Posted on 02/19/2008 4:46:10 PM PST by Zakeet
In his pursuit of the presidency, Mitt Romney held fast to his Mormon faith, though his religion remains controversial with evangelicals and some other Christians. But his determined (and ultimately futile) wooing of evangelicals led him to make some statements that didn't quite square with Mormon beliefs and culture. And the effort itself may have deepened the impression of him as inauthentic—even to some fellow Mormons.
Early in his presidential bid, Romney was asked what he thought of polygamy. Prompted by what they considered a divine revelation, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints discontinued the practice more than a century ago, and the church distances itself from polygamist "fundamentalists." But Romney went one step further, saying he couldn't "imagine anything more awful than polygamy." Many Mormons were privately taken aback. Mormons believe that, in its time, "plural marriage" was a commandment from God, and they are, as a group, fiercely proud of their ancestors, hundreds of whom practiced polygamy. (Romney's own great-grandfather had five wives.) LDS church members loathe the polygamy stereotypes and jokes bandied by outsiders. But hearing Romney—the most recognizable face of their faith these days—disavow it in those terms was mildly unsettling to LDS insiders.
Others were puzzled to hear Romney say he reads the Gideon Bible—a version popular with evangelicals: Mormons uniformly study the King James version, in a Salt Lake edition that is cross-referenced to all other Mormon scripture. "Seems like he just figured he had to say the safest, most Protestant thing he could think of—that was kind of annoying," says Russell Arben Fox, a Mormon professor of political science at Friends University in Wichita, Kans.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsweek.com ...
Yup. It’s a fair assumption in the majority of cases. I admit there may be a few exceptions. But you are not one of them.
My word. I am not trying to prove anything. I am telling you what we believe for your information. DO YOU GET IT YET? I AM NOT TRYING TO CONVINCE YOU TO AGREE WITH MY RELIGION.
Romney dropped out over two weeks ago. yet Evangelicals feel compelled to post liberal hit pieces about him still. Perhaps it assauges their guilty conscious?
As far as the points they are lame anyway.
>>Mitt disavowed polygamy
Duhh, so did the LDS church over 100 years ago. Sort of like Protestants eventually disavowed it even though Martin Luther approved of it.
>>Mitt was annoying when he "had to say the safest, most Protestant thing he could think of" when asked what Bible he used
I've read the Gideon Bible as well, they're free and small. So what. I've also read the Red Letter version and the Reina Valera Edition. The reina valera is technically a better translation than the KJV even though the KJV is the official edition of the Church. I plan on reading the Catholic version with the books that the Protestants decided to later cut out. If I ever get around to it I'd love to read them in the Greek and Hebrew as well which are both better editions than the KJV
>>>Mitt said the oath of office would become his "highest promise to God" instead of his temple covenants
This isn't an issue. When I took the oath to support and defend the Constitution against enemies both foreign and domentic I realized that it would be my highest oath. Even if I took me away from Family and the ability to perform certain aspects of my worship. Many Military service members who are Mormon have to make a personal decision like this. It's nothing new. The Nazarenes in the Bible took other oaths that went beyond what Christ asked them to do. (Don't drink wine, don't cut your hair). God honors oaths that individuals take.
>>Mitt said, "I don't know that [God's] spoken to anyone since Moses in the [Burning] Bush" in a statement that "seemed to strike at the very foundations of his [Mormon] church"
I just googled that comment and the only hit I came up with was your post here on FR. You have provided an inaccurate source reading of the comment. Funny how you can make a comment say something different than it does when you put a lot of editing brackets in there and cut sentences up into tiny little bits.
The original interview said after the "Bush..." [and I quote without cutting it off with brackets] "...and perhaps some others". Referring to the "other" prophets as well as Moses. His point was that God hadn't spoken to him in that way but he confirmed that God spoke to othe prophets just like he did to Moses. IOW, the actual quote proves your point wrong.
Funny how using those little brackets and cutting up one whole sentence into tiny little ones and leaving parts out can be so easily used to lie about what someone really said. Be honest provide us a source link for the bracketed version or you'll have to admit that you edited the lying version yourself.
I guess your conclusion that the “church of the devil” means actual churches. If you want to interpret that way, okay. But if you want to know what Mormons believe that’s another. This is the problem. You consider youself an expert on Moromon beliefs but refuse to listen to any Mormons. The scripture is comparing those that follow Christ and those that follow satan. Mormons do not believe that those of other faiths are following satan. Sorry to ruin your schtick.
I think these are just trying to yank our chains. They really can’t be this absent minded.
Bingo. I think some of them think they have some kind of perverted “ministry” to attack us “infidels.”
Yes he did.
But in this case I should have said the writings of the words he spoke
Sorry for the confusion
Figured it would be a given
There you go again, quoting the Johannine Comma, which words were not spoken by John, but were added by a monk centuries later. Do some research.
There you go again, quoting the Johannine Comma, which words were not spoken by John, but were added by a monk centuries later. Do some research.
___________________________________________
Are you this critical about the words Joseph Smith added to the Bible ???
I wouldn’t be that presumptive, not did I do that.
I was asking you if you believed certain words that leaders and Prophets of the LDS organization said and wrote.
You don’t have to answer, I know how difficult it seems to be for Mormons to comment on the basic tenets of their faith.
Makes sense to me, I don’t blame you.
I provided a brief summary of the gist of the article in my comments merely as a convenience.
The link to the original article was provided in the posting itself. Using that link, you can quickly and easily form your own opinion of whether I did a fair job in summarizing the conclusions of the author.
Any misstatements or misquotations in the original article are the fault and responsibility of the person who wrote the story, the persons who edited the story, and the organization who published the story.
I believe it is patently unfair to attempt to blame me for anything in the original article you find untrue or objectionable.
Kind of sad. I think this is not a good use of my time. I wish you well in your conversations.
“I think some of them think they have some kind of perverted “ministry” to attack us “infidels.”
(and then to me, Nana, who had not addressed you)
“There you go again, Do some research.”
___________________________________
Is there a double standard in these threads...??????
Anytime we answered, you wouldn’t listen, so what is the point? Pearls before swine I guess. I shouldn’t have ventured into this with you.
#11, #12
|
1. How you interpret it is wrong... |
let me show you how stupid and meaningless that post is:
How ANTI-Mormon’s deal with data presented to them by those they call MORMONS:
How ANTI-Mormon’s deal with data presented to them by those they call MORMONS:
Q-TIP to ELSIE PLEASE
1. How you interpret it is wrong...
2. You are too ignorant to really understand it because you are not a member....
3. You’re not qualified to judge because you’re no LONGER a member...
4. You are just a bigot for bringing the whole ugly truth to light ...
5. So’s yer Mama!
6. Laugh it all off and post some silly image.
7. Jump down the rabbit hole; Alice!
8. Bait & Switch
9. The OTHER ‘half’ of the truth is what we are avoiding.
10. “I Know It When I See It”
11. Hand waving...
12. YOU play defense for a while.
13. HEE Hee hee... let’s get the Mormons fighting!
14. Huh? Did you say something?
15. If I repeat this enough times some folks will be fooled into thinking it’s true.
16. Playing dumb.
17. Refusing to answer because your ATTITUDE offends them.
18. (Let’s see if they’ll fall for the ‘Defend a freak’ ploy.)
Well, most of the answers I have received have not addressed the points in the questions.
Pearls before swine I guess
Yes, according to the doctrine of the LDS faith, they would be. There is only one true church, that is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.
God sent Joseph Smith to make that clear.
I'm not saying you believe that, don't put those words in my mouth again.
So what's new? The apologists blame us every day for posting things said by their leaders because they find them untrue or objectionable...even though the sources ARE their leaders.
Not me. I have NEVER support Thompson, McRino, Huckabee, OR Romney, as they are ALL faux conservatives, as far as I'm concerned. Most people who didn't support Thompson didn't because he's a member of the globalist entity the Council on Foreign Relations (exactly my problem with him); those who don't support McRino....well, why should they? He's anything but conservative; concerning Huckabee....I didn't see a "blind allegiance" to a man who is a Christian and was a pastor. By that route, then, I 'should' have devoted myself to his cause....because, if it's "only about the candidate's" religion as to how I lend my support.....why, he'd be "right up my ally" now, wouldn't he? Nope. No support from me. I question his stance on many things (just like I do and have with Romney). For similar reasons, I cannot and would not support Romney nor Huckabee, regardless of their religions: they're both not conservatives.
My support went to, in this order: 1) Tancredo; then 2) Hunter; and lastly 3) Ron Paul. Why Ron Paul? Because I believe he's the last conservative standing who's a strict constitutionalist after Hunter dropped out. Do I like everything about him or his policies? Heck no. But I sure ain't voting for democrats in republican clothing.
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.