| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 08/03/2007 6:34:01 AM PDT by Religion Moderator, reason:
Poor behavior |
Posted on 07/26/2007 5:03:33 PM PDT by tantiboh
Democratic political consultant Mark Mellman has a very good piece up today at The Hill on the baffling and illegitimate opposition among voters to Mitt Romney due to his religion. I liked his closing paragraphs:
In July of 1958, 24 percent of respondents told Gallup they would not vote for a Catholic for president, almost identical to Gallup’s reading on Mormons today. Two years later, John F. Kennedy became the first Catholic to assume the oath of office. Within eight months, the number refusing to vote for a Catholic was cut almost in half.
[snip]
Mellman also discusses an interesting poll he helped construct, in which the pollsters asked half of their respondents whether they would support a candidate with certain characteristics, and asked the other half about another candidate with the exact same characteristics, with one difference. The first candidate was Baptist, the second candidate was Mormon. The Baptist had a huge advantage over the Mormon candidate, by about 20 points.
[snip]
However, more recent polls have attempted to fix the anonymity problem. A recent Time Magazine poll (read the original report here), for example, got to the heart of the question by asking respondents if they are less likely to vote for Mitt Romney specifically because he is a Mormon. The result is not as bad as some reporting on the poll has suggested. For example, while 30% of Republicans say they are less likely to vote for Romney because of his religion, fully 15% of other Republicans say that characteristic makes them more likely to vote for him. And while many have reported the finding that 23% of Republicans are “worried” by Romney’s Mormonism, the more important (but less-reported) number is that 73% say they hold no such reservations...
(Excerpt) Read more at romneyexperience.com ...
Lincoln surely heard of this——
Prophecy Upon The Head Of Judge Stephen A. Douglas
May 18th, 1843:—Dined with Judge Stephen A. Douglas, who is presiding at court. After dinner Judge Douglas requested President Smith to give him a history of the Missouri persecution, which he did in a very minute manner for about three hours. He also gave a relation of his journey to Washington city, and his application in behalf of the saints to Mr. Van Buren, the president of the United States, for redress, and Mr. Van Buren’s pusillanimous reply—’Gentlemen, your cause is just, but I can do nothing for you;’ and the cold, unfeeling manner in which he was treated by most of the senators and representatives in relation to the subject, Clay saying, ‘You had better go to Oregon,’ and Calhoun shaking his head solemnly, saying, ‘It’s a nice question—a critical question; but it will not do to agitate it.’ The judge listened with the greatest attention, and then spoke warmly in deprecation of Governor Boggs and the authorities in Missouri, who had taken part in the extermination, and said that any people that would do as the mobs of Missouri had done ought to be brought to judgment; they ought to be punished.
President Smith, in concluding his remarks, said that ‘if the government, which receives into its coffers the money of citizens for its public lands, while its officials are rolling in luxury at the expense of its public treasury, cannot protect such citizens in their lives and property, it is an old granny anyhow, and I prophesy in the name of the Lord of Israel, unless the United States redress the wrongs committed upon the saints in the state of Missouri and punish crimes committed by her officers, that in a few years the government will be utterly overthrown and wasted, and there will not be so much as a potsherd left, for their wickedness in permitting the murder of men, women and children and the wholesale plunder and extermination of thousands of her citizens to go unpunished, thereby perpetrating a foul and corroding blot upon the fair fame of this great republic, the very thought of which would have caused the high-minded and patriotic framers of the Constitution of the United States to hide their faces with shame. Judge, you will aspire to the presidency of the United States; and if you ever turn your hand against me or the Latter-day Saints, you will feel the weight of the hand of the Almighty upon you; and you will live to see and know that I have testified the truth to you; for the conversation of this day will stick to you through life.’. . .
Following recitation of Clayton’s journal entry, B.H. Roberts goes on to describe how the prophecy was published long in advance of its fulfillment and how it was later fulfilled (Roberts, pp. 184-189):
Time Of The Publication Of The Prophecy
This prophecy was first published in Utah, in the Deseret News of September 24th, 1856; it was afterwards published in England, in the Millennial Star, February, 1859. In both instances it is found in the “History of Joseph Smith,” then being published in sections in those periodicals. It is a matter of common knowledge that Stephen A. Douglas, after the publication of this prediction, did aspire to the presidency of the United States, and was nominated for that office by the Democratic Convention, held in Baltimore on the 23rd of June, 1860. When in the convention he was declared the regular nominee of the Democratic party, “The whole body rose to its feet, hats were waved in the air, and many tossed aloft; shouts, screams, and yells, and every boisterous mode of expressing approbation and unanimity, were resorted to.”
Bright Prospects For Mr. Douglas
When Mr. Douglas first began to aspire to the presidency, no man in the history of American politics had more reason to hope for success. The political party of which he was the recognized leader, in the preceding presidential election had polled 174 electoral votes as against 122 cast by the other two parties which opposed it, and a popular vote of 1,838,169 as against 1,215,798 votes for the two parties opposing. It is a matter of history, however, that the Democratic party in the election of 1860 was badly divided; and factions of it put candidates into the field with the following result: Abraham Lincoln, candidate of the Republican party, was triumphantly elected. He received 180 electoral votes; Mr. Breckenridge received 72 electoral votes; Mr. Bell 39; and Mr. Douglas 12. “By a plurality count of the popular vote, Mr. Lincoln carried 18 states; Mr. Breckenridge 11; Mr. Bell 3; and Mr. Douglas one—Missouri! Twenty days less than one year after his nomination by the Baltimore Convention, while yet in the prime of manhood—forty-eight years of age—Mr. Douglas died at his home in Chicago, a disappointed, not to say heart-broken man.
The . . . Cause Of [Douglas’] Failure
Though it may be regarded somewhat as a digression here, let us now inquire into the relations between the prophecy and Mr. Douglas’ failure to become president of the United States. Fourteen years after the interview containing the prophecy with which we are dealing, and about one year after the prophecy had been published in the Deseret News, Mr. Douglas was called upon to deliver a speech in Springfield, the capital of Illinois. His speech was delivered on the 12th of June, 1857, and published in the Missouri Republican of June 18th, 1857. It was a time of much excitement throughout the country, concerning the “Mormon” church in Utah. Falsehoods upon the posting winds seemed to have filled the air with the most outrageous calumny. Crimes the most repulsive murders, robberies, rebellion and high treason were falsely charged against its leaders. It was well known that Mr. Douglas had been on terms of intimate friendship with President Joseph Smith, and was well acquainted with the other church leaders. He was therefore looked upon as one competent to speak upon the “Mormon” question, and was invited to do so in the speech to which reference is here made. Mr. Douglas responded to the request. He grouped the charges against the “Mormons” which were then passing current, in the following manner: “First, that nine-tenths of the inhabitants are aliens by birth who have refused to become naturalized, or take the oath of allegiance, or do any other act recognizing the government of the United States as the paramount authority of the territory of Utah. “Second, that the inhabitants, whether native or alien born, known as ‘Mormons’ (and they constitute the whole people of the territory) are bound by horrible oaths and terrible penalties to recognize and maintain the authority of Brigham Young, and the government of which he is the head, as paramount to that of the United States, in civil as well as in religious affairs; and they will in due time, and under the direction of their leaders, use all means in their power to subvert the government of the United States, and resist its authority.” Mr. Douglas based his remarks upon these rumors against the saints, in the course of which he said: “Let us have these facts in an official shape before the president and congress, and the country will soon learn that, in the performance of the high and solemn duty devolving upon the executive and congress, there will be no vacillating or hesitating policy. It will be as prompt as the peal that follows the flash—as stern and unyielding as death. Should such a state of things actually exist as we are led to infer from the reports—and such information comes in an official shape—the knife must be applied to this pestiferous, disgusting cancer which is gnawing into the very vitals of the body politic. It must be cut out by the roots and seared over by the red hot iron of stern and unflinching law. * * * Should all efforts fail to bring them [the Mormons] to a sense of their duty, there is but one remedy left. Repeal the organic law of the territory, on the ground that they are alien enemies and outlaws, unfit citizens of one of the free and independent states of this confederacy. “To protect them further in their treasonable, disgusting and bestial practices would be a disgrace to the country—a disgrace to humanity—a disgrace to civilization, and a disgrace to the spirit of the age. Blot it out of the organized territories of the United States. What then? It will be regulated by the law of 1790, which has exclusive and sole jurisdiction over all the territory not incorporated under any organic or special law. By the provisions of this law, all crimes and misdemeanors, committed on its soil, can be tried before the legal authorities of any state or territory to which the offenders shall be first brought to trial and punished. Under that law persons have been arrested in Kansas, Nebraska, and other territories, prior to their organization as territories, and hanged for their crimes. The law of 1790 has sole and exclusive jurisdiction where no law of a local character exists, and by repealing the organic law of Utah, you give to the general government of the United States the whole and sole jurisdiction over the territory.”
Douglas’ Lost Opportunity
I shall so far anticipate historical events, which, if a chronological order were strictly followed, would belong to a later period of our narrative, as to say that the speech of Mr. Douglas was of great interest and importance to the people of Utah at the time it was made. Mr. Douglas had it in his power to do them a great service because of his personal acquaintance with Joseph Smith and the great body of the “Mormon” people in Utah, as well as their leaders; for he had known both leaders and people in Illinois, and those whom he had known in Illinois constituted the great bulk of the people in Utah when he delivered his Springfield speech. He knew that the reports carried to the east by vicious and corrupt men were not true. He knew that these reports in the main were but a rehash of the old, exploded charges made against Joseph Smith and his followers in Missouri; and he knew these Missouri reports to be false by many evidences furnished him by Joseph Smith in the interview of the 18th of May, 1843, and by the “Mormon” people at sundry times during his association with them at Nauvoo. He had an opportunity to befriend the innocent; to refute the calumny cast upon a virtuous community; to speak a word in behalf of the oppressed; but the demagogue triumphed over the statesman, the politician, over the humanitarian; and to avoid popular censure, which doubtless he feared befriending the “Mormon” people would bring to him, he turned his hand against them with the result that he did not destroy them but sealed his own doom. In fulfillment of the words of the prophet, he felt the weight of the hand of the Almighty upon him—Mr. Douglas failed of his dearest ambition, the presidency of the United States, and on the 3rd of June, 1861, he died.
All The Elements Of A Great Prophecy In The Douglas Incident
It was impossible for any merely human sagacity to foresee the events foretold in this prophecy. Stephen A. Douglas was a bright but comparatively an unknown man at the time of the interview, in May, 1843. There is and can be no question about the prophecy preceding the event. It was published, as before stated, in the Deseret News of the 24th of September, 1856, about one year before the Douglas speech at Springfield, in June, 1857; and about four years before Douglas was nominated for the presidency by the Baltimore Democratic Convention. Moreover a lengthy review of Mr. Douglas’ speech was published in the editorial columns of the Deseret News in the issue of that paper for September 2nd, 1857, addressed directly to Mr. Douglas, the closing paragraph of which is as follows:— “In your last paragraph [of the Springfield speech] you say ‘I have thus presented to you plainly and fairly my views of the Utah question.’ With at least equal plainness and with far more fairness have your views now been commented upon. And inasmuch as you were well acquainted with Joseph Smith, and this people, also with, the character of our maligners, and did know their allegations were false, but must bark with the dogs who were snapping at our heels, to let them know that you were a dog with them; and also that you may have a testimony of the truth of the assertion that you did know Joseph Smith and his people and the character of their enemies (and neither class have changed, only as the saints have grown better and their enemies worse); and also that you may thoroughly understand that you have voluntarily, knowingly, and of choice sealed your damnation, and by your own chosen course have closed your chance for the presidential chair, through disobeying the counsel of Joseph which you formerly sought and prospered by following, and that you in common with us, may testify to all the world that Joseph was a true prophet, the following extract from the history of Joseph Smith is again printed for your benefit, and is kindly, recommended to your careful perusal and most candid consideration.” Then follows the account of the interview between Joseph Smith and Mr. Douglas as recorded in the Journal of William Clayton, as published in the Deseret News a year before Mr. Douglas’ Springfield speech, and as now quoted in this History. Also it should be remembered that the above editorial in the Deseret News boldly challenging Mr. Douglas on the matter of the presidency, preceded by three years the election of 1860. This was boldly challenging Mr. Douglas. He raised his hand against the followers of Joseph Smith, despite the warning of the Prophet; and his people in the chief organ of their church, reproduced the prophecy and told him that he had sealed his doom and closed his chance for the presidential chair through disobeying the counsel of the Prophet; and this three years before the election took place. The presidential election of 1860, and the death of Mr. Douglas in the prime of life the year following, tell the rest of the story.
It may be that dwelling at such length upon this incident I have wandered from the direct line of the historical development of the history of the Latter-day Saints, but this remarkable prophecy, its no less remarkable fulfillment, and the deep interest of it must be my justification. I have nothing further to do with the career or character of Mr. Douglas than pointing out the remarkable fulfillment of a prophecy which demonstrates the divine inspiration of the man who uttered it.
Now the events concerning Mr. Douglas clearly fulfilled prophecy, but what about Joseph’s prophecy of the government being overthrown? In modern American usage, “government” typically refers to the entire system of governing a nation, so we tend to imagine national anarchy when we someone speaks of our government being overthrown. But “government” can also refer to the political party in control or to the group of officers in power. In Britain, for example, “the government” is frequently dissolved and changed, meaning that the party in power changes, without genuine anarchy or disruption of the method of governing. Was Joseph Smith predicting utter chaos and the loss of our Constitutional form of government? I doubt it, for he had also prophesied elsewhere that our Constitution would be preserved, even though it would be endangered in the future. If we take his words to mean that the ruling powers in the country at the time would be overthrown, then that part of the prophecy has been fulfilled, as Woody Brison notes (personal communication, Nov. 1997):
You have documented nicely the fulfilment of the part about Stephen A. Douglas, but what about the part about the government? . . . [I]t turns out this prophecy also was fulfilled. “The government” at that time was essentially identical to the Whig party, which was totally vanquished in the elections of the 1850’s and 60’s and ceased to exist about that time.
Or, how about this nugget:
“The Latter-day Saints had good reason perhaps to like Abraham Lincoln even before he, as President, enacted his three-word policy of ‘Let them alone.’ In a rebuttal to a previous speech by Stephen A. Douglas, who appeared to support the extension of slavery under the guise of popular sovereignty, Lincoln addressed a large crowd in Springfield, Illinois in 1857. ‘There is nothing,’ he said, ‘in the United States Constitution or law against polygamy; and why is it not a part of the Judge’s ‘sacred right of self-government’ for that people to have it, or rather to keep it, if they choose?’ This did not mean Lincoln supported polygamy but merely that if popular sovereignty was desirable, the people in Utah should decide the issue.”
Source: http://www.aml-online.org/reviews/b/B200323.html
And a couple of other interesting quotes:
“The Bible is not my book, and Christianity is not my religion. I could never give assent to the long, complicated statements of Christian dogma.”
-Abraham Lincoln
Source: http://www.quotedb.com/quotes/2140
“When I do good, I feel good. When I do bad, I feel bad. That’s my religion.”
-Abraham Linoln
Source: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/a/abrahamlin106095.html
Oh, and just while we’re on the topic of well-respected heretics, here’s a little something to tickle the ecclesiastical parochialists in the crowd:
“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”
-Mahatma Gandhi
Source: http://www.quotedb.com/quotes/1905
Riddle me this Batman?
Out of all the books to read, why did Lincoln choose to read the Book of Mormon for inspiration during the height of the Civil War? The largest crisis of our nation and the President of the United States is reading the Book of Mormon for inspiration? Huh? Why? I guess he must have been a Mormon.
Mmm... So perhaps Romney’s out of luck in that particular “first” category, just as Clinton stole the prospective title for our friend Senator Obama.
“I wonder what the survivors of the Fancher party thought of Mormons.”
I saw this months ago and never forgot it.
—
I grew up hearing about the Massacre at Mountain Meadows from age four on. It was an expected topic at every Thanksgiving, Easter, Valentine\’s Day, summer potluck, fall harvest, winter hearth fire, and spring fling. My six siblings and I, along with a pack of cousins, drew straws for who would have to stay and listen while the others snuck off to play. We were drilled with the details so we would never forget. But then, I\’m a Fancher descendant with blood ties to 29 of the massacre victims. My grandfather (who held court) grew up in Arkansas with memories of the aging surviving children. His life has been a quest to resolve the dispute of blame and extract an open apology from the Mormon Church.
My generation has wrestled with the question of respecting the dead, who can not rest peacefully under a banner of truth until the church admits to an orchestrated crime and cover up; while at the same time wanting to have a life and devote ourselves to our own families and future. We wanted to play soccer, ride horses, eat ice cream, fall in love, get married, and snuggle our babies. I grew up frustrated that the issues of the dead stole joy from the living, and frustrated that a church that claimed to seek and share the truth couldn\’t just TELL THE TRUTH, however ugly, and let the little bird that told it fly us all to freedom from the shadow of evil.
I was in New York (age 30) during 911. I served at Ground Zero for six weeks and my perspective about my grandfather shifted. I was separated from my close net family (living on the West Coast) by a huge gulf, in that; they thought they knew what I knew because they \”saw it on the news.\” I was often speechless to explain but driven to try. They could not know. I went to places no cameras dared desecrate. I breathed in the very dust of the people we were looking for, and felt the horror of guilt when I coughed them up again in blackened spittle.
Then I began to better understand my grandfather. He heard first hand testimony from surviving victims, as I did. I now shared his burden to help others to know and to remember. I also realized how impossible it would have been for Americans to get past this event and heal from 911, if a lone pilot had been blamed and Osama bin Laden built a University of higher moral education. And how would any of us move on if the very earth at Ground Zero were owned by followers of bin Laden? How would we ever get closure?
When Hinkley stated at the memorial service in 1999, \”\”That which we have done here must never be construed as an acknowledgment of the part of the church of any complicity in the occurrences of that fateful day,\” my heart sank. Better described here in a clip of my PBS interview http://www.pbs.org/mormons/view/extra.html
Why is it so hard to own this one??? There is too much evidence that points to compounded cover ups. I used to be frustrated at a historical church. But this issue remains because the follow on years have not produced a leader strong enough to stand up and be publicly repugnated by that which is repugnant for fear the stench will stick if openly named.
Dallin Oaks\’ quote, at the end of the above PBS bonus video, offered the strongest apology and ownership I\’ve read, heard, or seen anywhere from a church official. He disarmed me. If more Mormons, including Hinkley, approached the topic in that tone, what would be left to be angry about? Nothing. If Mountain Meadows was surrendered by the church to be a National Monument in Federal Trust as the descendants continue to request, this history would fade into a teaching topic like so many other human events that have no direct hold over us because they are past.
The issue of Mountain Meadows persists for lack of Mormon humility and humanity. After reading this blog page, I found this group of writers does not strike me as the kind of people who glory in that perception so I thought I would pass my thoughts along.
I\’ll also leave some links for those who, like Jaynee, want to ponder the outsider takes in search for the truth. These sites also have original memoirs and findings as well as some reference material for Ardis and others looking for info on the blood atonement.
I think so much can be done in this generation to bring a rest to this divide and I glimpsed this in your sincere thread. I was most encouraged by #106 as I feared the members were still caught in evil monkey hands (hear no/see no/speak no) Until now, I\’ve had an unchallenged perception that Mormons do not know about, or do not want to talk about MMM, and they certainly will not admit anything was amiss save for a kooky JDL. Mike\’s conspiracy theory #107 gave me a hearty laugh, and we know that does a heart good!
http://www.timesandseasons.org/?p=3840#comments
Good post, JRochelle. Thanks.
I think members who take the time to learn the facts about MMM are quite sympathetic, and ashamed, as am I, that fellow members of the faith are capable of such despicable acts. It’s humbling to say the least. Do I personally feel the need to apologize? No, just as I feel no need to pay for slavery reparations. Does the LDS Church as an institution bear some responsibility for instigating the act? According to the evidence I’ve seen, that doesn’t appear to be the case, although I can see the argument to be made for a more intensive investigation and punishment for the act by the LDS Church. I don’t know why this didn’t occur; perhaps the LDS Church does owe an apology for this. This may have been a motivating factor behind the memorial mentioned in the video, I don’t know; it concerns me that some people aren’t willing to be satisfied, though, until the LDS Church apologizes for acts which, I believe, it did not commit. If this is the case, they will, sadly, never be satisfied.
It seems to me that, like so many injustices, the events are past and gone, and best left there. That doesn’t mean that wrongs weren’t committed, and we should certainly learn what we can from them and see to it that such an event is never repeated. It should never be excused; and I hope that the old wounds can heal soon.
It is equally tragic that some have seen fit to let this wound canker their own lives. Christ did teach forgiveness in addition to repentance.
Perhaps September Dawn will be the “jolt” that everybody needs to fully confront the issue and place it behind us for good. We can only hope.
Actually there are 2:
Question one: Where is the SCRIPTURAL authority to do what they do in the Temple.
Question two: Where is the SCRIPTURAL authority to keep secret what they do in the Temple.
Ok then...
I wish the criticism of our beliefs had substance, but they hardly do.
One hardly NEEDS substance when dealing with statements like the above!
Translation:
| "When you have eliminated the impossible, what is left, no matter how unlikely, is the truth." |
"But there are always some lunatics about. It would be a dull world without them."
"I see no more than you, but I have trained myself to notice what I see."
-- Sherlock Holmes/Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
Today; most of us believe the TRUTH spread about the LDS organization.
Answer QUICKLY!
Before we get shoved into the RELIGION area, where we'll NOT be able to attribute MOTIVES any more!
I'll bet that only applies to LIVING people!
But...
...is their RELIGION true??
And just imagine what attitude is displayed when a person says, "Yes".
No, I saw it; but it's just the TIME DELAY between all of our posts.
If we wuz all in a big room together, talking, I know we'd understand each other better and get along much better; too! ;^)
It seems that the Mormons will attack even Abraham Lincoln in order to make themselves appear legitimate.
It shows that little is sacred to them exept what they eat, what they wear, and what they do in secret.
I don't think so.
An answered prayer is an answer to prayer.
A revelation is something out of the blue that you where not expecting.
I'd have a problem with a document where they said GOD told them it was so!
Which Mormon publication gave you this information?
Why should we believe it?
Especially the things we do in the Temple!!
--MormonDude(it's in the Books; ain't it??)
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.