Posted on 07/09/2011 6:52:15 PM PDT by T.L.Sink
Polls show there's an anti-Mormon bias among voters - especially Democrats, more than a quarter of whom say they wouldn't vote for a Mormon. But this video of a Memphis Fox affiliate ridiculing Mitt Romney about his religion is a real wake-up call [video]. The whole news segment appears to be about Mormonism and the 2012 election, but skip ahead to the 3:20 mark for the worst of it [video].
(Excerpt) Read more at commentarymagazine.com ...
I don’t know what that rambling post was supposed to be about either.
Why do you think that the United States needs Mormon assistance to defeat Islamic enemies, and why do you think that they would withhold that help, and what kind of help are you meaning anyway?
why pick on his religion, when his politics are so lame?
Could it be worse than being the founder of RomneyCare?
Please see my post #136. By the way, there isn’t a religious belief in the world that some other religion or religious faction won’t deem “heretical” or worse. The LDS church long ago removed all elements (like polygamy, repudiated a century ago) that threatened social stability. It may be a cult but it’s a harmless cult today. To impugn the patriotism or sincerity of a Mormon on the basis of his religious beliefs, rather that his politics, is to go back to the days when many said that a Roman Catholic shouldn’t be president because his loyalty to America would conflict with a loyalty to Rome. We shouldn’t promote religious intolerance but examine a person’s past record and his views on the subject.
As a descendent of polygamous Mormons during the time period I'm about to reference, your ignorance is showing.
But read B. Carmon Hardy's appendix of his book, Solemn Covenant: The Mormon Polygamous Passage, and you'll be enlightened. Hardy, too, is a descendent from Mormon polygamists.
In the appendix, Hardy documents about 260 additional plural marriages that Mormon leadership secretly solemnized between 1890 and 1910-- the direct period AFTER the "manifesto" which was suppose to have halted "new" plural marriages.
Often, the newlyweds would either have it done in Mexico, or head there for a "honeymoon" period.
Even Lds "prophets" took on additional wives during those years...True also of Lds voted-in Congressman like Democrat B.H. Roberts, who wasn't seated by Congress in 1898 due to his 1893 or 1894 additional (third) wife that came after the manifesto...
Mormon leadership finally began trying to calm things down in the early 1900s...but...
#1...didn't break up most already-existed or recently-added polygamous arrangements;
#2...continued to teach that polygamy was forever as Mormons believe marriage is forever.
#3...taught that the Mormon jesus would re-institute polygamy when he returned (Lds "apostle" Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine book, p. 578, 1966)
For some folks, that's exactly the goal. [rashputin]
Are we into judging religious posters on FR now? For some folks, that's exactly the goal. [Now...would another poster do a comeback reply to me, quote this quote at me, and we could start a chain e-reply that won't ever end 'cause it would just be a series of moral & intellectual judgments made by posters trying to pretend they are NOT making moral & intellectual judgments!]
Sorry, Rashputin, but judging else about someone perceived as judging someone else is still judging someone else! [That's called a "self-refuting" statement; and you have disqualified yourself in such an argument by making it]
Pride cometh before a fall and for sixty years the crowd that beats their chests and brags about what fine Christians they are have been falling flat on their faces but still can't figure it out. Christ said to be as wise as serpents and as harmless as doves, not to be as cute as a skunk and to spray the stench of personal pride and self-rightousness on everyone you encounter.
Well, that sure came from a lofty moral position. (Be careful; doesn't look like there are railings surrounding that high platform you just took to make such a statement!)
Any way they can, they make use of the fact that a significant number of conservatives are more likely to refuse to vote for specific sorts of fellow Christians...
Are you claiming that Mormons are "fellow Christians?" Or am I misreading this comment of yours?
Did you know that the official doctrine of the Mormon church -- found in Doctrine & Covenants 1:30 -- is that the Mormon church is the "ONLY true and living church on the face of the earth"???
Did you know that official Mormon doctrine is that all Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox Christian churches are all "apostate?" (How is that any different than Muslims who label Christians as "infidels?")
Mormons love the brand name "Christian" -- so on the surface it at times sound like they want a "kum ba yah" let's-all-hug moment...but officially in their doctrines & "scriptures" label historic Christian churches and their bodies and creeds in the worst ways.
If a Mormon regularly visits a Christian church, they are at risk of ex-communication. They claim ONLY temple Mormons will live with Heavenly Father forever. Does that sound like "we're all one big happy family" to you?
Excellent analysis ansel of rashputin's lack of discernment.
Some people would hold the truth from the Bible hostage to any scramble for a few political votes possible!
It's called mercenary politics.
It sure does!
And it gets REVEALED, too!
And REBUKED, and EXPOSED, and shown for what it is.
Are you supposed to JUDGE teachings?
How would ANYONE know correct theology from false if they do not JUDGE using some standard?
EVERY Saturday night NBC 'mocks' them ALL, to varying degrees, on SNL.
Last night's repeat reached more people than this 'news' program we are discussing ever did!
To paraphrase a well known adage:
Those who do not LEARN from history; will be lied to by those who want to change it.
DAMN them Muslims for killing 3,000 of our citizens!
Unless something major happens; we'll get another one.
They served up McCain; didn't they?
And the NAtional leadership doesn't appear to have changed any.
Spin...
Spin...
Spin...
Spin...
I see you stayed up later than I last night, responding to folks.
Well; double postings (thought wise) won’t hurt.
No one expects the Inquisition; either!
No one expected the 2010 elections...
"Now the way he translated was he put the urim and thummim into his hat and Darkned his Eyes than he would take a sentance and it would apper in Brite Roman Letters. Then he would tell the writer and he would write it. Then that would go away the next sentance would Come and so on. But if it was not Spelt rite it would not go away till it was rite, so we see it was marvelous. Thus was the hol [whole] translated."---Joseph Knight's journal.
"In writing for your father I frequently wrote day after day, often sitting at the table close by him, he sitting with his face buried in his hat, with the stone in it, and dictating hour after hour with nothing between us."
(History of the RLDS Church, 8 vols.(Independence, Missouri: Herald House,1951),"Last Testimony of Sister Emma [Smith Bidamon]," 3:356.
"I, as well as all of my father's family, Smith's wife, Oliver Cowdery and Martin Harris, were present during the translation. . . . He [Joseph Smith] did not use the plates in translation."
---(David Whitmer,as published in the "Kansas City Journal," June 5, 1881,and reprinted in the RLDS "Journal of History", vol. 8, (1910), pp. 299-300.
In an 1885 interview, Zenas H. Gurley, then the editor of the RLDS Saints Herald, asked Whitmer if Joseph had used his "Peep stone" to do the translation. Whitmer replied:
"... he used a stone called a "Seers stone," the "Interpreters" having been taken away from him because of transgression. The "Interpreters" were taken from Joseph after he allowed Martin Harris to carry away the 116 pages of Ms [manuscript] of the Book of Mormon as a punishment, but he was allowed to go on and translate by use of a "Seers stone" which he had, and which he placed in a hat into which he buried his face, stating to me and others that the original character appeared upon parchment and under it the translation in English."
"Martin Harris related an incident that occurred during the time that he wrote that portion of the translation of the Book of Mormon which he was favored to write direct from the mouth of the Prophet Joseph Smith. He said that the Prophet possessed a seer stone, by which he was enabled to translate as well as from the Urim and Thummim, and for convenience he then used the seer stone, Martin explained the translation as follows: By aid of the seer stone, sentences would appear and were read by the Prophet and written by Martin and when finished he would say 'Written,' and if correctly written that sentence would disappear and another appear in its place, but if not written correctly it remained until corrected, so that the translation was just as it was engraven on the plates, precisely in the language then used."
(Edward Stevenson, "One of the Three Witnesses,"reprinted from Deseret News, 30 Nov. 1881in Millennial Star, 44 (6 Feb. 1882): 86-87.)
In 1879, Michael Morse, Emma Smith's brother-in-law, stated:"When Joseph was translating the Book of Mormon [I] had occasion more than once to go into his immediate presence, and saw him engaged at his work of translation. The mode of procedure consisted in Joseph's placing the Seer Stone in the crown of a hat, then putting his face into the hat, so as to entirely cover his face, resting his elbows upon his knees, and then dictating word after word, while the scribes Emma, John Whitmer, O. Cowdery, or some other wrote it down."
(W.W. Blair interview with Michael Morse,Saints Herald, vol. 26, no. 12June 15, 1879, pp. 190-91.)
Joseph Smith's brother William also testified to the "face in the hat" version:"The manner in which this was done was by looking into the Urim and Thummim, which was placed in a hat to exclude the light, (the plates lying near by covered up), and reading off the translation, which appeared in the stone by the power of God"("A New Witness for Christ in America,"Francis W. Kirkham, 2:417.)
"The manner in which he pretended to read and interpret was the same manner as when he looked for the money-diggers, with the stone in his hat, while the book of plates were at the same time hid in the woods."---Isaac Hale (Emma Smith's father's) affidavit, 1834.
They sure DIDN'T 'think' so in the past!
They REALLY went out of their way to distance themselves.
The question is: Why NOW do they want to be SEEN as 'christian'?
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.