Posted on 12/27/2006 3:30:51 AM PST by Utah Girl
My heart sank when I first received the call. It was from a very swish public relations firm - Edelman - and it was an offer of help.
It is a general rule in journalism that people who want to speak to you tend to be uninteresting.
When they make their offer through a highly paid middleman they tend to be uninteresting on stilts - or else making a case of dubious merit: that the arms trade is good for humanity, or first class airfares are too cheap.
But on this occasion I was in for a surprise. Edelman provided an insight into a world about which I knew nothing and which I now believe is of huge importance for the future of the United States.
The PR firm wanted to send round a couple of representatives of the Church of the Latter Day Saints - the Mormons.
Just a chat you understand, nothing more.
Hot drink dilemma
I gave them 10 minutes on a Monday morning and promptly forgot all about it until two middle-aged men in grey suits - Michael and Ken - turned up at our office reception.
I offered them coffee and began a learning process.
You may already know that Mormons do not drink coffee or alcohol but what you might not know is that their religious ban is on "hot drinks".
And that cocoa has been decreed "not hot". And, furthermore, that Coke and Pepsi and the like exist at the moment in a doctrinal grey area.
All these things I learned that morning.
But as 10 minutes became half an hour and an hour and more, I made a much more profound discovery about this faith: that its adherents are bright and intellectually open, and have a sense of humour, of humanity, that is sadly lacking in other strands of American religious life.
Forget for a moment the old stereotype of the Mormon in rural Utah - the multiple wives - of which the Church has not approved for 100 years.
Mormons are social conservatives - hugely keen on the promotion of family life.
They believe your family group stays with you for eternity - not necessarily a comforting thought by the end of this Christmas season.
A different attitude
But here is a big difference between Mormons and other American evangelists - Mormons do not feel threatened by science.
They are not enemies of the rational world - they are not creationists.
And on human conduct they tend to stress setting personal examples rather than getting the state to enforce religious rules.
Why does this matter? Because of a man with a matinee idol's chiselled jaw and a bank balance the size of the tallest mountain in Utah.
A man named Mitt Romney who is a Mormon and who will declare next month that he is running for president.
A man who will present the Republican Party - his party - with a dilemma next year. Put simply: Are the Mormons too strange for prime time?
Or, put another way: Is the Republican party too bigoted to select a Mormon as its presidential candidate?
Until recently I would have said it probably was. But what I have learned about Mormons and what seems to be happening in America, leads me to wonder whether their time has come.
Cafes beware
This nation is still dominated by the mainstream sects of the Christian faith but faith-based politics is out of favour.
President Bush famously and hubristically told an interviewer that before invading Iraq he consulted not his own Dad, but a higher Father.
That does not turn out to have been terribly wise. And here is where Mitt Romney's Mormons fit into the new landscape. The Church does not involve itself in politics.
Membership gives no clue as to voting intention.
Mitt Romney happens to be setting out his stall as a rightwing Republican but I met a prominent Mormon the other day - a professor at an Ivy League University - who said she would never vote for Mitt Romney although she attends the same Mormon temple and believes in the same Mormon faith.
Many Americans - emerging from the dark days of faith-based politics - find this very healthy.
The book of Mormon - an addition to the Bible which arrived in tablets of gold in upstate New York in the nineteenth century, says Jesus will return and set up his Kingdom in Jackson County, Missouri, where you will be surprised to learn the Garden of Eden was once located.
I am not suggesting a US Second Coming is imminent and there are plenty of Americans who will continue to resist the theological eccentricities of this Church.
However, I would be tempted to sell my Starbucks shares if I had any - 2007 will not be the Year of the Hot Drink in a nation where Mormons are on the rise.
True. Every man considers all religions other than his own as cults.
No, a cult is something different from a religion as an offshoot, as in there are cults associated with probably every religion.
Qualifications for Office
I've avoided your insistence in dwelling upon Article VI (what you believe to be the crux of this issue) for the same reason that I'm not the type to call out "plummer's crack" when it occurs in my presence.
You're sadly confused. The word in Article VI is "qualifications." And you know what? I've got news for you: Every person on the ballot, and even most write-in candidates, have proper "qualifications" to not be excluded from office consideration (based upon religious grounds).
Wow! What an "eye-opening" point you keep making: You keep telling us that every person on the ballot, along w/millions of others, have the qualifications to be considered president and should not be excluded outright from a ballot because of the religion they hold!
Okay. We concede. Yes, millions of folks have the proper "qualifications" and none have an "R.I." for "Religious Ineligibility" tattooed on their forehead.
You see, your confusion lies in the fact that "qualifications" is tantamount to eligibility. We all already agree that Romney and a host of other candidates are properly eligible and not religiously ineligible. You keep focusing on qualifications; I keep focusing on what voters base their votes on in the "real world": Qualities
I'm sorry to disappoint you. But Article VI says absolutely nothing...nada...zero...about how voters must weigh--or not weigh--the qualities of a candidate...No matter how hard you try, nowhere does Article VI say that voters must 100% disregard character, beliefs, other-dimensionly commitments, and spiritual discernment.
"Qualifications" have to do with what gets a man on a ballot. "Qualities" has to do with who gets elected. Therefore, can we lay Article VI to rest now?
Wolfstar: The reality of a different political point of view from your own. Get used to it. It's only been going on since the dawn of civilization. Or don't you believe in free elections and the freedom to hold and espouse political viewpoints different from your own?
The question I asked above was not directed to you as would be obvious from its context. Your reply indicates it might have been appropriate to question what reality you perceive since it is so out of kilter.
You stated that most voters had a better grip on reality than Colofornia. I simply posted that most voters voted for Algore. Having nothing whatsoever to do with my views on freedom or free elections I think I demonstrated quite ably that most voters have no grip on reality.
Romney is barely to the right of Ted Kennedy(barely)..
Why not a Mormon President and a Scientologist VeeP?..
Say........ Vinny Barbarosa..
Can you think of any religion that is not composed entirely of offshoots of the original? More to the point; is there any sect of any religion that does not consider every other sect of it a cult?
LOL Let me be the first to say "up your nose with a rubber hose...pipe." Heh heh.
With a question such as what follows, I believe further discussion on the topic is useless: "Can you think of any religion that is not composed entirely of offshoots of the original?" I'm too tired to spend time trying to unravel such a convolluted query. Have a nice evening ... Cal beat the Aggies.
Yeah, the audacity of some folks, like that Jesus of the Bible character, somehow thinking he had a lock, a monopoly on that name, "Christ." [For then there will be great distress, unequaled from the beginnjing of the world until now--and never to be equaled again...At that time if anyone says to you, 'Look, here is the Christ!' or,'There he is!' do not believe it. For false Christs and false prophets will appear...to deceive even the elect...See, I have told you ahead of time." (Matthew 24:21, 23-25)].
I guess you could conclude how narrow-minded it was for one man to deem all other Christ titles other than his own as false ones. I don't.
Surely the commercial world alone has taught us that counterfeits are created to masquerade as the "real thing"...Your conclusion implies that we are to either conclude that all such similar products are the "real thing" and that the authentic, genuine original has no right to label the others for what they truly are.
That is an interesting view of religion as a whole. I wasn't trying to define either religion or cult though. Just pointing out that almost everyone considers everything other than their own core group as apostate at best and not-at-all or never-was at worst. That is the reality of human bias.
...or the reader can simply go to www.mormon.org or www.lds.org to actually see for themselves. Ask a Chevy dealer if you should buy the Ford F-150. Go to the source and get the straight scoop. Like I always say, if people would just live their own religion and let others live theirs, the world would be a better place. It's a sign of a deep obsession and insecurity that sectarian Christians can't leave Mormons alone.
Not even close. See post #111.
Sorry to twist your mind so. It was a simple question. FWIW I don't follow sports.
"It's a sign of a deep obsession and insecurity that sectarian Christians can't leave Mormons alone." Don't step into the trough from whence this off the mark discussion is generated.
We've always gotten along quite well so I don't want to promote a continuing fight between us but after being accused of posing a convoluted question I have to point out how confusing the above sentence is. A lot has to be guessed at ie grammar, syntax etc. in order to finally assume what it is you meant and then reply to it.
I gave you that benefit of the doubt.
I happen to be an adherent of that old and ancient cult called Roman Catholics. Prior to the imprimatur of Constantine we were a dangerous and pernicious cult ( and to some we still are).
As an aside I 'm coming to believe that the very words Christian, Muslim and Jew are beginning to have more political and geopolitical meaning than spiritual meaning. In a sense a kind of philosophical rallying point prior to the initiation of conflict.It becomes even more ironic in that all three faiths arise as the God of Abraham.
Well said. To me, it does not matter what his religion is or what god he prays to. As far as I am concerned, he could have only prayed to the 'porcelain god' a few times in his life (everyone does at least once or twice!).
As long as he can promote and advance the conservative agenda, thats all that matters to me. I don't think he will be able to do it. He may be a little conservative on 2 or 3 social issues. However, he is more of a moderate to slightly liberal more than anythign else.
Yes, but that doesn't negate that some really are genuine; some really are apostate; and some have never been in either camp.
I don't think there is anything new in that. Most religions have been the rallying and/or focal points of human conflicts for ages. Islam is the only one I know of that holds a doctrinal and foundational basis for it though. Apart from the conflict that Islam brings to the world I would say that conflict is far less centered on religious differences now than at any previous time in history however.
Taking the Islamic problem out of it what other major conflicts are fueled by religious differences today?
IMNHO ego is the underlying cause of all conflict whether it manifests around spiritual beliefs or outright greed for power and wealth.
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.