Posted on 06/12/2011 5:01:54 PM PDT by Colofornian
As can be expected from a book published by Greg Kofford, Craig L. Foster’s A Different God? is well researched and engaging. This book begins by examining the rise of the religious right and the power it exerts on the current political landscape. Foster presents a good deal of information that most Latter-day Saints will not be well acquainted with, such as the difference between evangelical and fundamentalist Christians, the emergence of the charismatic movement, the rise and fall of the Moral Majority, and the subsequent establishment of the Christian Coalition. This background is particularly pertinent to the majority of Mormons in the western United States who align themselves with the Republican Party.
Foster also gives a concise but surprisingly comprehensive summary of the political history of the Latter-day Saints. Because official Church curriculum does not address in detail the period from about 1850 until World War II or even later, most Mormons are rather uneducated regarding their political past, particularly the theocratic era that prevailed until the Edmunds–Tucker Act precipitated several changes, including the Manifesto in 1890 and the disbanding of the People’s Party in 1891. The fact that most Mormons at the time gravitated toward the Democratic Party might surprise some of their modern descendents.
While Foster, an ardent Romney supporter, is admirably objective about the many weaknesses that undermined Mitt Romney’s run for the Republican presidential nomination, his thesis in this book is that these flaws could have been overcome if not for a larger issue that eventually doomed the Romney campaign: the Mormon Question. This book apparently went to press after John McCain had secured his party’s nomination but before he had selected his running mate, but it still has validity far beyond the 2008 presidential primaries. His thorough examination of the strong anti-Mormon sentiment that still seethes in America, especially among the religious right, will be relevant if Romney runs again in 2012 or if any other Latter-day Saint takes aim at the presidency in a future election.
Even though Foster doesn’t quite arrive at this particular destination, the sobering conclusion that his presentation inevitably yields is that if a Mormon is to be elected United States president in the foreseeable future, he or she may have to run as a moderate Republican or, perhaps even more realistically, as a moderate Democrat.
“Then you are almost a MORMON”
Or almost a Buddhist, or a Unitarian, or a Presbyterian for that matter.
(I love the way you capitalize “MORMON.” Your contempt just drips from the screen.)
“They never can provide proof of their accusation, but they sure are quick to level the charge.”
Our prima facie case is obvious to anyone browsing these threads.
Just because you aren't a Christian why are you attacking Christians who are following what God told them to do?
No doubt many of them would not vote for Romney were he a Baptist. But I also suspect a good many would not have voted for Reagan had he been Mormon.It depends on how Reagan's Mormonism (had he been one) manifested itself. If it was like Beck's Mormonism, I would have voted for Reagan, even had he been Mormon.
I will not vote for Romney under any circumstances and though it has NOTHING to do with his Mormonism I will say this:
The Mormon religion is so freaking weird that it is an election killer on the national scale. We will see that if Willard gets the Republican nomination and we would have seen that in 1980 if a nominated Ronald Reagan had been Mormon.
I and others might be able to "get past" a good conservative (like Beck) being Mormon, but the American public won't be able to, especially once the press starts detailing the weirdness of Mormonism if Romney (not a conservative of any kind, a liberal leftist, in fact) gets the nomination.
You wait.
During the primary season the media will be all sweetness and light to Romney. Once he's nominated, you wait... you wait to see the things that will "surface" about Mormonism.
Irrefutable things, by the way.
You have no examples of your claims, do you?
You can count on the mormon PR machine to be jumping out in front to take credit for anything noteworthy even though they take care of their own first in any disaster.
The problem, dear, is that a goodly number of the posts on this thread and hundreds of others bear out my point.
Some at FR WILL NOT vote for any Mormon, regardless of his record and position on other issues.
This is, BTW, their absolute right, and I won't say they're wrong for holding this position.
I do think it is odd for others to claim nobody holds this position, in defiance of the massive evidence available to the contrary on FR.
What claims have I made? (Let’s see if you’ve really been paying attention.)
You actually believe all this stuff and you believe it’s necessary to keep attacking a group of people who are generally good, honest, etc.
Reading the mind of another is against the FR Religion forum rules. You may be ignorant of the rule, so we'll let it stand here to convict you.
Just because you aren't a Christian why are you attacking Christians who are following what God told them to do?
I do it because I feel it's wrong to remain silent when others launch attacks against people of different faiths, when they claim to be the only true Christians, or when they start tossing around words like "heresy." I also do it because I can.
See post 89.
Good for you....but Christians are wise for following the words of Jesus and not yours.
Bogus nothing. Referring to “The Mormon Question” is just this side of Nazism. That’s no “claim”, that’s a fact.
Take the Mormon hatred someplace else.
The article brought up “The Mormon Question” - not the OP....are you suggesting that BYU is anti-mormon because of this article?
Why? Because that's "heretical" to your convictions?
If so, nice self-refutation you gave us.
“Why? Because that’s “heretical” to your convictions? “
That’s so lame...made me laugh, though!
My claim in post 89 is self evident from the material that the Mormo-phobes keep posting. Those who read the threads are already familiar with it. No need for me to re-post.
Oh, sweetie did you not realize this article is from BYU?
You have no example, nuff said.
If someone presents a viewpoint that is contary to truth, are you suggesting that noone should challenge the contrary viewpoint?
Do you follow the same philosphy when it comes to political discussions (i.e., noone should counter liberal’s lying statements)?
Do you consider yourself the arbitrator of truth? How are the rest of us supposed to know when it’s proper, in your mind, for us to engage in debates?
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.