks were excluded was because Black people were cursed by God for their actions in the pre-existence and they were sent to earth with black skins as a punishment for not being "valiant" in the premordial existence. Because of their actions in the premordial existence they were cursed with a black skin and precluded from recieving the priesthood on earth or being exalted (like all good "white and delightsome" Mormons will be) in the afterlife. They were forever to be delegated as "servants."
This was what Romney was taught, and I would be dollars to donuts when he was a missionary in the 1960's that he taught these things to others. After all this was a revelation from God to the Mormon prophets.
Now if you were running for president would try to explain "Why"? Or would you dissemble and pray that nobody pays any attention?
BTW the "N" word was pretty freely bandied about in private conversations by most Mormons that I knew growing up.
That's a bloody asinine thing to say.
Alma 3: 6 "And the skins of the Lamanites were dark, according to the mark which was set upon their fathers, which was a curse upon them because of their transgression and their rebellion against their brethren, who consisted of Nephi, Jacob, and Joseph, and Sam, who were just and holy men."
Reaganesque, here is a chronology of Paul’s ministry:
http://gbgm-umc.org/umw/corinthians/chronology.stm
As you can see, it is only about four years from Paul’s conversion on the road to Damascus to his commission from God to preach to the Gentiles. During this four-year period, he withdrew for a while, tried preaching to the Jews, and was rejected by many Jewish communities.
In contrast, the Mormon religion was founded in 1830. It was in 1978 that a “revelation” was received to accept blacks into the temple and the rites of priesthood (another subject for another day).
If my math is correct, that is 148 years.
That’s a Carville/Begala negative ad right there.
And a little more amplification:
LDS Apostle Bruce R. McConkie furthers this teaching:
Those who were less valiant in pre-existence and who thereby had certain spiritual restrictions impose on them during mortality are known to us as the negroes. Such spirits are sent to earth through the lineage of Cain, the mark put upon him for his rebellion against God, and his murder of Able being a black skin. . . . Noah’s son married Egyptus, a descendant of Cain, thus preserving the negro lineage through the flood. . . . the negro are not equal with other races where the receipt of certain spiritual blessings are concern. . . . “ (Mormon Doctrine, 527-28; 1966 orig. ed., changed in the current ed.).
Remember the mark Cain was given? Mormonism taught that the mark was “black skin”.
Hmmmm. No wonder the N word is (or was) bandied about so much in Mormon circles.
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.