Tuesday, May 29, 2007
|
|
Hillary's Anti-Mormon Supporters
|
|
Posted by:
Hugh Hewitt at
11:34 AM
|
|
In A Mormon In The White House I pointed out that most of the high profile attacks on Mitt Romney's faith have come from the left from such folks as the anti-Mormon bigot Jacob Weisberg, editor of Slate. Since then Weisberg's been joined by others including Al Sharpton, but still the MSM continues to push the line that the anti-Mormon vote will come from the right, where the truth remains much more complicated.
Here's an AP story that documents that part --most?-- of the "I won't vote for a Mormon" responses in polls come from folks attached to the politics of the left:
DOVER, N.H. (AP) - Mitt Romney's visit to New Hampshire started on a sour note Tuesday when a restaurant patron declared he would not vote for the Republican presidential contender because of his faith.
"I'm one person who will not vote for a Mormon," Al Michaud of Dover shouted at Romney when the former Massachusetts governor approached him inside Harvey's Bakery. Romney was kicking off the second of two day's worth of campaign visits in the lead primary state.
Romney kept smiling as he asked, "Can I shake your hand anyway?"
Michaud replied, "No."
Michaud later told reporters he was not "a right-winger," alluding to some evangelical Christians who have compared Romney's faith to a cult. Instead, Michaud stated he was "a liberal."
He said he planned to vote for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., should she win the Democratic presidential nomination.
If elected, Romney would be the first Mormon to serve in the White House.
There are certainly some conservatives who won't vote for a Mormon, but there's much more evidence that much of the anti-Mormon bigotry is on the left. Perhaps MSM will get around to speculating why that is, and will discover that the morals of most Mormons are not of the sort that attract the left and its attachment to license in most areas of human behavior, and that specifically Romney's defense of marriage as an institution reserved for one man and one woman is a great irritation to many on the left.
In other political news, there's a profile in the Minneapolis Star Tribune of Governor Tim Pawlenty, who will be on everyone's short list of veep possibilities, and for very good reasons detailed int he article. When Senator McCain folds his campaign tent, it will be very interesting to see which way Pawelnty goes. As Dean notes below, McCain's numbers continue their slide, and the long summer ahead with a focus on immigration won't do any favors to the senator. Don't be surprised if Labor Day arrives and Senator McCain has decided that he wants to focus his energies on legislative achievements and leaves the presidential campaign to others.
|
|
"There are certainly some conservatives who won't vote for a Mormon, but there's much more evidence that much of the anti-Mormon bigotry is on the left."
I am not so sure about that Hugh. Sure there are probably some Dems who are religious who say "I will never vote for a Mormon because that faith is in conflict with Christianity" But that is a tiny minority. It would be more common for that type of bias from the right (and that is still a small minority).
I suspect most of the Lefties who say that are against Mitt do so because he is religious (and they equate "Mormons" as an expecially noxious form of religion). This stems from ignorance. Many on the left (especially on the East coast where the LDS Church has a smaller following) never been friends with a Mormon, think they are some weird cult out west that practice pologamy and bans alcohol and lattes (which is not true and also ignores the fact that many on the left practice serial and often overlapping relationships and have no problem banning smoking, trans-fats, guns, and imposing a host of other nannyesqe litigation on the rest of us). |
|
**Don't be surprised if Labor Day arrives and Senator McCain has decided that he wants to focus his energies on legislative achievements and leaves the presidential campaign to others.
**
I'd be surprised. McCain's stubborn. |
|
"There are certainly some conservatives who won't vote for a Mormon, but there's much more evidence that much of the anti-Mormon bigotry is on the left. "
There are a whopping number of unsubstantiated claims in this sentence. Let's begin with the assertion that there's "more evidence of anti-Mormon bigotry on the left". Where, exactly, is the defense of this statement? Has Mr. Hewitt just intuited this using his well-honed sense of the public sentiment, or is there a shred of evidence to back this up?
Second: is it really "bigoted" not to be willing to vote for someone of a certain creed? I'll bet that some fans of this site- Mr. Hewitt and Mr. Barnett included- would think twice about voting for a Muslim. Does this mean they're bigoted against Muslims, or is it possible that there's legitimate grounds for believing that the influence of a Muslim's religious beliefs could make them unfit for office?
If this (not voting for Muslims) is a reasoned (i.e. not bigoted) choice, then why is it any more bigoted to believe that Mormons are not suited for public office? Mormons believe, for instance, that Jesus visited the United States. Is it bigoted for me to assert that anyone who holds this view has a tenuous grip on reality and may not be fit for public office? Is it bigoted to not want to vote for a Scientologist because of the absurdities to be found in their doctrines?
My assertion is that one can be free of anti-Mormon bigotry and still believe that a Mormon is not a suitable candidate for public office. I have yet to read a reasoned argument on this or any other site that makes me feel differently. Have at it, Hugh! |
|
Sure, it's possible to be free of anti-Mormon bigotry and believe a particular Mormon is not a suitable candidate for public office, provided that opinion is not based purely on the fact the candidate is Mormon and nothing else.
I have yet to see anyone raise an objection to Mitt Romney's Mormonism that is actually relevant to the office he is seeking. Everything about his career, family life, character, intelligence, and values suggests he is eminently able and qualified to be president. People need to decide on those issues, plus his views on the economy, foreign policy, immigration, the Constitution, proposals for legislation, among others, whether they want to vote for him, not on his religious beliefs.
If someone refuses to vote for Romney purely because he is a Mormon, that person is a bigot.
|
|
"Is it bigoted for me to assert that anyone who holds this view has a tenuous grip on reality and may not be fit for public office?"
I'd rate it roughly as bigoted as asserting that anyone who holds the view that an itinerant Galilean preacher came back to life, three days after being crucified and skewered through the heart by a Roman spear, has a tenuous grip on reality and may not be fit for public office. Of course, we're guilty of that, too.
It would not be bigoted for you to say that you don't understand how reasonable people can hold this view. It most decidedly _is_ bigoted to declare that anyone -- _anyone_ -- who holds this view has a tenuous grip on reality and is not fit for public office. Do you see the distinction? Do you _want_ to?
If I'm not mistaken, this strikes close to the theme of Hugh's book.
Also -- perhaps this is a nit -- Mormons do not claim that Jesus visited the United States. The United States did not exist in the first century A.D., when Mormons believe He revealed himself somewhere in the Western Hemisphere (Mesoamerica, which is decidedly not part of the United States, being a more popular choice of locale than North America.) It's also unclear why believing Christ miraculously revealed Himself in Mesoamerica makes someone a loon with a loose grip on reality, while believing Christ miraculously revealing himself in Judea and the road to Damascus does not. Or perhaps you consider _all_ Christians loons with a loose grip on reality?
|
|
The irony of the Left's opposition to Mormonism is made clear when you consider the comprehensive and fully operating programs - unique and self sustaining programs - that Mormons have in place to assist the poor and needy.
For example, Drudge Report today points to Hillary saying we need to replace an "on your own" society with one based on shared responsibility and prosperity.
In a partial agreement with this, every practicing Mormon does that monthly when, on the first Sunday of the month, they fast for 24 hours and donate the food costs saved (and much more, as I've witnessed as a congragation financial clerk) specifically to help the cash needs of poor in the congratation and in the next congragations over.
Another streak in Mormonism that the left overlooks is demonstrated by former Mormon church President Kimball's opposition to the MX missile project, or his statements such as:
"We are a warlike people, easily distracted from our assignment of preparing for the coming of the Lord. When enemies rise up, we commit vast resources to the fabrication of gods of stone and steel --ships, planes, missiles, fortifications -- and depend on them for protection and deliverance. When threatened, we become anti-enemy instead of pro-kingdom of God; we train a man in the art of war and call him a patriot, thus, in the manner of Satan's counterfeit of true patriotism, perverting the Savior's teaching:
"Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
"That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven." (Matthew 5:44-45.)
"We forget that if we are righteous the Lord will either not suffer our enemies to come upon us...or he will fight our battles for us (Exod. 14:14...) This he is able to do, for as he said at the time of his betrayal,
"Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?" (Matt. 26:53.)"
But like all anti-mormon bigots, the left doesn't know enough about Mormonism to even adopt these compatible opinions.
|
|
|
know a liberal who is against Romney because of his religious affiliation? I don't, but know several self identified republicans who are. |
|
cyndu
You forget to mention that Mormons love America and have lost defenders of our freedom in all wars, including this one in Iraq. In other words, war is hell, but when bad people attack, as in September 11, America defends itself. Check out "Saints at War" on the BYU channel.
The LDS Church's current President, Gordon B. Hinckley, has always said that sometimes war is necessary to defend ourselves from those who want to destroy us. |
|
The difference of course has to do with the authority of the sources.
The Christian who believes in the resurrection does so because of the testimony of eyewitnesses to the event, who recorded the event for us, and who ultimately died for their belief in the event. Those sources are close to 2000 years old - and to repeat were EYEWITNESSES. And please note the plural.
This is far different than the testimony of Jesus' visit to Mesoamerica from a man who claims this revelation as from God, without any other support besides his own word.
I agree that both instances may seem equally incredible to believe for someone who does not know a thing about any of this.
After all, the resurrection was a miracle.
In doing the digging as to reasons to believe, there is a vast difference between the two.
|
|
|
Good point. With all this leftist religious bigotry being bandied about, how did a LDS member become governor of a state that is not particularly a Mormon hotspot? Why are Mitt's poll numbers lowest in South Carolina, where anti-Mormon bigotry is taught in some Baptist churches. |
|
If you thumb through the first pages of a copy of the Book of Mormon, you will find an affadavit by three men solemnly testifying that an angel of God showed them the plates from which the Book of Mormon was taken and told them the account therein was true. You will also find an affadavit by eight witnesses who were shown the plates by Smith and had the opportunity to thumb through them and heft them. Incredible? No more so than the New Testament accounts of Christ's resurrection.
If you thumb through the Doctrine and Covenants, you will find Sydney Rigdon confirming that he, too, was a witness alongside Joseph Smith of the vision of heaven and hell found in Section 76.
Other eyewitnesses corroborate Smith as well.
Should you believe in Mormonism because of these witnesses? No, probably not. You should believe because the Holy Spirit testifies directly to _you_ that it is true. There really isn't any other good reason to believe either the New Testament or Joseph Smith's account.
I'm not sure why 2000 years of tradition is relevant. Christianity was not 2000 years old to the believers who faced martyrdom in the early Roman Empire.
|
|
I'm not so sure Hugh is right. I expect to see roughly equal trashing from Right and Left. In fact, I expect the extremes will unite on this one.
|
|
Obviously we disagree as to the relative importance of the two groups of sources. Much more could be said by each of us, but we will not agree on that debate here.
I would add one thing. You wrote that my reason for believing should be that the Holy Spirit is telling me it is true.
Kent, what if the Holy Spirit is not telling me this? What in fact if the Holy Spirit is telling me that all I need is the Bible. That I do not need any latter-day revelation.
Now, I believe Jesus died for my sins, rose from the dead and I trust His grace for my salvation - I believe every single word of the New Testament (and the Old for that matter).
Therefore, according to the New Testament, I do in fact have the Holy Spirit within me as of the moment of my regeneration.
I am content with my Bible. If everything in Mormon revelation is consistent with the teachings of the Bible, then I really don't need them.
And certainly you would agree that if anything in Mormon revelation is contradictory to the Bible, then surely we don't want it. |
|
To Sunshine: I agree. And I’m very familiar with those programs and how Mormons feel about defense of family and nation from internal or external oppression. My point is that to be rigorous you can't label the LDS Church as a Republican or Democratic church and be at all accurate. It's doctrines and practices can't be encircled in any one political party
And in general I would suggest that if your (or one’s) religion or church can be neatly placed within the platform of one political party, one better rethink whether the church is governing and informing one’s party beliefs, or whether one’s party beliefs are governing and comprising the church's. I mean, does anyone here actually and honestly believe that Christ is a Republican?
What conservatives need to be trying to do, it seems to me, is to forge consensus where we can on the key social and political issues where we agree, and leave alone the politically meaningless and schism-producing differences. Regardless of how we each may rank the importance of various issues, I would suggest that in the political arena, a person’s religion should be universally regarded as a politically meaningless difference.
|
|
"I am content with my Bible. If everything in Mormon revelation is consistent with the teachings of the Bible, then I really don't need them." - Steve_in_Corona
Steve, is it impossible for something to be consistent with established truth, and yet, augmentative at the same time? For example, I think my dad is a fine man. If I were to come across his war record, I expect the war record would be fully consistent with my understanding of his being a fine man. Yet, the record would contain a wealth of new information that would only increase my knowledge of him and make me appreciate and love him all the more. Is it not logically possible for the Book of Mormon to provide new information that, while being wholly consistent with the Bible, gives you a deeper appreciation of and love for your Savior?
|
|
....bigots. And he knows them when he sees them.
Eichendorff writes:
"If someone refuses to vote for Romney purely because he is a Mormon, that person is a bigot."
Behold the Fiat of Ike. Let there be bigotry!
Sauce for the goose.....
If a person of the first part, labels a person of the second part a bigot because the person of the second part won't vote for a Mormon (of the third part), purely because the third party is a Mormon, then the party of the first part is a labeling bigot who refuses to acknowledge the good faith of a person who has spiritual (but not malicious) objections to the party of the third part's religion.
|
|
I see the premise you make as concerning the illustration of your Dad. I believe we can learn things about our fellow humans that increase our respect - because we do not worship any of our fellow humans as God. If one really loved his Dad, it is hard to see how some new info would increase that love - but I can grant the point as possible. There is such a thing as the saying "new-found respect."
My love, respect etc. to any man is always tempered by the reality that the best of men are sinners by nature. None of them is God.
Put another way, if the love/respect scale is 1-10, no human being could ever properly be given a 10. Unless you were willing to bow to that human being as God incarnate. Even my dear son is not the equivalent in my heart as my Savior. Though my son is at the highest human level possible for me.
I could ask you to list about five or so specifics found in Mormon revelation that are not anywhere stated in the Bible that would support your claim. I would not be simply asking for five new details about Jesus' life - but specifically five details that would significantly increase my appreciation and love of Him.
But there is no need to do this for Jesus already has all my love. I would not worship Him otherwise. This is the difference maker between all those people who see Jesus as a good teacher, or a martyr versus Christians who see Him as God incarnate. The ONLY God. This is where your human premise example breaks down.
You see, there is no greater love than to lay down one's life for another. This message is repeated constantly in the Bible. God shows His love by the cross. The message of the New Testament is the message of the cross.
|
|
DK Walser: how would you answer the follwoing two questoins?
1. If a person is not sure which church to join, what do you propose they do about it? How should they decide which church's teaching is most nearly to God's truth?
2. If a person (A) hears a man (B) say that God had appeared to him and that God told him, B, to do certain things, how is A supposed to evaluate whether B is telling the truth, and whether God's appearence and instruction to B actually happened or not? |
|
I thought of an example to illustrate my point about the cross.
Assume a firefighter pulled you out of a burning building - he literally saved your life. In the process, he was wounded and burned so badly that he after months of agony he ultimately died.
We can imagine what my feelings for this hero would be like. I would want to help his wife and kids if he had any, or comfort his parents. Anything to show my respect.
Now, assume I found out that this man once gave his spare change to the Salvation Army kettle.
That is a nice, selfless act - but it would not add one bit to the feelings I already have for this man. In fact, it truly pales in comparison.
Anything beyond the incarnation and march to the cross that you could add about Jesus is akin to dropping some change in a Salvation Army kettle. |
|
"Anything beyond the incarnation and march to the cross that you could add about Jesus is akin to dropping some change in a Salvation Army kettle."
And yet we have quite a number of books in the New Testament that come after the gospel accounts of the Passion. And the Resurrection followed the march to the cross, yet it was deemed worthy of some paragraphs.
Hearkening back to the topic of the post: How does any of this justify the belief, expressed by the New Hampshire man, as well as some here, that anyone -- _anyone_ -- who believes in the tenets of Mormonism is on the edge of mental illness and unfit for high office, regardless of any other considerations? How is this not religious bigotry? And how can anyone believe that such bigotry cannot turn around and bite _you?_
|
|
It is difficult to respond to comments like yours that paste something I wrote to a different poster in a different context.
Can I assume by your reference to the New Testament epistles, that you would take a different view on Mormon revelation.
In other words, it is not something to simply increase our love and respect for the Savior (which is what my comments about the cross referenced).
But in fact Mormon literature is commentary on how we should live to please God, along with the doctrinal implications of the cross (as the New Testament epistles happen to be).
In which case, we are back to my original comment to you, to which you chose not to reply. If Mormon revelation repeats what the epistles teach, we don't need it. If it contradicts it, then we don't want it.
And if you choose an option three. That it includes new teaching (neither repeated or contradictory by the Bible) that is essential for salvation...
Then I ask, how can any non-Mormon be saved without abiding by such essential information?
And if I can still be saved without it - then why do I need it?
|
|
Sorry for not responding earlier, I missed your questions among the other posts.
I think all your questions are contained within your first: "If a person is not sure which church to join, what do you propose they do about it?" I would propose that the person follow the advice of James, "If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God ... and it shall be given him. But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. ... For let not that man [who asks without faith] think that he shall receive any thing of the Lord." James 1:5-7.
So, my advice would be to ask God which church, if any, he or she should join. I believe that God is both willing and able to answer such questions. I freely admit that mortal men and women frequently have difficulty "hearing" the answers God provides to sincere prayer, but the problem is on our end, not God's. The only source for an answer to the question of which church to join is God. Only He knows the answer. |
|
|
I think a lot of this Mormon stuff from the left is more stategy than bigotry. It is similar to the John Edwards and John Kerry attempts at highlighting differences between the Pres. and VP by discussing Cheney's lesbian daughter. A lot of the Mormon baiting on the left, in my opinion, is based on the presumption that a fair amount of conservative evangelical Christians are strongly opposed to voting for a Mormon. Therefore, they highlight Romney's religion as an opportunity to bait the right, who they look at as ignorant bigots, to act against Romney. There will be other such baiting of Giuliani and McCain. Just my opinion. |
|
Steve,
Thank you for your kind, thoughtful, and civil posts on this sensitive topic. Allow me to briefly respond to your larger points:
Your love for the Savior is 100% and therefore cannot be increased. This is because the Savior is God and your love for Him is perfect and complete -- because He is perfect and complete. Contrast this with your love of your son, who, while wonderful, is imperfect. Your love for your son cannot be compared to your love of Jesus because you are able to love someone who is infinitely good more than you can someone who is imperfect.
Steve, while I cannot see into your heart, I don't think that is the way it works for you, me, or any of us mere mortals. The question is not whether Jesus is WORTHY of your love. The question is your CAPACITY to love. He's perfect and can love you perfectly. You and I are not perfect and cannot love Him perfectly. At least, that's how it is for me. When I married, I thought I loved my bride more than any man ever loved a women. I was consumed with my love of her. Today, some 25 years later, I love her far more than I did then. Partly that may be because she's a better person than she was then, but mostly it's that I've grown in my capacity to love her. So, too, it is for me with the Savior. As I read His words and commune with Him in personal prayer, I gain a deeper appreciation of what He's done for me -- and a deeper understanding of what my sins cost Him on the cross -- and my love for Him grows. It's not that He became more worthy of my love. It's that I learned how to love Him more.
With regard to your firefighter analogy, I hear what you are saying. You are saying that, even if it is true, the Book of Mormon could add nothing to your knowledge of the Savior that would measurably increase your love of Him. You already know He died for you on the cross, anything else would be small potatoes by comparison. I can accept that. However, most of us are hungry for just about any crumb of information about those we love. Not because we hope to learn something that will cause us to love the object of our affection all the more, but because we love learning more about those we love.
You claim to love Christ as much as is humanly possible, so I can't believe you'd be indifferent to additional information about His life and teachings. If He were to hold a teleconference, I'm sure you'd be willing to spend a long time on hold just for the chance to hear his voice -- even if you already knew everything He'd say. No, I think you don't trust the source, so you don't think you'd learn anything new about the Savior by reading the Book of Mormon. It's not worth your time because you think you know what you'd find there -- nothing but lies. That I can accept.
My original post was in response to your notion that there is nothing in the Book of Mormon, even if true, that could enrich your life. If its teachings are consistent with the Bible, you won't learn anything. If it's not consistent with the Bible, it's nothing you want to read. My original point was that something can be consistent with the Bible without being duplicative and that that something can lead to a fuller and richer spiritual life.
In response to something posted by Kent, you asked if the Book of Mormon added doctrinal information that, if true, would cause you to lead a different life:
"That it includes new teaching (neither repeated or contradictory by the Bible) that is essential for salvation...
Then I ask, how can any non-Mormon be saved without abiding by such essential information?"
The short answer, no one can be saved without "abiding by such essential information." However, God loves all His children and has prepared a way that each of us will have an opportunity to hear and accept the fullness of the gospel prior to the Day of Judgment. So, through the grace of Christ, all who will can be saved without regard to when or where they were born. |
|
The people who hate Romney's Mormonism are the same people who hate Bush's Christianity. For them, the only "faith" that is acceptable and even beautiful, is Islam. That's because Islam hates the U.S. as much as does the left in this country.
By the way, I admit to being anti-Mormon but that does not make me anti-Mit. |
|
|
While I would rather that you weren't anti-Mormon, It is clear that you understand larger issues at stake here. We all need allies in standing against Jihadism in the world. You don't take your eye off of the ball by unreasonably making political issue of a man's religion. In short, you get it. There are bigger fish to fry here. Those who are injecting this anti-Mormon strain into politics are trying to bait people who believe as you do. I am glad to hear of people who aren't going for it. |
|
This whole Romney candidacy has brought back vivid memories for me. I remember seeing advertisements in the local paper for showings of anti-mormon films in the first Baptist church. I remember at 17, a girl who'd known me since Kindergarten coming into homeroom and grilling me about the hidden horns on my head and strange sacrificial rites (all non-existent). I remember my high schol history teacher (a self-proclaimed agnostic) yelling at me for showing up to his class with the Bible because I'd come from an early morning seminary class and hadn't stopped by my locker first to put it away.
One memory that doesn't come back... the meetings were my LDS congregation gathered to bash other religions. Nope, Mormons don't do that. No camp meetings or a special Sunday night gatherings to blast other people's religious beliefs. No special moment in the temples where we laugh at the practices of the pious of other faiths. Nothing like that. Just the constant call to aspire to something more than the finite. Something more than the human. The same call Jesus issued in Matthew 5:48
Hugh, sadly, I think you are mistaken. As one die-hard conservative who grew up with modern day persecution, as a daughter, sister and wife of soldiers who've born the burden of keeping the nation free, I can assure you that the reason so many Americans have sought God in liberalism rather than in church is that they are disillusioned with the judgemental nature of many Christians who have taken upon themselves the role of the divine judiciary. Too many are more concerned with enforcing God's vengence than celebrating the glorious reality of His grace.
It will be contemporary Pharisees who sink the Romney campaign. The same ones who know more about the historical evils that led to modern day trick or treating than the gentle carpenter from Nazareth. The same ones who think Easter eggs are innately sinful but blindly supporting every Israeli political move is a step toward salvation. The same ones who are more concerned with declaring Romney a cult member than looking beyond the arbitrary definition of religious cult defined by an American theologian who spoke as an academic not as a divine source.
|
|
|
|
|
Whoops, beautifully said. Thanks |
|
I read the Slate piece, and if anything the guy was too easy on Mormonism. The quote about "transparent fraud" hits the nail on the head, though unfortunately he didn’t give a lot of references. As a devout skeptic who is well read on religion I have a few questions that Hewitt needs to answer before just spouting insults as opposed to arguments.
Fact: Mormonism was founded by a convicted conman “moneydigger”, Joseph Smith, who charged farmers money to locate buried treasure through gazing into a magic stone. He later used this same magic stone to translate the book of Mormon.
Fact: The Book of Mormon describes a civilization of jews who came to America, which is oddly enough what most Americans in the 1800’s thought (Lost 10 tribes stuff). No one has yet been able to decide whether the civilization these jews founded was the Mayan, Incan, Aztec, etc.
Fact: Joseph Smith had over 30 wives, with approximately 10 of those having living husbands. He got the married women to sleep with him by saying god ordered him to take them as wives and that they’d be condemned spiritually if they refused.
Fact: When Smith was murdered he was in jail for destroying a newspaper run by former mormons who had the audacity to run true stories about his polygamous affairs. Therefore, Smith was justly confined as a criminal at the time of his death.
Given the above facts is one wrong to question the critical thinking abilities of Mormons? As the Slate editor, the one Hugh whines about being a bigot, said Mormonism isn’t much different than Scientology except that it started a century earlier.
Few more questions
Mormons believe blacks born prior to 1978 had sinned so badly before their birth that blacks shouldn’t be allowed to fully participate in their church. Will Romney forsake this racist stand or will he cowardly say he doesn’t know why blacks were 2nd class citizens, but by god, it was god’s will. More important, will this history affect his views of blaks today?
There is a mormon prophecy that the U.S. constitution will be nearly destroyed only to be saved by a Mormon. Does Romney consider himself the fulfillment of this prophecy and how will this affect his presidential decisions?
The Mormons believe the end of the world is so close that they have to have a year of food saved in their houses for the upcoming disasters. How will such a belief affect Romney’s dealings with states such as Iran?
|
|
We all known that the theological position of the LDS church is that Black people were cursed collectively and individually, as stated in Mormon scripture and reaffirmed in various statements of the First Presidency in 1949 and 1969. Given the historical realities of race in this country, Romney is not qualified to stand for election.
It is not bigotry to object to those who support bigoted beliefs and practices. It is part of social responsibility and a commitment to social justice. It is a shame that Mr. Hewitt chooses to express his views when he obviously has no commitment to these values. |
|
As far as racism is concerned, Mormons as a group have been far less racist over the last 150 years than the majority of the Protestants. It was Protestants who started, operated and perpetuated the Klan.
I am not aware of any instances of violence by a Mormon community against Blacks or any other minority for that matter. The attack at Mountain Meadows was against white people who claimed to have raped and murdered Mormons during the MO persecutions of the Mormons under Gov Boggs extermination order against the Mormons.
Further, the Mormon Church has had Black members from its early beginnings and has openly recruited every race on the planet from the beginning. |
|
How about some source documents?
You write: There is a mormon prophecy that the U.S. constitution will be nearly destroyed only to be saved by a Mormon. Does Romney consider himself the fulfillment of this prophecy and how will this affect his presidential decisions?
I can't even comment on that one because I've never heard or read it anywhere before. I'd love to see where that is church doctrine and not some self-agrandizing fantasy of a Mormon Tim LaHaye.
You write: The Mormons believe the end of the world is so close that they have to have a year of food saved in their houses for the upcoming disasters. How will such a belief affect Romney’s dealings with states such as Iran?
NOPE- It's Evangelicals who are waiting for Armegeddon. Mormons save up for events like Katrina, sudden job loss, and unpredictable financial changes. The same reason they push their women to be educated - so that they can be self-sufficient. Again, what members speculate about and what is the doctrine of the church are often 2 vastly different things.
WestBerkelyFlats:
I suppose you voted against all Republicans who were in office prior to 1963. Given your tenuous position, perhaps you just weren't old enough to vote when they were incumbents.
Do you support hate crimes legislation by chance? Clearly you can't make a distinction between what someone thinks and how they behave. Let me spell it out: Whatever his theological interpretation of skin color - that same belief system decries discrimination.
And all this time I believed the 'thought police' were on the left side of the political spectrum... |
|
Sigh. It never ceases to amaze me how many supposed "facts" turn out to be just so much codswallop.
Ice Man’s “Fact” number 1: Joseph Smith was never actually convicted of anything. It was also impossible to be “convicted” of money-digging, since there was no law against it. Joseph Smith was hired by local people to search for treasure, a common practice at the time. Sure, he was hauled into court numerous times on trumped-up charges, but he was acquitted every time. Even when he was put in jail in Missouri (no trial), the authorities eventually let him escape because they knew the whole case against him was bogus.
“Fact” number 2: The Book of Mormon does not describe Jews. It describes Israelites who were descendants of Joseph, not Judah. There is no conclusive way at present to determine exactly where the Nephites lived in the Western Hemisphere, so to say they came to America is incorrect. Current thought suggests it might have been in southern Mexico and northern Guatemala.
“Fact” number 3: There is no evidence that Joseph Smith ever consummated any of his marriages except with his first wife Emma.
“Fact” number 4: The Nauvoo Expositor was destroyed after an order from the entire Nauvoo City Council. The city charter, which was approved by the state of Illinois, allowed the city authorities to vote to declare public nuisances and to take measures against them. Joseph Smith was not jailed specifically for the destruction of the printing press. He was charged with treason, which was utterly ridiculous. The real crime here was that the State of Illinois did not protect him and his brother from the mob of “Christians” who brutally murdered them in cold blood, thus denying them their constitutional protections and rights.
“Fact” number 5: LDS doctrine has never held that “blacks born before 1978 sinned so badly before their birth” that they could not hold the priesthood. Nowhere in any official source of doctrine can you find anything to support this. The Church has never been racist. Blacks were accepted as members from the very beginning. One of the main reasons Mormons were persecuted and driven out of Missouri was because they were abolitionists. Joseph Smith, in is candidacy for President in 1844, advocated freeing the slaves 16 years before the outbreak of the Civil War. If Mormons were racist, they would also have imposed restrictions on other blacks (such as Australian Aborigines),Orientals, Asian Indians, and others, but did not. When the restriction on the priesthood was lifted in 1978 (it had nothing to do with whether someone was born before or after 1978), the Church membership rejoiced. I remember how excited everyone was.
“Fact” number 6: Not all pronouncements by Church leaders are necessarily official Church doctrine. There is a specific process by which statements or ideas can become official, and the “prophecy” about the Constitution has not gone through this process. It might be true, but it is too vague and ambiguous to get worked up about.
“Fact” number 7: Latter-day Saints are counseled to store food and fuel in case of emergency. Many have survived natural and economic emergencies because they had their storage. Yes, the Church teaches we are in the last days, but, then, so do most evangelical Christian denominations. No big deal here. And what this has to do with Iran I have no idea.
So really, on the subject of Mormonism, you haven’t the slightest idea what you’re talking about.
|
|
Nothing is more certain than that religious fanatics will accuse skeptics of dishonesty whenever you point out a FACT that points to their faith being false. Such is Eichendorf’s ridiculous reponse.
Alma: “Joseph Smith was never actually convicted of anything. It was also impossible to be “convicted” of money-digging, since there was no law against it. Joseph Smith was hired by local people to search for treasure, a common practice at the time.”
I just looked it up and he was convicted of being a "disorderly person" for his habit of telling people that for a fee he could locate treasure on their land using a magic stone. Official court records found in the 1970’s show Smith was found guilty. Incidentally, almost all of Smith’s contemporaries point to him being a charlatan who pulled that moneydigging BS frequently on those gullible enough to believe him. Seems he found a sweeter gig with the prophet business.
I don’t know what this Missouri trial you’re referring to was, but it was sometime after your prophet gave up his treasure digging adventures for the mantle of prophet. Incidentally, the stone that got him convicted for moneydigging was the same one he used to copy the book of Mormon.
A wrongful arrest in Missouri doesn’t make right cheating ignorant fools out of their money in New York.
Alma: “The Book of Mormon does not describe Jews. It describes Israelites who were descendants of Joseph, not Judah.”
Pardon me all to hades…
Alma: “There is no conclusive way at present to determine exactly where the Nephites lived in the Western Hemisphere, so to say they came to America is incorrect. Current thought suggests it might have been in southern Mexico and northern Guatemala.”
On the contrary, it should be remarkably easy to locate your mythical Israelite bunch who came to the Americas. You have a book describing in detail the civilization and what dates they existed then killed each other off. They should be using Hebrew for a writing system and observe the Mosaic laws (stoning sabbath breakers, etc). That no such civilization existed anywhere from the North Pole to the bottom tip of South America only means that the Book of Mormon is BS.
BTW, wouldn’t the word of a prophet be a “conclusive way” to determine which of the Americas ancient civilizations was described in the Book of Mormon? Why can’t your prophet receive a revelation, like the 1978 one to stop discriminating against black people, to tell us which civilization is described in the Book of Mormon?
I would convert in a heartbeat if the Book of Mormon civilization is found. Doesn’t god want me to believe in the Book of Mormon enough to tell your prophet which civilization was described?
Alma: “There is no evidence that Joseph Smith ever consummated any of his marriages except with his first wife Emma.”
This was some time before the advent of the celebrity sex tape (ala Pam & Tommy Lee). However, what’s the point of demanding women marry you if not for sex.
BTW, it’s funny how many “prophets” receive revelations to take many wives. Smith, Koresh, Mohammed......
Alma: “The Nauvoo Expositor was destroyed after an order from the entire Nauvoo City Council. The city charter, which was approved by the state of Illinois, allowed the city authorities to vote to declare public nuisances and to take measures against them.”
Printing the truth about Smith’s multiple wives & nefarious dealings is a public nuisance? The fact that the destruction was approved by Smith’s lackey’s on a Mormon City’s governing council means it was justified? He just didn’t want the truth to get out and have mercy upon the poor inkslinger who dares speak it.
Alma: “LDS doctrine has never held that “blacks born before 1978 sinned so badly before their birth” that they could not hold the priesthood. Nowhere in any official source of doctrine can you find anything to support this.”
Hmmm….. What then was the reason for not allowing blacks to fully participate? The most common answer is that they sinned before being sent to earth and god’s way of letting your church know it was turning them black. If that’s incorrect then perhaps your prophet can prophecy about why god didn’t want Negroes participating in his church.
Never having an official doctrine on anything is clever for a church and a great way to cover your tracks.
Alma: “So really, on the subject of Mormonism, you haven’t the slightest idea what you’re talking about.”
The pot calling the kettle black.
|
|
My last post was responding to Eichendorf not Alma.
Eichendorf was the fool not Alma. Next time I'll double check. |
|
Ice Man, you must hold Hosea in special regard. He claimed that God told him to marry a hooker and have children with her just so that he'd have an effective object lesson...
And that Abraham... what the heck? How capricious to take Hagar then give Ishmael the boot when Sarah finally gets pregnant... Not to mention the whole inbreeding thing with his cousin (which he lied about, by the way)...
Then there's Jacob. He had to pay for his women. And he married how many of them???...
If you accept the behavior of some prophets based solely upon their word that God commanded them to act, then you can't arbitrarily dismiss others and condemn their followers.
As for evidence of an American semetic civilization... well, we still have found that ark now have we?
FYI - that's why we call them FAITHS.
|
|
|
|