Posted on 11/30/2009 6:01:03 PM PST by delacoert
I’ll just leave this here…
Before a defense of any kind of religious discrimination, one ought to make all of the necessary disclaimers: of course I oppose government-sponsored discrimination, and I certainly would not support the kind of absurd treatment described by Steven Reinhart in his piece featured below. That being said, there is a legitimate case to be made for judging any candidate for office by his religious convictions.
In late 2007, Mitt Romney made his somewhat-famous speech on religion, where he spoke the following words:
“Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom. Freedom opens the windows of the soul so that man can discover his most profound beliefs and commune with God. Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone.”
Similarly, Romney has stated: “I believe in my Mormon faith and I endeavor to live by it…my faith is the faith of my fathers. I will be true to them and to my beliefs.”
If freedom requires religion, if his Mormon faith sustains his life and he will be true to those practices, then I’m at an utter loss as to why we should ignore Romney’s religious beliefs when evaluating his fitness for the White House.
We ask plenty of questions of any Evangelical Christian candidate: what do his beliefs about the nature of God, the nature of the cosmos, and the meaning of man’s life mean for his potential tenure in office? But for whatever reason, these questions are looked at as unnecessarily piercing and prejudiced when asked of a member of a minority faith.
When Sarah Palin gave her fumbling answer about Israel’s settlements, several commentators jumped on her faith, wondering whether she subscribed to the bizarre but potent sect of modern Christianity that believes in the imminence of the End Times. Will anyone ask Mitt Romney about the oddities of the dogma of the Mormon Church? There are plenty of Mormon doctrines that may strike people as a bit odd — and rightly so. It is established in the church that the devout can reach the upper echelons of heaven and eventually become gods themselves, able to create their own universes and govern them as they see fit (all while supervised by the One True God). Why is it that when I bring this up to Romney fans, I am dismissed as a bigot?
As an atheist, I both understand and accept that in a predominantly Christian society, my thoughts on religion are necessarily going to open me up to questions. If I were to ever run for office (don’t count on that, by the way), I would not expect my supporters would try to ward off any questions about my atheism with the victim-card of discrimination. One’s philosophy of religion contributes profoundly to his worldview and thus is a completely valid criterion by which to partially evaluate a candidate’s fitness for office.
I view all religions as equally bizarre and irrational. But mainstream Christianity is often adopted as a cultural guise, meant for purposes of assimilation with the majority. Probe most self-described Christians and you’ll find plenty of deviation from standard dogma. Devotion to Mormonism, which is completely outside of the American mainstream, requires a certain level of commitment. To what extent will Romney’s faith influence his decision-making? I ask that question of devoted Evangelicals and judge them accordingly, and I will do the same of a Mormon. And I am not going to apologize for that.
We have little to argue about then, though I don’t think I’ve misrepresented anything.
Most people don’t know how the political system works, because they are not really interested and are not in the field. Rush got us interested in this and taught us. That’s all I’m saying.
Hoist upon their own petard...
Funny that.
Then WHY did he say their denomination was UNTRUE?
That’s an inaccurate generalization.
- - - - - - -
No, it is an exact quote from LDS Scriptures as contained in the Pearl of great Price (JS History 1:20):
I then said to my mother, “I have learned for myself that Presbyterianism is not true.”
You are forgetting one thing.. WE ELECT COMMANDER IN CHIEF!! NOT PASTOR IN CHIEF!!
How in the heck are Mormonism is a greater threat than Islam???
There is much (even most?) of what Christian sects teach that is good and true. We believe and teach that fact adamantly.
- - - - - - -
Since when?!?! When I was LDS I was taught in Sunday School, Sacrament meetings, at BYU, and at Conferences that we were to pity “gentiles” because they “drew near to God with their lips, but their hearts were far from Him” and that WE (the LDS) were the only TRUE Christians.
I’m detecting more spin control from the LDS side.
Reach exceeds grasp, the mental version.
However when one challenges me as you did in your post the questioned my knowledge of history, I am not going to meekly slink away, especially when the truth is quite the opposite.
All evidence to the contrary on humility, but you have yet to explain how your objective truth is quite opposite from what I've stated.
...ya well Shaw was a communist and a supporter of Stalin, so what does he know.
1. The point is that your statement that Joseph Smith HATED Presbyterians is completely false.
2. Presbyterians or otherwise. He taught that their creeds and many of their doctrines were wrong.
___________________________________________________
Since I wasnt the one who said that Joseph Smith HATED Presbyterians..
Although it seems he did..
And since I earlier asked you about your number 2 comment, and got no straight answer..
I will ask you again..
1. And he would have known that how ???
2. What was it that was wrong ???
We believe good Christians are deceived and astray, not evil and damned for eternity.
- - - - - -
Nice try, but only because the Mormons teach that there is a second chance to accept the Mormon Gospel after death. That and the Mormons don’t HAVE a hell, only “outer darkness” for “sons of perdition”.
However, it is taught that ONLY good Temple attending Mormons can get to the Celestial Kingdom (which is really Heaven, the presence of God), the rest of us are “damned” to a lower kingdom without the Presence of God the Father.
When i was LDS I wasn’t taught to HATE “gentiles” just feel sorry for them because the LDS had ALL truth and authority.
my work here is done
________________________________________
Kid works wont get you anywhere
For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast. Ephesians 2:8, 9
Mormonsim poses no threat to my faith, it does however pose a serious threat to the souls of those who are “lied into the LDS church”.
Smith didn't write out the "official first vision" account we're citing -- the one that uses terms "professors," "corrupt," "abomination," "creeds" until 1838...around 18 years after it happened. Even the earlier handwritten diary versions don't have these words.
So, TChris, we need to go by historical context -- not by after-thought "smoothies" by 20th century Lds commentators. So what we've referenced is the official 1838 version of Smith's "first vision." In comparison, we need to judge how Smith utilized the word "professors" in that same era -- not how contemporary Mormons "equate" (or don't equate) -- cause we all know individual Mormons may individually reject all kinds of things taught by their leaders.
Let's look at Joseph Smith, 1842, shall we? Smith was conveying a story he heard indirectly -- from a Christian, Mr. James Mullone of Springfield, via Mr. Sollars. Mr. Mullone apparently claimed that Smith told him he got a gray horse from a white cloud, and Smith then concluded: "This is a fair specimen of the ten thousand foolish lies circulated by this generation to bring the truth and its advocates into disrepute. What is it that inspires PROFESSORS OF CHRISTIANITY generally with a hope of salvation? It is that smooth, sophisticated influence of the devil, by which he deceives the whole world" (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p.270).
OK, who in context is Joseph Smith talking about? Credentialed religious teachers? (No. Smith doesn't say, "Rev. Mullone" or "Pastor Mullone" or "Priest Malone" or even identify Mullone as a Christian lay leader). Instead, what are the two clues Smith gives us in context as to who Mr. Mullone represents?
(a) "this generation"
(b) whoever "generally...[has] a hope of salvation." TChris:
Are you trying to make the case that only "pastors" and "priests" represent the "this generation" referenced by Smith?
So who is contextually out of sync, you or me? The context makes it obvious. Pastors & priests aren't the only ones "hoping" for salvation, grassroots Christians are the ones doing that! So when Smith uses the word "professors," he's not only talking about some obscure pulpit preacher-professor at some backwoods Christian campus from early in the 19th century.
Again, what's Smith broader view of Christian people? When asked 'Will everybody be damned, but Mormons'? [Smith replied] 'Yes, and a great portion of them, unless they repent, and work righteousness." (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 119).
Nope; it was a PERSONAGE - NOT the LORD.
___________________________________________
It was a personage and the son of the personage..
Mother and son ???
and how did Joey know that the whatever wanted to be known for the next 170 years as a personage ???
personally I would be offended ..
How bout you Elsie ???
Islam never pretends to be Christianity. Mormonism does.
A mole can be a greater threat than a potential terrorist who might be given away by their passport history -- and even their name.
And, of course, this is all relative -- relative to the person being preyed upon by Lds missionaries. The Mormon is thereby the threat to that particular potential convert.
But you need to have an eternal perspective on things to understand this.
...it’s your med time.
Your ego meet its match did it then ???
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.