Sunday, December 02, 2007
|
|
Why a Mormon Speech?
|
|
Posted by:
Patrick Ruffini at
6:14 PM
|
Mark Halperin's The Page is reporting that Governor Romney is set to deliver "the Mormon speech" this Thursday at the Bush Library in College Station, Texas.
This is relatively unexpected. Romney's Mormon faith, though ever-present, has not been as big an issue as could have been expected earlier in the year. Questions still linger as to whether the most recent Mormon "controversy" (the push polls) actually reflected any real concerted anti-Romney strategy.
On the surface of it, Romney shouldn't have to give a Mormon speech any more than Obama should have to give a Muslim speech. Chatter about both candidates' religions seem to linger just under the radar, amongst die-hards who are probably lost to both. If anything the false rumors about Obama being a Muslim who attended an Indonesian madrassa seem to attract a lot more attention than the truth about Romney's religion, as this Google Trends chart shows:
Not included in this screenshot is the geographic distribution of these searches, with a huge concentration of "Romney mormon" traffic in Utah and a high concentration in other surrounding Western states and in Romney's home state of Massachusetts. On the face of it, these searches are coming from people who believe his religious faith is a plus.
Perhaps the Romney campaign knows something we don't? That Mormonism is a bigger deal on the ground than we are given to believe from press reports? Could Romney supporters believe that his recent slip in the polls in Iowa is attributable to a backlash against his Mormonism?
If so, that would seem to be a highly dubious reading of the Iowa electorate. But Romney's speech is likely to create its own new reality on this front.
UPDATE: In response to some comments: No, I'm not trafficking in the Obama Muslim rumors. Merely pointing out that these false rumors seem to have gotten more traction than the much-ballyhooed talk of Romney's religion. Obama shouldn't be forced to dignify these rumors with a substantive response. And neither should Romney with regards to anti-Mormon bigotry. The anti-Mormon bigots and the anti-Muslim rumormongers seem to exist on about the same level -- and neither candidate should let these fringe elements define their campaign.
|
|
»»Bill [Clinton] reads The Bible and interprets it to mean that he can receive gratuitous oral sex outside of marriage because the scriptures don't explicitly prohibit it. Therefore, to Bill, it is not adultery. ««
That's the problem when people read the Word of God, merely passing their eyes across words on pages, absorbing nothing.
As you know, if a man, for instance, merely lusts in his heart -- objectifies a woman -- he is guilty.
Also, the Word of God doesn't have to use the exact word in order to prohibit the act. All It has to do is refer to, or describe, the act. The Word of God doesn't mention, nor describe, "oral sex." However, it still is covered because the Word of God describes objectifying another person.
The Word of God also doesn't mention the word "homosexuality." So what? God describes the act He calls an "abomination." That's good enough for Him. It ought to be good enough for us. |
|
»»there is the problem of how the lights from distant starts arrived overnight.««
A problem for whom?? |
|
»»I'm not exactly with Ken Hamm on the 7 solar days of creation, either. According to Genesis, God planted a garden from seeds. Then there is the problem of how the lights from distant starts arrived overnight. ««
With God, all things are possible:
Gen 18:14 Is any thing too hard for the LORD?
After all, He IS God. It's about time we get used to it. |
|
If Mitt gets the Republican nod will I vote for him? Probably. As a conservative, a candidate's stand on abortion, fiscal philosophy, and defense are important to me. Do I hope he gets the nomination? No.
There is a debate in this country about intelligent design and macroevolution. I do not pretend to understand how an intelligent person can believe in macroevolution. It takes WAY MORE faith to go that route than I have. On the other hand, I'm not exactly with Ken Hamm on the 7 solar days of creation, either. According to Genesis, God planted a garden from seeds. Then there is the problem of how the lights from distant starts arrived overnight. I digress.
I know there have been presidents before (in recent memory) who have claimed to be adherents to a particular denomination. The Clinton's are?were? Baptists. Nevertheless Bill reads The Bible and interprets it to mean that he can receive gratuitous oral sex outside of marriage because the scriptures don't explicitly prohibit it. Therefore, to Bill, it is not adultery.
I am on a limb with this one, but wasn't Nixon a Unitarian? Grab a copy of what they believe for some light reading.
I was puzzled a bit after the boob-toob debate when Mitt offered that he believed the Bible was definitely from God. As an LDS, he is either a quite un-Orthodox Mormon, or he has changed his entire belief system...or he lied.
|
|
»»The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is a Christian Church. You can disagree if you want, but if you choose to do so in a confrontational and provocative way, you will rightly be called a bigot. ««
I think I'll get over it. Jesus did. |
|
»»The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is a Christian Church. You can disagree if you want, but if you choose to do so in a confrontational and provocative way, you will rightly be called a bigot. ««
Jesus was confrontational and provocative. He called people "vipers."
He said that He is the ONLY Way -- not every-which-way -- to the Father.
So, is He a bigot? |
|
The major hangup some people have with polygamy is that they think it's a harem. When plural marriage was practiced in the 1800s, every wife had her own house, or if that wasn't possible, at least her own room. Many plural marriages were never even consummated because they were ordained for completely non-sexual reasons. In some cases, a widow needed a father for her children, and a provider and a home to live in. Those few plural marriages not ordained by God were grounds for the offending parties to be excommunicated. Many anti-mormon allegations still used today came from people excommunicated in this way.
If CTL's embittered attacks still mean something, please consider what it means about polygamists such as Abraham, Jacob, David, etc. Save some stones to throw at them if that's your game.
Next, let’s ask ourselves why members of the Church keep coming to CTL’s house. Why indeed. Well, no matter what she does, Heavenly Father will still love her, and so those that serve Him will try to convince her to return to Him. It’s an act of love, for Him and her, though she may not see it. It’s a sacrifice of their time, when they could be going to visit people who are actually happy to see them, or just enjoying their free time at home. They do it because they love Heavenly Father, and don’t want Him to suffer the sorrow of losing yet another of His children. They may even love CTL herself, in spite of her behavior, and genuinely care about her well being.
|
|
Given that CTR stands for Choose the Right, an admonition to do what God wants even if it's not what I want, it's logical to assume that CTL stands for Choose the Left. Therefore, it stands to reason that the poster who calls herself CTL is unabashedly opposed to following God's will when it conflicts with her own, and not surprisingly, finds herself unhappy. There is plenty to study about the Church, and unlike CTL, I have chosen to study from sources published by people who don't have unresolved emotional issues with members of the Church, and unwisely allow that poison their view of the Church as a whole. I know the truth behind CTL's half truths, and here's an overview:
-(1)Jesus and Satan are brothers- All of Heavenly Father's children are siblings, including Lucifer, Jesus, me, you, the Pope, Larry Flint, etc. -(2)I can become a God - just like God- Everything in the universe follows a natural order. We were born to evolve from infants to children to adults to gods. This is why Heavenly Father offers to share all He has with us if we prove ourselves worthy. It's really nothing to worry about once you realize that He will decide who gets that reward and who doesn't and isn't going to give it to someone who will abuse that power.
-(3)We still believe in polygamy in the afterlife- Who cares what LDS believe happens in the afterlife? Really? If my wife dies and I remarry, and Heavenly Father says I can keep both wives in the next world, how does that break any law here?
|
|
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is a Christian Church. You can disagree if you want, but if you choose to do so in a confrontational and provocative way, you will rightly be called a bigot. It's got nothing to do with how you vote.
The Church was allowed by God to cease practicing plural marriage (which began being practiced in this dispensation on God's command). This had nothing to do with statehood for Deseret (which ended up being Utah instead). God made the allowance for us to stop living that law of the Gospel in order to avoid having His Temples and meeting houses confiscated by the government, and families robbed of their husbands and fathers by being imprisoned.
God chooses who will be given His Priesthood. In ancient times it was limited to the tribe of Levi. If he chooses not to give that authority to anyone it's His business. If he chooses to curse a particular group of people with darker skin than their neighbors in order to keep them from inter-marrying so He can keep heathen beliefs from infiltrating His Church, that's His business.
One of the reasons the Church was run out of several states in the 1800s, its men and boys murdered (sometimes very brutally), its women raped, its members property stolen or destroyed, was that the Church officially condemned slavery, even when it was extremely unpopular to do so and brought down the wrath of the people as I just mentioned.
|
|
I'll start by saying that I am not a Christian. I would most definitely never vote for a Mormon candidate for president. Is this because I am a bigot?
No, but I have studied what the Mormons believe and it bothers me. It bothers me a lot more than what Christians believe. Until 1978 the LDS Church actively taught that blacks were unworthy of holding "the priesthood" in their church. Mitt Romney joined this religion as an adult, before 1978.
Until statehood for Utah was on the line the LDS taught that polygamy was absolutely necessary for entering the highest level of heaven. It is still a part of their scriptures and has never been refuted or removed as a basic principle. They are simply waiting for an opportunity for it to be made legal so they can practice it.
I would not vote for an adherent to the faith of Islam either. That's because I have studied what Mohammed taught his followers, which is in no way peaceful, tolerant or egalitarian.
Joseph Smith was pedophile and so was Mohammed. Both of them practiced, allowed and encouraged polygamy. The Mormons also a believe a prophesy about a Mormon president of the United States.
Would I vote for a woman, or a black candidate? If I trusted them to be a true conservative you-bet-your-buttons I would.
Call it bigotry or whatever else you want. I prefer to call it discernment and choice.
|
|
|
The update does nothing but reiterate the initial illogical comparison. It is like saying "Why should Larry Craig answer for his arrest if Harry Reid wouldn't have to answer for kiddie porn?" Mitt Romney has to address the Mormon issue because he is, in fact, Mormon, and many Americans find that strange. It is not "bigotry" to question a religion that one is unfamiliar with or to hesitate to vote for someone based on a foreign belief-system. Indeed, it strikes me as odd that people of faith would suggest that all faiths be off limits -- it is counter-intuitive. In essence, it means as long as you are religious -- any religion -- that is all that matters. Yet, clearly we can all agree at the very least that there are some beliefs that are so absurd that they don't deserve our respect. In fact, it is exactly what Locke argues when he argues for toleration. The government still gets to prohibit certain rituals, acts etc. that de facto proscribe certain religions (Thugee, for example). Hence, the end of polygamy, which was NOT voluntary. The only debatable point is what the line of acceptable and unacceptable belief systems is -- would you all refrain from mocking Kucinich's belief in aliens? Why is that risible but a belief in golden tablets must be off-limits? |
|
»»we believe we are right in our rites of worshiping God, and we respect your right to worship however you wish.««
If Jesus was not tolerant of the diversity of "religious" views, why are you? After all, He said that He is the ONLY Way to the Father. Is He correct, or you? |
|
»»I just don't see what the big deal is about who claims to be a Christian and who isn't.««
You don't??
God says that you're supposed to see what the big deal is:
1Jn 4:1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
|
|
by giving the talk on Faith In America. It is time to give American citizens the civics and religious lesson that they obiviously need in order to choose a leader. I hope Mitt takes full advantage of this opportunity to speak to the nation about the course that will be set by requiring all sects to meet whatever standard they feel best defines Christian.
Although I support Mitt fully for the nomination, I care less about him recieving the nomination than that he stand firm by the principles that have guided him throughout his life.
Before any of you offer your snide remarks, I remind you that we believe we are right in our rites of worshiping God, and we respect your right to worship however you wish. |
|
(1)
I'm saddened by CTL's story for many reasons, but I doubt very much that she's being "stalked" in anything like the normal sense of that word. Mormons are, overwhelmingly, decent people, much like other committed religious believers. We're hardly "stalkers," but we do care about our fellow church members, and we tend to be a close community. I'm not surprised that some of CTL's fellow members have thought that maybe they could help her.
(2)
"Argue all you want about whether Mormons are Christians, but you have already defeated your argument when you stated what the book of Mormon says. Chirstians do not beleive that there is a sequel to the Holy Bible which is why we tend to disagree with you when you bring up the what the book of Mormon says."
But some Christians DO accept scripture beyond the Bible. Take the Mormons, for example.
You're committing the logical fallacy known as "begging the question." |
|
According to the Mormon Mittwitts on this site, I am one of the biggest bigots around.
My point is I just don't care what they call themselves. It just an argument that won't ever end!
Yes we are!
No you aren't!
And so on and so on.
There are much more important issues to discuss. IMO.
CLT, good luck leaving. If what you say is true, it must be an awful thing to go thru. |
|
|
I will pray for you and will ask my circle of friends to pray for you as well. We pray that you will be free from this harassment. Thanks for the courage to speak up. |
|
Joe, just as you would not vote for a Scientologist, Moonie or Quaker for president, I would also not vote for a Mormon.
And guess what? I am a Mormon!
I have learned too much much and studied too much to trust a Mormon in our nation's highest office. Yes, we have some strange beliefs: (1)Jesus and Satan are brothers (2)I can become a God - just like God (3)We still believe in polygamy in the afterlife (my husband can be married to more women than just me, but I can only have one husband), but it's the oaths we take in the temple that make me not trust a mormon as president.
I'm sure you're wondering why I'm still Mormon. Well I have been trying to get out of this church for the last 5 months and they won't let me leave. I sent a resignation letter and rather than honor it and send me a letter confirming I'm out, they keep sending Visiting Teachers (women), Home Teachers (men), the missionaries, my bishop and a few stake leaders to my home. They don't let up! I am being stalked. It's not like the Catholic or Lutheran churches where if you want to leave you leave and no one bothers you. When you want out of the Mormon church they try to pressure and scare you into staying. And they shun you. Until I get a confirmation letter stating I'm out, they will continue to harrass me the rest of life. They even followed me after we moved and I hadn't let anyone in the church know where we moved to! |
|
Jane,
I do not agree with you that discussing whether or not LDS is a sect of Christianity is a "little point" some on the posters state that of course we are Christian and how dare you challenge us. That attitude is what worries me most and why I am most afraid of Mitt. Would we have to hold our opinion on any issue while he was in office just to avoid being called a bigot?? And if you think I am crazy, look how many times the B word has been thrown around these post and by Hugh etal for any of us that dare challenge good ole Mitt. |
|
I was accused yesterday by someone else of being a "Neocommie," an "old angry liberal," and a "clown." And that was for being supportive of Rudy Giulaini!
Sometimes having the right enemies is a good thing! |
|
soley on him being a Mormon, that does not make it right. Mormons are generally good people, good citizens, and there no legitmate reason to be prejudiced against them. Are there bad Mormons. . . sure, look at Harry Reid (I kid!).
I am not a Romney supporter. If the election were held today I would choose McCain, followed by Thomspon, followed by Giuliani, followed by Romney, followed by Huckabee. My reasons are secular, because I like the candidates on their policy positions and histories in that order.
I would not vote for a Scientologist for President. I would not vote for a "Mooney" for President. That is because I do not trust those "faiths."
As much as I respect the Society of Friends, I would not vote for a strict Quaker who opposed self defense for President. It would not be wise to elect a pacifist as President.
I would vote for a Mormon. I definitely absolutely do not equate the LDS Church any different than any major mainstream religious group in this country (i.e., Roman Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, etc.). If a good Hindu candidate ran I might consider voting for that person, or Bahai. Frankly I always considered LDS to be its own Protestant religion (granted its is not Lutheran, Calvinist, etc.) But to reject Romney solely because he was raised as a member of the LDS Church seems petty and bigoted. That should not be a deal breaker for President, in my opinion. |
|
|
And that you're lying for him. She is anti-Romney to the point of being crazed. |
|
'In fact I would become a Mormon today...if you were able to show me ONE shred of evidence , a pottery bowl, a piece of the golden plates , a map of were the Jaredites, Nephites, and Lamaanites resided in North South or Central America. There is NO EVIDENCE AT all."
You can free to prove Christ's resurrection. Testmonies come from the spirit not by signs or belief alone. Christ was among men and very few believed He was the Savior, the evil spirits knew who Christ was and obeyed His commands to flee before Him. If tangible proof is necessary for believing in Christ how can you prove Christ's Atonement and Ressurrection? |
|
Chill out. I am not lying. I assume if George H.W. Bush is hosting Mitt Romney for his speech, it may not be an official endorsement, but I doubt he would extend the same favor to say. . . Ron Paul. Most people would take it as an endorsement.
Of course voters can reject a candidate for any reason they want. I have to admit I cannot imagine voting for a Muslim candidate for President right now. I am not saying Muslims cannot hold high office, serve in cabinets, or should be discriminated against--I just don't feel comfortable doing that (abstractly). Maybe there is some Muslim candidate who would persuade me, but I am 99% sure I would not do it--not because I hate Islam, but because the war on terror has such a huge Islamic component. Does that make me a bigot? Then again, I am 100% sure I would never vote for a Communists or Nazi for President, because I completely disagree with their positions. |
|
You keep making comments about people who disagree with Mormonism as being bigots. This is lame. I happen to like every Mormon I have ever met...very much. In fact I would become a Mormon today...if you were able to show me ONE shred of evidence , a pottery bowl, a piece of the golden plates , a map of were the Jaredites, Nephites, and Lamaanites resided in North South or Central America. There is NO EVIDENCE AT all. But Mitt's issues are not Mormonism. They are being a flip flopper...social conservatives would probably have gone with him had Huckabee not entered the race. He just happens to have a more consistent record. Since McCain attacked evagelicals back in 2000(they are less likely to vote for him..even though he also is a good man)
If you are a fair minded person- I will give you $50.00 to watch DNA VS the Book of Mormon on you Tube. or "The Bible & the Book of Mormon." Both talk about science and archeology and how they should be supports to a "reasonable faith" |
|
Stay tuned..this Thursday ..same Mitt Time same Mitt Channel(the hugh hewitt Blog)- POW!! take that Huckabee. Unlike Huckabee Mitt has been running from his Faith the whole time. The fact is his Mormomism is the LEAST of his problems. He is going to use this speech to deflect the real criticism that he is a pandering flip flopper and cry for religious tolerance because poor little ol Mitt people are picking on him and Tom Cruise...POOR LITTLE GUYS.. because they believe we were shipped here from other Planets....whah whah...people will buy it and he will dupe some "fair minded" types ...who they will guilt into believing that if you don't vote for Mitt you are a bigot.
Article 6 is SO BEING MISINTERPRETED. IT says their shall be no religious test given by the GOVERNMENT to run for office. THAT DOES NOT MEAN VOTERS CANNOT EMPLOY DISCRETION BASED ON WHATEVER CRITERIA THEY WANT....FROM WHETHER THE CANDIDATE HAS BUGERS IN HIS NOSE OR WHETHER HE ASCRIBES TO A BELIEF PERSONALLY THAT THEY ARE NOT COMFORTABLE WITH!!!! WHATEVER MAKE YOUR SPEECH ROMNEY OBVIOUSLY YOUR MONEY IS NOT WORKING. YOU NEED TO TRY SOMETHING!!!!!!! |
|
I do remove religion from the equation. I'm a conservative agnostic now, raised Catholic.
I sure do NOT think Romney is the best candidate, with or without religion.
He is principle-less. He is all over the map on so many issues. He panders, shamelessly, for votes. His word is not worth much, and I'm sorry, but I need to trust my President.
Would he be better than Hillary? Of course. But I'll take McCain or Fred before Mitt.
I trust McCain. He has made some mistakes, sure, but he isn't a pander bear like Mitt. Remember, Mitt was a one-term, ho-hum governor, who decided half-way through to run for President, and basically spent the second half of his term morphing into an ersatz uber-conservative, passing last-minute laws to get "on record" as being pro this or anti that, and riding the gay marriage thing to appear on Fox and CNN. |
|
BG writes of Protestants:
"The primary motive is money and keeping the pews filled with tithe and pledge payers. Fear appeals based on burning in Hell are the ultimate weapon."
Nice. So all the Christians are money grubbing charlatans, but LDS folks are pure? As if...
When I was in school, I lived in a building, downstairs from/ an LDS guy who had recently come out of the closet. It was obvious to anyone who spoke with him that he sure "seemed" gay, but apparently it was a big shock to his family. Well, it turned out he had tried to come out right after high school, but his family shamed him into staying "straight" and pushed him to get married. So he did, and even had a kid. But now he was a little older, and he realized that all his prayers and soul-searching had been in vain, and so he told his wife. And the wife freaked, understandably, and left with the kid, and moved back to Utah. And of course his family found out. So what did they do? Disowned him, completely, and even kicked him out of the church. He even needed to go to court to get to even SEE his kid, and his wife (they were not divorced) testified that she was afraid he would molest the kid, b/c gay people are perverts. This guy, who was basically a good person, was for a few months on the verge of killing himself, b/c his entire family told him how horrible and sinful he was...
So, BG, don't write about how Protestants use greed and fear to keep people in line things running. You know as well as I do that the LDS church asks for plenty from its members, and also enforces its values code with just as much intimidation as any other religion. I've been to SLC; I've done the tour; I've heard the pitch. Mormonism is now better or worse than any other religion in my book.
PS The "magic" (sorry, "protective") undergarments ARE odd, IMHO. |
|
Tom, I just don't see what the big deal is about who claims to be a Christian and who isn't.
There are so many more things to argue about that than that little point.
|
|
Daniel,
Argue all you want about whether Mormons are Christians, but you have already defeated your argument when you stated what the book of Mormon says. Chirstians do not beleive that there is a sequel to the Holy Bible which is why we tend to disagree with you when you bring up the what the book of Mormon says. |
|
"Mitt is Mormon. Barack is NOT Muslim. They are not functionally equivalent stories."
That is true. The question is not whether religion can't be a factor in people's choice. Rather, it is the question of whether religious beliefs and doctrines not germane to the political issues involved have a place in political debate. I have not found among those protesting against his religion well founded and reasoned arguments why his religion is a disqualifier. That a religious view is "weird" doesn't cut it. They need to explain HOW being "weird" is going make him any less qualified than any of the others. |
|
From your evaluation of the cantidates.
Who is the best one?
Romney.
Those who are defending a tepid cantidate who speaks well at debates like Huckabee are welcome to the drubbing they'll get in the general election with him as their nominee.
Frankly, Huckabee isn't even trying to BE the nominee. He knows he doesn't have the cash or organization to pull it off. He's just trying to be Guiliani's Veep.
So who would you rather have evangelicals? Guiliani who doesn't share your values, or Mitt - who (like it or not) DOES. This is putting aside their respective managerial skills, where Mitt frankly destroys Rudy. |
|
If the Barack "rumors" were true, then it would be a campaign issue. Americans have the right to discuss whether or not they want a Muslim President. And Americans have the prerogative to exercise the same right in discussing Mitt's faith.
Mitt is Mormon. Barack is NOT Muslim. They are not functionally equivalent stories. |
|
(1)
WTH says that Mormons who think they're Christians don't know anything about their own religion. This is vacuous nonsense. I'll put my knowledge about my religion -- and, for that matter, about several others -- against WTH's any day of the week.
Mormons think they're Christians because . . . well, because their faith is centered on the life, atonement. and resurrection of Christ. This isn't rocket science. All of our prayers, sermons, and ordinances (rituals) are done explicitly done in the name of Christ. We commemorate the crucifixion of Christ every Sunday in the sacrament (i.e., communion). We read the New Testament regularly, and the Book of Mormon itself announces, on its title page, that it is a witness of Christ. And so on and so forth. When we're told that we're not Christians, we find it ridiculous and, yes, offensive.
(2)
On the matter of Mitt Romney's response to the question about a Muslim in the cabinet: I've rather liked Mansoor Ijaz in the past, and I have no doubt that he's sincere. But I also don't believe that Mitt Romney is either stupid or a bigot. So I think what's happened here is a failure of communication of one sort or another, and I would be inclined to trust Romney's insistence on what he meant.
|
|
try "Erik" at Redstate this morning and I am digging out the other one which I read Saturday. It might have been Liz Mahr but not sure.
will get back to you.
help Ron Paul? how? his trails are a consortium of the unhinghed. |
|
|
You are right of course. I am glad we live in a free country where we can vote for whom we want for whatever reason we want. |
|
Why would you take an anonymous source and a dem contributor's word over Romney's? Because the story fits your RDS template.
Jane - NO candidate would say something so stupid, and especially not Romney. I mean, did you read the quote? It's sounds like a high-schooler speaking. It sounds like a person who has no discernable thought process. It may be foreign to you, Jane, but use some logic.
Romney knows all too well the problem with religious test for office. It's simply not possible that he is that foolish.
You also have to believe he lies. I just don't Jane, and I don't think there's any evidence for it.
But aren't you still breathlessly waiting for the info from pt? Now THAT's a story! Good luck with that, Jane.
|
|
You are such a liar.
The press release clearly states that this in no way is an endorsement by Bush Senior.
You and your ilk are so desperate you will sink to lying at the drop of a hat.
Lying for the candidate? Stop. We are not stupid.
|
|
Well Jim Gerhathy over at Campaign Spot talked to the other witness who backed up Monsoor's story.
Now that witness doesn't want to let people know his name. He most likely lives in Nevada, he is a businessman and knows it would damage him.
As JG said, Hugh is free to contact him and get the guy's number. Hugh chooses not to because he doesn't want to face the truth.
Go read Campaign Spot PC, and tell me Jim is a liar.
I realize that to the Mormon supporters of Romney, he can do no wrong. But others can see the light. Hopefully enough will see the fakeness that is ROmney and won't vote for him. |
|
Midwest minister:
Yes, evangelicals form the base of the
GOP, they have for several generations now. Those who don't like them are free to go form their own party. What's stopping them, Perot did it. Calling the base of the party bigots is not the the key to electoral success. I am not a Dick Morris, but even I can figure that out. |
|
|
I've read the JFK speech and it will be hard to top. |
|
Are Politico links disabled now?
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1207/7143.html
|
|
The Politico reports:
"The advisers said Romney’s goal is to de-legitimize criticism and suspicion of his faith by stressing the broad themes of religious liberty, the grand tradition of religious tolerance, the role of faith in public life, and how his faith will inform his presidency...
The former governor does not plan to get into the nitty-gritty of LDS theology. “It won’t be Mormon 101,” an aide said..." http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1207/7143.html
Mitt is also doing the speach at the George H.W. Bush libaray and the former president is introducting him (which is a big deal for Mitt). If W is not exactly the best endorsement now, the President's dad--and the implication Jeb may not be far behind--are the gold standard (especially with a major fight in Florida coming).
The Politico says this is highly risky. One critic calls it ham handed and reactive to bad polling numbers. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/12/mitts_ha mhanded_campaign.html
A speech addressing themes of religious tollerance, American traditions of no religious tests for public office, and general faith guiding his life and campaign is fine (I do not believe Mitt Romney needs to justify his LDS Faith or explain it), but this seems like a lot of hype. A week of speculation about this is a lot of free publicity for Mitt Romney, but now people really expect something significant. A general speech is no long good enough, the folks are going to want to see a show.
So it is risky. If Mitt pulls off a rehtorical tour de force, it will generate some real Mittmentum, probably nationally. If he doesn't, it may hurt him.
|
|
|
My the hatred for evangelicals is quite evident in these comments. According to many of you "experts" I am a preacher because I want to manipulate, fleece, control, harass and scare people. I have no scrupples and am a bigotted homophobe. I could go on but then I would become a long winded wordy poster. Mormonism is not part of orthodox Christianity, as admitted by a Mormon poster. I agree. Mitt is running for president and not pastor. His record is long and public and He should not have to make this "Kennedy" speech. Some of the Mormon posters have made me aware that hatred exists on both sides of othodoxy and the rest just hate some evangelicals. I have people to comfort and a sermon to prepare, or is that people to decieve and cheat? |
|
|
...but, what the heck? The Romney campaign may know something I don't. Frankly, I don't know what more he can say than what he has said already. If he is going to go ahead and do it, I hope he gets the job done cleanly and thoroughly so we can put this non-issue to bed. |
|
She can't wait for a new bogus story about Romney to hit! Please pt - get those links to Jane asap.
Jane, I noticed that you couldn't come up with one witness who claims Romney said he wouldn't appoint any Muslims to his cabinet. Yea, credible story, that one. A reporter who maxed out on contributions to dems and 2 imaginary "witnesses". |
|
Just as the You Tube debates clearly demonstrated, all of this just goes to show that today's GOP needs to spend some serious time on "time-out" before it can reassume a significant role in American politics. When your leading candidates are fighting over who goes to what church in the midst of a war, record level defecits, and an imminant economic downturn - it's time to look somewhere else for answers.
|
|
.....has always been about faith and not religion. I wonder if evangelicals would seek the LDS vote (as if there is an LDS vote), if their candidate was losing an election by a couple million votes?
I have found that bigots need to have bad guys in order to keep the pews, and by extension, and coffers full.
Just take a look at the bad guys these bigots create in order to keep their sheep in need of their spiritual "guidance".
The LDS church
Harry Potter
Atheists
And the latest bad guy?
The movie "The Golden Compass". According to many bigots, it is an attempt to destroy God through a popular movie to entice children to read the book. (which I heard was written by an atheist) I guess the message that atheists espouse is so truthful, that not even the teachings of God can withstand its truthy truthfullness!
If it were not for the bigoted pastors, I'd bet most of their parishioners wouldn't see any of those as threats to their salvation. They would see them as harmless and if their child got too engrossed in it, they would put the kibosh on it. Oh, but wait, them what do they need the pastor for? Lets face it, being an evangelical Christian is pretty cut and dried. Once you have the basics down, you can pretty much wing it. That is why you see so many traveling Christians who bill themselves as pastors and missionaries and the like. My sister takes in every one of these guys. The last one was a guy who preached through song. She boarded him and fed him and he sang praises to Jesus through song. He hung out for about a month and then moved on to the next town. Simple.
Soooooo, pastors need to liven things up to keep butt's in the pews. Most do this through very honorable means. But some, because they are bigots, go to that which fits their personality. Preach against anything that isn't what you believe. |
|
" Patriotic Liberal writes:
One is a lie. The other is an issue."
Why is it an "issue"? |
|
Could you name those two sites?
We are dying to know.
If Romney supporters were behind those calls, Ron Paul will beat Mitt in Iowa.
|
|
|
BG - What Christians attacked Bush for not being 'Christian' enough? |
|
"Again, you Mormons who claim to be Christians simply know nothing of your own religion, it is clear."
WTH: the definitive authority on Mormonism and Christianity.
Please.
WTH, you're obviously not a Christian. You have no idea what you believe. And it is clearly not Christian in nature. Sadly, you have been mislead and deceived.
There, I have spoken on the matter. WTH ? Christian. End of story, let's move on. Would anyone else like me to deem them Christian or non-Christian? Just let me know - I'm here to serve. I'm sure I read something about your religion on some website once and can assess it objectively and accurately. Really, it's no bother at all. It's what I do. And it's quite easy.
Sounds arrogant and obnoxious, no?
As I said before, Jesus himself would probably be called non-Christian today by some of you pretentious fools. |
|
|
..but, in terms of "rumors," the key difference between Barack and Mitt is that Barack is NOT a Muslim, while Mitt IS a Mormon. There is no equivalence. One is a lie. The other is an issue. |
|
Actually the Catholic Church has been attacked for years with the same tactics that the anti Mormons use against the Mormons. In many cases the anti Catholics are the same people. It is all about taking the Catholic or Mormon religion and turning it into a strange distortion and attacking the surreal distortion.
That is the nature of some of the Protestants. Further, they use these same tactics to attack other Protestants who they claim are not "Christian" enough. It is all a big game that gets used against any denomination that proves to be competition.
The primary motive is money and keeping the pews filled with tithe and pledge payers. Fear appeals based on burning in Hell are the ultimate weapon.
Whatever happened to "condemn not lest ye be condemned"? Meaning don't be judging anyone to hell as you do not have the right nor capacity to render righteous judgment. Christ will judge, and he alone, and it will be a righteous judgment that takes into account your whole life and circumstances. |
|
Sounds like it's going to be not an interview and certainly not a debate, but a SPEECH, and a speech likely followed by no questions. Therefore, Romney will include some of the ways in which Mormonism "agrees" with orthodox Christianity (e.g., "Jesus is the Son of God," "Jesus is my personal Savior," etc.), but will EXCLUDE the many, many Mormon doctrines which differ radically from orthodox Christianity (e.g., Mary's physical intercourse with God, spirit babies, men becoming gods of their own planets, and other "doctrines" pointed out in many of the e-mails above.) Romney will have satisfied the public's basic insistence of a speech "about" Mormonism, but he will not get into delicate specifics.
Now, as wacky as Mormonism is, do we NOT vote for Romney, if he is the Republican nominee, simply because of Mormonism's wacky doctrines? Or, can we assume that Romney's faith will not interfere with his being President (a la Kennedy in the early 1960s)? Do we not vote for Romney or pro-abortion Guiliani and risk letting Hillary Clinton get elected to the highest office in the land.
Come next November I'm going to vote for the REPUBLICAN nominee. Period. |
|
why is MR making the speech:
1. sheer tactics to de facto paint anyone who does not vote for him as a bigot.
2. the push poll issue... two days after it hit the news, on this site, I said that a very high level campaign person (not MR):
(a) MR supporters organized it.
(b) MR senior people did not know or understand the implications.
(c) MR himself blundered and blamed McCain and others for besmirching him for religous reasons.
Team MR knows that every other campaign knows what happened and yet they are afraid to acknowledge the truth.
Two other major sites are today confirming that everyone knows reality and that it is going to explode on MR ... and it will be really unfair.
MR needs to change the subject plus they are really scared as they are starting to tank in their private polling ... this is a very big mistake as it invites a comparison with Mormonism vs. Evangelicals.
|
|
"richard_223 writes: Sunday, December, 02, 2007 9:26 PM
He spent millions and a huge amount of time there, now he has fallen behind an underfunded almost unknown from Hope, AK, of all places."
Mitt's entire campaign in Iowa is based on name recognition. He has that. Now he needs to convince the base that his faith isn't going to be an issue in his presidency.
My opinion is:
He may start running a campaign against Huck that isn't perceived as an overt attack. He will start laying out his strengths that will make it clear the contrast between his record and Hucks. He'll use one of Hucks patented catch phrases in an ad/speech.
Huck is going nowhere even if he does win Iowa. The dems that voted for the Clenis will never vote for Huck. His injection of his religion into this polarizes the electorate. The tact Mitt is taking on his faith is not polarizing. I'd bet even some atheists would vote for Mitt. |
|
"Vorpal writes: Sunday, December, 02, 2007 8:59 PM
I mean, we are allowed to marginalize Ron Paul because he is a Libertarian whack-job. Aren't I a bigot for saying that as well?"
Libertarianism is a POLITICAL philosophy and Mormonism IS NOT. That is why it is suggested people who think so are bigoted against anything LDS. The LDS teachings have no more to do with the office of president as does the type of food a person prefers. So called "Christians" who believe only they hold the right moral values do in fact fit the definition of a bigot.
Bigot: a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion. (Dictionary.com)
IF there was behavior in Mitt's past that indicated that he was going to turn this country into an LDS religious state you might have a reason to fear him. But he never has, and never will. All you have to do is look to your opinion of him. You think he is a slave to his religious tenets. Well, here is one of the tenets the LDS hold fast to.
The 12th article of faith of the LDS church:
"We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law."
Yet you run your mouth of suggesting that he would do otherwise.
So, which is it? He is either a religious fanatic who follows all the teachings and is a threat to this country or he isn't. In either case your bigoted stance is baseless fear mongering.
You can't expect to be taken seriously and try to have it both ways. |
|
... over emotional twaddle. That Mormons are not Christians is an absolutely TRUE statement. But, saying that suddenly makes me a "bigot" or "anti-Mormon" or a "hater."?
Hardly.
Jews aren't Christians either, but saying so doesn't make me "hate" Jews. Oranges aren't apples, either, but I love them both.
Again, you Mormons who claim to be Christians simply know nothing of your own religion, it is clear. You have been propagandized by your Church leaders into imagining that you are "Christians" to make your Church seem more mainstream both to yourselves and others. That is ALL there is to it. You've been fooled by a con man. But, don't feel bad. You folks are in the same boat as millions of other Mormons since the early 1800's! You aren't alone, for sure.
But, once again, it doesn't make you bad people. Just easily led.
I am not really against Mitt because he is a Mormon. I am against him because he has no principles, is a flip flopper, and will be too easily driven by the winds of changing public opinion. This is a dangerous personality trait to have in a president in this time of danger when we need a president with convictions.
Mitt the malleable is one of the worst candidates the GOP is offering. Not only will he destroy the GOP with his easily pushed personality and lack of principle, but we will find his do-anything-to-get-it-done attitude will be one easily exploited by our enemies both here and abroad.
Mitt Romney will be ruinous for the USA. |
|
The Elder who was killed was from CA (name withheld) his companion was a "greenie" and had only been out a couple of weeks. This was in about 1975. The area as I recall was somewhere around Austin/Killeen/Waco.
After the incident the missionary success went up dramatically. |
|
I went on a foreign mission to the foreign country of TX. I remember getting off of the plane and walking into a sauna (the air). My first thought was "2 year of this".
The people were friendly and really decent. The Baptists would feed you (the New Testament says that is how you can tell the true disciples of Christ) Some of them would listen and a few of them would join. Most of them were comfortable with their own church. I think we activated more Baptists/Methodists for those denominations than joined ours.
On a few occasions I looked down the wrong end of a gun and one guy did threaten to kill us. We actually did have 2 missionaries who were murdered. I knew one of them. I also met his killer about 4 months before the incident. In my opinion the killer was paranoid.
I will not bore you with the details. It helps to be young,naive and idealistic.
At least I did not go to Siberia or some place cold. |
|
cyndu was illustrating absurdity by being absurd, in case you didn't get it.
LDS folks do not have a victim complex - we would just like others to stop falsly trying to define us. And we don't give a darn whether you vote for Mitt or not. We'll only think you're a bigot if you sound like one. It has nothing to do with who you support for president. |
|
cyndu writes:
"Mormons are not Christians because the name on every Mormon church worldwide is "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." To be a Christian church today, you have to have names on your churches like Bent Tree Fellowship, or Barbara Thorne Ministries, or World Changers, or Ed Young Ministries,– names that all signal that Christ is your main focus."
This illustrates the pointlessness of all this silliness. My church is better than yours, b/c it has Christ in the name? I love the hypocritical combination of victim complex and arrogance on the part of the LDS folks - if you don't vote for Mitt, you are a bigot, but I get to say derogatory things about YOUR religion, because I am a victim, poor me. |
|
|
Thanks for posting the JFK speech. Iremember listening to it a couple of months ago and thinking how much our country needs this kind of wisdom right now. Especially that part about the separation of church and state being "absolute". Now, whenever I hear someone like Dennis Prager speak about how much he wishes that modern Democrats were more like JFK, I just shake my head in amazement at how much they have deluded themselves about so much of American history. |
|
|
So who are these NeoCommis? |
|
"Mormons are clearly not Christians for the following reasons"
Bravo! It won't placate the rabid Mormon haters here, but it's brilliant nonetheless.
I doubt Jesus himself would be called a Christian by some these days. Sad, but true. |
|
JFK's answer begins:
"While the so-called religious issue is necessarily and properly the chief topic here tonight, I want to emphasize from the outset that we have far more critical issues to face … .
… But because I am a Catholic, and no Catholic has ever been elected President, ... it is apparently necessary for me to state once again--not what kind of church I believe in, for that should be important only to me--but what kind of America I believe in.
I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute ... where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.
I believe in an America ... where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials--and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all.
For while this year it may be a Catholic against whom the finger of suspicion is pointed, in other years it has been, and may someday be again, a Jew--or a Quaker--or a Unitarian--or a Baptist. ... Today I may be the victim- -but tomorrow it may be you--until the whole fabric of our harmonious society is ripped at a time of great national peril.
Finally, I believe in an America where religious intolerance will someday end--where all men and all churches are treated as equal--where every man has the same right to attend or not attend the church of his choice--where ... [all] refrain from those attitudes of disdain and division which have so often marred their works in the past, and promote instead the American ideal of brotherhood.
That is the kind of America in which I believe. … I believe in a President whose religious views are his own private affair, neither imposed by him upon the nation or imposed by the nation upon him as a condition to holding that office."
The entire speech is at http://www.jfklibrary.org
|
|
|
Well done! The church name comment made me burst out laughing. |
|
Mormons are clearly not Christians for the following reasons:
1. Mormons don't go on TV and sell Christ for money.
2. Mormons don't print anti-evangelical pamphlets or produce anti-evangelical movies as a cottage industry to make a buck by condemning other churches.
3. Mormons don't have a ministry that actually thinks its OK to get paid to preach. In fact, Mormons are so out of the mainstream that they don’t even have a paid ministry at all.
4. Mormons don't have blatant and abject inequality between their churches in the rich and poor areas of town. Mormons build too nice of church buildings in the poor areas.
5. Mormons don't have separate congregations that compete with each other to try to attract members from the other Mormon church down the street. You really need that to be Christian today.
6. Mormons are not Christians because the name on every Mormon church worldwide is "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." To be a Christian church today, you have to have names on your churches like Bent Tree Fellowship, or Barbara Thorne Ministries, or World Changers, or Ed Young Ministries,– names that all signal that Christ is your main focus.
7. Mormons are clearly not Christians because the Mormon church’s website has a picture of Christ on the landing page and most every other page. To be a Christian church today you have to have a website that is mostly pictures of the preacher.
8. Mormons are not Christians because Mormons can explain the difference between the Mormon church in Moscow Russia and the one in Moscow Idaho in two words (“no difference”). To be a Christian today, you have to not be able to explain the reason for, or the differences between the three evangelical churches on the same block.
I could go on, but I think the case is made with the above.
|
|
|
|
Tell me more about the NeoCons. Rove is a NeoCon and Rudy is a NeoCon. Who else? What are they up to?
|
|
Excellent job Daniel.
Actually except for food fights on Town Hall the "Mormon" issue will fade after the speech. Romney will use this speech to inoculate himself. He will appeal to every religious person who does not use their own religion as a litmus test for office. He will get enough of the religious voters to overcome Huck/Fred who are now dividing the South.
Romney will be able to move on to other issues and pry votes off of Rudy and McCain. If he needs to move back to the religion issue in the future he will give Speech 2. Romney sees an opportunity that has been created by a bad mistake by Huck. What works for Huck in the short run with help from the local media in IA will not work on the national level.
Huck is already back peddling as fast as he can nationally without looking like a flipper.
Just wait until all of the video comes out with him quoting scriptures in favor of tax increases. That ought to play real well in NH. |
|
My apologies for going on so long (even though the length was inadequate to the questions) about theological issues on a political blog.
These sorts of discussions are, properly speaking, irrelevant to Mitt Romney's candidacy for the American presidency.
Unless it can be demonstrated that Romney's religious beliefs imply derangement, impaired thinking, or some other disqualifying thing, their particulars should be of no more concern to the general public than, say, some other hypothetical candidate's belief in Mary's perpetual virginity or the resurrection of Christ or limited atonement or predistination or the inerrancy of the Bible -- all of which can easily be made to look absurd and perhaps even threatening. What counts is a candidate's public record, policy positions, and character. |
|
"6. Mormons believe that when Christ returns to earth, a millennium of peace will begin under Christ's rule (Article of Faith number ten), presumably as a single theocracy. Most Mormons believe that during that time, Mormons will be Christ's appointed officers and that the law will conform to Mormon teachings. Do you believe that?"
We believe in a millennium of peace during which CHRIST will rule, and which will be shared by people of good will from all faiths.
"7. According to Mormon scripture (Doctrine and Covenants 135:3) Joseph Smith did more than any other man except Jesus Christ "for the salvation of men in this world." Do you agree with that, keeping in mind the contributions of men like the Apostles, Saint Paul, Thomas Aquinas, Saint Augustine, Martin Luther, Martin Luther King, and others?"
We admire good people of all persuasions (one of my own sons bears the name of "Thomas," after Thomas Aquinas [a hero of mine]). But we do, it's true, think that prophets are in a league of their own, and that they speak and act with more authority than even great philosophers or reformers. Because of Joseph Smith's role in what we believe to be the Restoration of the Gospel in the last days, we tend to view him as one of the greatest, if not THE greatest, of the prophets. Again, we realize that those who reject our teachings will disagree, but our position is completely reasonable within our conceptual framework.
I hope these answers (though necessarily brief, cursory, and incomplete) are helpful.
|
|
Fejj Maybe your right, maybe you are wrong, I have no idea, we shall see next month. What I am having fun with is how Hugh is going to spin Huck's rise in the polls, Hugh will be the fastest man alive, spinning faster than the speed of light. I' getting dizzy already.
I must say, for all his reputed business skills, today's polls indicate Mitt is not getting much back for all his Iowa investment. |
|
"4. It is well documented that Joseph Smith, the founder of the Mormon Church, secretly had many wives. Some of those women were at the same time married to other men, some were as young as fifteen, He claimed that he was commanded by God to enter into these marriages. Do feel that these early marital practices of the church founder were really commanded by God?"
This is certainly the most difficult issue in Mormon history and in the biography of Joseph Smith. And yet, convinced as I am on other grounds that Joseph was a good and sincere man and, yes, that he was a prophet, I believe that his early plural marriages were commanded by God. I don't expect those who reject his prophethood to agree, but I would hope that they might understand that our conclusion is rational, given our view of him. (An excellent recent biography is Columbia University professor Richard Bushman's "Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling," which includes a very good discussion of the historical issues involved with his polygamy.)
Incidentally, for those who imagine that Joseph's life was one continual orgy, it might be interesting to note that DNA testing has, thus far, failed to identify any descendents of his other than those from his first wife, Emma. This and other facts suggests that it might be a serious mistake to think that his marriages were all or even mostly about sex. And, in fact, at least some of them were almost certainly never consummated.
|
|
"3. Mormons teach that by obedience to all the commandments of Mormonism, a Mormon may attain the highest degree of heaven and ultimately become a god, creating and ruling over his own universe. Do you believe that? Is this your ultimate personal goal?"
My ultimate personal goal is to become, through the grace of God, as much like my Father as he will permit me to be, and, as the New Testament repeatedly promises, to inherit all that he has. This is a very ancient Christian doctrine. As St. Athanasius, the father of the Nicene Creed, liked to say, quoting a statement that was already very old when he used it in the early fourth century, "God became man so that men could become gods." (There are literally hundreds of statements from the first centuries of Christianity that teach this doctrine of "theosis," of humans becoming, "gods." Whether we will create our own universes, and all that sort of thing, is mere speculation (though some ancient Jews and Christians believed precisely that).
|
|
"3. Mormons teach that by obedience to all the commandments of Mormonism, a Mormon may attain the highest degree of heaven and ultimately become a god, creating and ruling over his own universe. Do you believe that? Is this your ultimate personal goal?"
My ultimate personal goal is to become, through the grace of God, as much like my Father as he will permit me to be, and, as the New Testament repeatedly promises, to inherit all that he has. This is a very ancient Christian doctrine. As Athanasius, the father of the Nicene Creed, liked to say, quoting a statement that was already very old when he used it in the early fourth century, "God became man so that men could become gods." (There are literally hundreds of statements from the first centuries of Christianity that teach this doctrine of "theosis," of humans becoming, "gods." Whether we will create our own universes, and all that sort of thing, is mere speculation (though some ancient Jews and Christians believed precisely that).
|
|
So I think I'll take a crack at Livy's questions.
"1. According to your church's Articles of Faith, number eight, the Book of Mormon is the 'word of God.' Do you believe that?"
Yes, I accept the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price as canonical scripture. I don't regard any of them as inerrant, but I hold a very high view of all of them.
"2. According to the Book of Mormon a dark skin is a curse imposed by God on the unrighteous and their descendants as a punishment for sin. Do you agree with that doctrine? (Book of Mormon, 1 Nephi 12:22-23, Alma 3:6, 2 Nephi 5:21-22, Jacob 3:8, 3 Nephi 2:15-16, Mormon 5:15; references to the "Lamanites" are taken to be referring to Native American "Indians".)"
I think that the authors of the Book of Mormon regarded skin darker than theirs as a curse. Likewise, the ancient Egyptians thought that their skin color was ideal while that of the Nubians was disgusting, the medieval Arabs thought that blue eyes were satanic, the Chinese saw themselves as the Middle Kingdom, the ancient Persians saw the world as divided into Iran (the abode of light) and Turan (the abode of darkness, i.e. everything and everybody else). The seventh century Arabic Qur’an, too, portrays the faces of the wicked as being blackened at the day of judgment.
If a purportedly ancient text weren't ethnocentric, I would be very suspicious of its claimed origin.
|
|
Your final analysis of whether Mormons are Christians is fatally flawed, the final analysis hasn't occured and will not occur until final judgement.
|
|
Stop on by my site, all the answers to your questions,(beware) from Mormons. You will get another side of the counter cultist's story.
Once again, beware, the info is from Mormons, and you can't trust Mormons, they are nice and clean cut, but you cant trust them.
|
|
Run the country, it doesn't matter to the crazy's what you believe Mitt.
cornpone harry writes:
"I feel Romney's involvement in the LDS cult shows naivette and reflects an alarming lack of judgment and also discernment-which is critical for a POTUS."
There is no speech that has been given or that will ever be given by any Mormon, let alone a Mormon running for President of the United States, that would quench the sideshow counter-cult fanatics known as Sunni-vangelists that preach against Mormons out of a desire to fill their own pockets by "preaching truth and love" to Mormons. If the desire is to preach to Mormons, why is all the literature geared to Evangelicals and not to Mormons? To make money off of Evangelicals, because Mormons know that their literature doesn't have anything to do with truth or love to Mormons.
A speech by Romney discussing his Mormon faith to Christians like cornpone harry is equivalent of a Jewish candidate discussing his faith to Muslims on state ran TV in Iran.
Unite the country, let cornpone harry and counter-cult fanatics work out their own salvation with fear and trembling. |
|
In the final analysis, no:
http://www.irr.org/mit/Neuhaus.html
|
|
Here's what I want Mitt to answer:
1. According to your church's Articles of Faith, number eight, the Book of Mormon is the "word of God." Do you believe that?
2. According to the Book of Mormon a dark skin is a curse imposed by God on the unrighteous and their descendants as a punishment for sin. Do you agree with that doctrine? (Book of Mormon, 1 Nephi 12:22-23, Alma 3:6, 2 Nephi 5:21-22, Jacob 3:8, 3 Nephi 2:15-16, Mormon 5:15; references to the "Lamanites" are taken to be referring to Native American "Indians".)
3. Mormons teach that by obedience to all the commandments of Mormonism, a Mormon may attain the highest degree of heaven and ultimately become a god, creating and ruling over his own universe. Do you believe that? Is this your ultimate personal goal?
4. It is well documented that Joseph Smith, the founder of the Mormon Church, secretly had many wives. Some of those women were at the same time married to other men, some were as young as fifteen, He claimed that he was commanded by God to enter into these marriages. Do feel that these early marital practices of the church founder were really commanded by God? (See the book "In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith" by Mormon historian Todd Compton for detailed biographies of these wives.)
5. According to Mormon scripture (Doctrine and Covenants 135:3) Joseph Smith did more than any other man except Jesus Christ "for the salvation of men in this world." Do you agree with that, keeping in mind the contributions of men like the Apostles, Saint Paul, Thomas Aquinas, Saint Augustine, Martin Luther, Martin Luther King, and others?
|
|
"every Mormon I've ever known accepts Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior.
pardon me, but doesn't this make them Christians?"
Well Mike, common sense would say "yes," but apparently a handful of commenters on this blog hold the keys to the definition of the word "Christian."
Isn't this essentially the attitude of the fundamentalist fascist Muslims we're fighting against? Where one segment of the religion proclaims all other segments of the religion either believers or heretics based on whether they agree with A, B, and C?
I'm afraid some of our so-called "Christian" friends feel they have the same right and obligation. Scary.
Catholicism differs greatly from evangelical theology, yet I don't hear anyone claiming Catholics aren't Christians. Odd.
I don't need *anyone* to tell me whether or not I'm Christian, thank you very much, particularly those whose knowledge about my beliefs doesn't extend beyond something they read on a website or something their minister told them. As a Mormon missionary in Mexico, the Jehovah's Witnesses missionaries would follow us from door to door and tell people we talked to that we were blood-sucking vampires. Ridiculous? Obviously. Amazingly, some people bought into this nonsense. Sadder still, many of my so-called "educated" colleagues (in these comments forums for instance) believe similar baloney they hear about Mormonism. |
|
Here's what I want Mitt to answer:
1. According to your church's Articles of Faith, number eight, the Book of Mormon is the "word of God." Do you believe that?
2. According to the Book of Mormon a dark skin is a curse imposed by God on the unrighteous and their descendants as a punishment for sin. Do you agree with that doctrine? (Book of Mormon, 1 Nephi 12:22-23, Alma 3:6, 2 Nephi 5:21-22, Jacob 3:8, 3 Nephi 2:15-16, Mormon 5:15; references to the "Lamanites" are taken to be referring to Native American "Indians".)
3. Mormons teach that by obedience to all the commandments of Mormonism, a Mormon may attain the highest degree of heaven and ultimately become a god, creating and ruling over his own universe. Do you believe that? Is this your ultimate personal goal?
4. It is well documented that Joseph Smith, the founder of the Mormon Church, secretly had many wives. Some of those women were at the same time married to other men, some were as young as fifteen, He claimed that he was commanded by God to enter into these marriages. Do feel that these early marital practices of the church founder were really commanded by God?
6. Mormons believe that when Christ returns to earth, a millennium of peace will begin under Christ's rule (Article of Faith number ten), presumably as a single theocracy. Most Mormons believe that during that time, Mormons will be Christ's appointed officers and that the law will conform to Mormon teachings. Do you believe that?
7. According to Mormon scripture (Doctrine and Covenants 135:3) Joseph Smith did more than any other man except Jesus Christ "for the salvation of men in this world." Do you agree with that, keeping in mind the contributions of men like the Apostles, Saint Paul, Thomas Aquinas, Saint Augustine, Martin Luther, Martin Luther King, and others?
|
|
You sound pretty Christian to me.
I have found most Mormons I have dealt with in business to be honest to a fault. They don't bring up religion overtly, they are just honest. I have, unfortunately found businesses with little fishes on their contracts to be less than Christian on a few occasions.
Reminds me of that old saying, when someone professes to be a Christian in a business deal, you better check your wallet. Now I know many Evangelicals are honest to a fault, but people should not be too quick to judge. . .
I remember that song, "You will know they are Christians by their love. . ." Actions often speak louder than words. |
|
Ruffini: "On the face of it, these searches are coming from people who believe his religious faith is a plus."
"Plus" indeed:
+ gods
+ wives
+ official "revelations" that contradict earlier ones.
Not that any of this matters, mind you. There is no religious test for office (though we all ought to be a'feared if and when a Muslim ever runs). Romney is to be rejected for a number of reasons that have nothing to do with his religion.
|
|
|
As amended, excellent post. God save us from religious bigots of whatever stripe. |
|
I believe that my only hope of heaven is in and through Jesus Christ, who took upon himself my sins and the sins of the world, who was crucified and buried in a borrowed tomb, and who rose again on the third day. He ascended into heaven, where he sits at the right hand of God the Father, but he will return again at the last day.
If you want to call me a non-Christian, you certainly have the freedom to do so. I trust that a fair number out there, though, will find your claim a bit odd. |
|
because I'm Jewish, but...
every Mormon I've ever known accepts Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior.
pardon me, but doesn't this make them Christians? |
|
WTH, you may want to put your hands over your ears and start saying "la la la la la la" so you won't to hear me say that I am a Mormon, that I am a Christian, and that anyone that would actually assume the right to claim otherwise for me, is no follower of Christ in my understanding of His teachings.
Christ said "Come unto me all ye that labor and are heavy laden." And if there was ever a people heavy laden right now, it is surely the Mormons that have to listen to today's Christian Pharisees make self-righteous pronouncements on who is and who isn't a Christian.
Or do you believe that you can stand between a Mormon and Christ and prevent her from coming unto Him for relief? Are you the ticket taker for admission to Christ?
(Oh, wait, you evangelicals actually HAVE perfected the “admission to Christ for a fee” game, haven’t you. No wonder you don’t like Mormons, we claim we’re getting into the show for free.)
|
|
HUck's rise in IA is not all at Romney's expense and in fact Mitt's dollars are stemming some of the flow to Huck - Huck is taking from the others as much if not more than Mitt. NH is a better weather vane as the primary voters there are less single issue social conservatives and tend to look at the fiscal and foreign policy stuff as well. Guiliani and McCain are fighting Romney very hard in NH and Mitt's lead is holding up well - McCain seems to be taking more off Thompson. Romney can afford a narrow loss to Huckabee in IA because Huck is a one state wonder. He will be lucky to get 2nd in NH, MI and NV but if he wins IA, will be really strong only in SC. If Guiliani does very poorly in IA and NH and SC then his FL lead will evaporate.
Romney can afford to lose narrowly in IA and still win elsewhere. He has all the dollars he needs to continue to fight in FL and super duper Tuesday - Huck will be all done after IA relying solely on media hype. Other states and the national media will not be as kind to him as the IA press have been. He has virtually no ground operation of substance in NH, SC or FL. He has to win big in IA or he is done.
This has Pat Robertson Mark II written all over it - Huck has defined himself as the evangelical candidate-the 'I'm not a Mormon - nudge nudge wink wink' approach. With a strong tailwind from the IA media it is working. Aside from SC, this perfect storm for Huck diminishes after Jan 3. |
|
WTH, you may want to put your hands over your ears and start saying "la la la la la la" so you won't to hear me say that I am a Mormon, that I am a Christian, and that anyone that would actually assume the right to claim otherwise for me, is no follower of Christ in my understanding of His teachings.
Christ said "Come unto me all ye that labor and are heavy laden." And if there was ever a people heavy laden right now, it is surely the Mormons that have to listen to today's Christian Pharisees make self-righteous pronouncements on who is and who isn't a Christian.
Or do you believe that you can stand between a Mormon and Christ and prevent him or her from coming unto Him for relief? Are you the ticket taker for admission to Christ?
(Oh, wait, many of you evangelicals actually HAVE perfected the “admission to Christ for a fee” game, haven’t you. No wonder you don’t like Mormons; we claim we’re getting into the show for free.)
|
|
richard 223
Huck's rise in IA is easily explained - a ton of uncritical local media coverage. Whilst some in conservative blogosphere and a few in the MSM are starting to question Huckabee on his ethics challenges, tax hikes and soft on illegals stances, very little of this is happening in IA. His aw shucks social conservatism is striking a note and he is riding a media wave there right now. He is not rising nearly so rapidly in reputable polls in NH, SC and FL.
Now that he is rising so high in IA, his record will get more scrutiny and his opponents are now attacking him (as they should). People are rubbing their hands with glee at the prospect of Mitt falling. He has by far the best GOTV operation in IA and in fact in all the major states. He can count on a good percentage of the highly motivated LDS vote in IA + large numbers of LDS volunteers who will bolster the troops on the ground. One poll done 1 day later than the Des Moines Register poll has Romney 1 ahead so this is a very tight race. |
|
|
oh, I mean NeoCon. Because that would offend Peak Oil. |
|
... but Mormons are NOT Christians in any way whatsoever. We don't have the time nor space here to go into why, but it is easy enough to find out.
I will say, though, that any Mormon who imagines they are Christians don't know much about their own religion and have been fooled like many about the nature of Mormonism. Granted, few people who profess to be Christians know much about their religion, so Mormons aren't very different than regular Christians.
I will also say that you people who just attacked me for stating the obvious fact that Mormons aren't Christians make the untenable leap that I MUST mean, therefor, that they are bad or evil. I didn't make such a claim, nor would I.
All I said was the TRUTH that Mormanism is not Christian. |
|
Have you read this article in the NY Times?
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/28/us/politics/28repubs.html ?_r=1&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1196265672-IdzKIpM06Zr5r/mDcU4n3g&or ef=slogin
Huckabee's comments at the end are truly appalling. I'm sorry, but what a jerk. Not to mention that he's a liberal except on social issues. If I wanted spending and taxes to increase I'd vote Democrat.
But this part at the end of the article really blows my mind. Huckabee isn't even trying to be subtle.
At a recent Huckabee event in Iowa, Glenda Gherkey, an evangelical from Evansdale, posed a question to the candidate.
“I’m concerned a lot of Christians are thinking about the values issues and forgetting about the creator behind the values issues,” Ms. Gherkey said. “I guess I feel like this country and this world needs a president who would be able to pray to the God of the Bible and he would be able to hear his prayers.”
She wondered, Would Mr. Romney’s prayers “even get through”?
In response, Mr. Huckabee said he did not want to “speak for any other candidate or denigrate them at all.”
But he added: “My views are what they are. I don’t think I’ve ever hidden where they come from.”
He then tried to make a joke: “I’m glad you’ve made your choice for me. I don’t care why. I’m just glad you did.”
Marjorie Connelly contributed reporting
|
|
|
The first thing every politician looks for is to be in the news. The more exposure the better, even if it seems negative at the time. There's a lot of people out there who still don't even know who Romney is. The point of this speech is really to re-energize his campaign. |
|
|
Romney is doing this now for one reason only- so that he'll be the center of attention again. Right now Huck is the center. If people start talking about Romney's Mormonism, he'll be talked about again. This can only be to his benefit. |
|
Cornpone Harry, do you represent "traditional evangelical Christians?" Because based on your writing I would think you do not.
Based on your writing, I would guess that you represent mean and common bigots that deal in slurs, slander, and lies, generated by dark and conniving wolves that don't even bother to put on sheep’s clothing.
You need to get your nose out of your self-generated anti-Mormon filth and open your eyes to what Mormons really believe and teach, and how their faith is actuated and demonstrated in their lives.
But I suppose I'm wasting my time. I guess weak minded and weak hearted ciphers like you will always be able to create and attack a self serving and incorrect image of your "enemies." The spirit of the ol' south lives on.
|
|
Not because his religion should matter (it should not). And not because Hugh says not to do so (actually, that's a pretty good reason TO do it!) But I think the MSM will love to run with the, "Running scared b/c of Huckabee, Romney finally makes the JFK speech..." The narrative will be less about what Mitt says, and more about why he is saying it, and at this time.
The problem with Mitt is he tried to invent a candidate that did not exist. An arch social conservative Mitt Romney. Unfortunately, this was for the benefit of the block of folks who are most discomforted by his religion. So when Huckabee comes along, and is more genuinely pro-life, Mitt looks less good in comparison. Most of Mitts support was purchased via ad buys, anyway.
I think this speech would have been OK a month ago. But with less than a month to the first caucus, it looks desperate. And even if it isn't, that's the way it will be perceived and discussed. |
|
I hipe he does make the speech, because
by discussing his religion he opens
up the subject of his beliefs to legitimate public scrutiny.
He can't then have it both ways. He can't make a speech about his religion and then then say it's off limits for *others* to discuss.
Besides making a speech saying his faith won't effect his decisions is not actually what concerns evangelicals.
They know the Mormon church probably wont dicate policy to him, so that is irrelevant anyway.
what we are concerned about is this:
If someone (Romney and all Mormons) believes that Jesus was sexually, physically conceived by Mary through her having actual coitus with God, or if someone believes that God and his wife are on a planet near Kolob having continual sex and creating “spirit babies,” to send to earth to enter into human babies as they are born (which means we are all born Mormons…the Muslims believe we are all born Muslims…do you wonder if either are correct?), or if someone believes that God was once a man but “became God” because he was such a good “Mormon,” or if someone believes that he can “become” a god himself, have his own planet, and create his own fiefdom with multiple wives and thousands of children (but only if he is married with the Mormon Temple rituals), if someone believes there is no hell, but there are three heavens, the best heaven being reserved for Mormons, I do not want him to be the Leader of the Free World, the President of these United States of America.
Go ahead Mitt we would like to have this discussion, and then let traditional evangelical Christians and others decide if they think those beliefs are consistent with sound judgment and discernment.
|
|
I look forward to the spin. You're right, Hugh consistently advised against this speech. But when Romneybot does it somehow Hugh will claim it was either his idea or a great stoke of brilliance or most likely both. I caught a replay of Hugh tonight on the web and somehow Hugh was spinning that if Mitt came in 2nd in Iowa that it was somehow a great thing. Can anyone try to explain this reasoning (actually spin) to me. Oh yeah I forgot about Hugh's magical math. You know where 5 is greater than 10 if you have great hair. You get the marshmallows I'll get the chocolate, it's smores time around here
Burn baby burn
dirL |
|
|
I'm a Giuliani guy and I think this is wrong. Those who won't vote for him because he's Morman still won't vote for him. |
|
I for one am sick of all the fighting over who can call themselves what.
Who cares if Mormons consider themselves Christian? I don't.
I don't care, and I consider Warren Jeffs to be Mormon too. And if he calls himself a Christian, so what?
|
|
|
Nothing is done in a Presidential campaign without first polling the speech idea. I think Mike Huckabee outpolling Gov. Romney in Iowa is the obvious reason for the speech at this time. I don't believe for a minute that Mitt is giving this because "he feels the time is right". That's pure spin. The whole strategy for Mitt winning depends on him winning Iowa...ergo, no win in Iowa = no GOP nomination for the Gov. Romney. |
|
Mormons believe in Christ as both Lord and Savior. We are just as Christian as any other "Christian" denomination. We read the Bible, more than most "true believers". At least that is what the Barna surveys indicate.
The anti Mormons will never give up on the idea that Mormons are not Christian or that Mormons are a cult. That is okay with me as you destroy your own source credibility and make yourself look extreme.
Various branches of Protestantism have attacked each other constantly. What else is new. A few weeks ago on this site, some were bashing Joel Osteen and other mega churches as "not Christian". It goes on and on. It the radicals bash everyone who does not agree with them, it mainly identifies them as radicals. |
|
|
I'm an EVC but I don't believe that Romney should address this matter. I know what Mormonism is and do not believe that Mormons are Christians. I also don't believe many people who claim to be Christians are Christians but that's another matter; however, I don't have a problem with a Mormon president. This is bad. A Mormon Romney in the White House is better than a Christian Jimmy Carter any day, anytime. |
|
So everybody, any theories as to why Mitt is tanking in Iowa? He spent millions and a huge amount of time there, now he has fallen behind an underfunded almost unknown from Hope, AK, of all places. Hugh kept telling us Mitt was a man with a plan, and the plan was going exaclty on plan. Does the 'speech' smack of desperation?
And Hugh kept telling us it was a two man race, Mitt and Rudy. Now Rudy's tax supported trysts with his lover and coming to light and Mitt is slippin badly in Iowa, the place where he has bet it all. Remember Harriet Myers! |
|
Mormons are proud of their doctrinal differences with both Orthodox Christianity (Catholic and Mainline Protestantism) and the less Orthodox Evangelical denominations. However, Mormons definitely are Christians, just not Orthodox ones.
There is substantial common ground among all of the above denominations. However, Mormons and non Mormons tend to emphasize the differences instead of the common ground.
The Mormon missionary effort is primarily based on presenting what is distinctive about Mormon doctrine. If it were not different then there would not be a reason to join.
Most of the early Mormons were Protestants or non denominational Christians. |
|
|
From the Campaign Spot :Here's a dynamic that may be related to the speech's trigger: A fellow on another campaign, whose candidate was not doing gangbusters in Iowa, speculated that Huckabee's recent rapid rise stemmed from support from a "secret weapon" of sorts: Pastors. This fellow painted a compelling picture of religious pastors of all kinds of faiths (but primarily evangelicals), gently talking up Huckabee and their personal admiration for the man, not just on Sundays but during weeknight Bible study groups, etc. Not a full-fledged, ceremonial "I endorse," but just the well-placed kind word to the small groups where their words are most influential." |
|
Romney said he had been a hunter his whole life and later explained that he'd been on actual trips only twice. So what. My husband is in the same boat. He grew up shooting birds and things out in the open fields before all of the developement around his home. He has guns and likes to shoot, but has never been on a hunting "trip". Romney didn't lie. You're grasping at straws. Everyone who knows him or has worked with him has vouched for his integrity.
Also, I'm very sure I am Christian and Mormon, and you can't make it untrue, no matter how hard you try. I'm very tired of the whole argument, because it's ridiculous. I don't try to re-define other's religious beliefs. Why are some "Christians" trying to do this to me? (It's not very Christlike, actually.)
There are 13 million LDS members whose core belief is in Jesus Christ as the Son of God and their Savior. It's just the reality. Everyone needs to G E T O V E R I T. |
|
This is going to be fun folks, watch Hugh defy the laws of physics and spin faster than the speed of light for the next four days. Oh, this is going to b be fun, I am popping up the corn already.
Was it not Hugh was advised Mitt to NOT give this speech? Doesn't anyone listen to poor Hugh anymore? |
|
anyone who is not comfortable with Mormonism is a bigot.
Hugh, I love ya! You are the first blog I check every morning, even without Dean, but I am not a bigot because I do not think that Mormonism is part of Christianity. I am not a bigot if I consider - consider - withholding my vote for Romney during the primary because he follows what I believe to be a cult.
I mean, we are allowed to marginalize Ron Paul because he is a Libertarian whack-job. Aren't I a bigot for saying that as well? |
|
"I wonder how real Christians will take it if Romney goes about claiming that Mormonism is "Christianity"? It isn't and every informed Christian knows it."
Seems like your definition of "informed" differs from mine. Whether or not *you* consider me a Christian based on some arbitrary criteria beyond accepting Christ as my personal savior does not change that fact that I am a Christian. Funny how one of the few churches with Jesus Christ as part of the name of the church is considered "not Christian."
Maybe some of you should stop accepting at face value everything your local minister tells you and visit a Mormon church on Sunday sometime. I think you'll find we're not as different from you as you think.
Perhaps you should provide a list of your beliefs and I'll determine whether or not *you're* Christian? Sounds silly, doesn't it.
I don't know where some people get the idea that they are qualified to tell me what I believe. Jesus was deemed a heretic and a blasphemer by those "in the know," and was crucified for it. Did that make them right? |
|
I wonder how real Christians will take it if Romney goes about claiming that Mormonism is "Christianity"? It isn't and every informed Christian knows it.Many will be quite upset if he makes that claim, too.
In any case, this one will be interesting.
Oh, and PC, if constant flip flops on issues isn't a form of lie, then what is it? Remember, he said he'd been a hunter all his life, but then admitted he only hunted TWICE in his whole life! Twice does not a "whole life" make. And that is only ONE of his many, many flip flops.You and Hugh can turn the other way and say his lies don't matter, but you cannot say he hasn't lied without throwing away your own integrity. Now, Hugh threw away his integrity on this issue a long time ago... have you? |
|
What witness? Will they give their names? Didn't think so.
First - Romney is not a liar. Second, he's not stupid. No candidate would say that, Jane. Honestly, you are willing to believe the silliest pile of nonsense if it fits your agenda. I think it's called Romney Derangement Syndrome. |
|
|
If Mitt Romney wants to give a speech about religious tollerance in general and how America is a secular nation that does not require religious tests so all faiths can freely practice. . . that might be a good thing. As a member of a group that suffered grevious discrimination, the early LDS Church had to litterally flee to the wilderness for safety, but ultimately prospered because increased tollerance and because our Constitution allows all to practice their individual faiths. |
|
He did say it. Two witnesses have said so and Hugh Hewitt knows it.
So do you. |
|
Romney never said that he would not appoint Muslims to cabinet positions. It was a made-up story. Romney is not an idiot, and well aware of the relgious test issue.
|
|
If the voters in Iowa are so bigoted, how is it that Mitt was ever in the lead there?
What percent of Mormons in Iowa support Mitt? Are they bigots? Odds are its at least 90% there.
This is coming down to 'If you don't vote for Romeny, you must be a bigot.'
Sickening. |
|
"Romney's Mormonism is a relative non-issue."
Unfortunately, Huckabee's recent surge seems to indicate Mormonism *is* an issue. Why else would Huckabee surge after his "Hey, I'm a Christian!" ads? Has he announced any blockbuster new policy ideas or vision for the country? No.
Huckabee has subtly played the religion card, and it seems Romney's only option is to counter and try to eliminate religion from the equation, as it should be. |
|
I do know how to spell because!
My boss said he won't support Romney because he is Mormon. Not that he dislikes that religion.
He says people are leary of that religion and Mitt can't win a national election. He wants to back a winner.
|
|
This speech will tend to kill religion as an underground issue. The race can then move on to other things. Also by Romney making this move Huckabee will have to start answering why he has a long history of mixing Church and State when he was Governor in AR.
How many times did Huck justify one of his tax increases or one of his pet social engineering projects by appealing to his interpretation of the Bible? Is he a minister or is he a governor?
Are we electing Pastor in Chief to run the country?
This speech is going to be about separation of Church and State and Romney is going to do it in a way that will make Huckabee answer for his 10 years of mixing Church and State. |
|
who knew?
oh you mean he states he is not one and goes to a Christian church?
None of that matters here on the Hugh Romney show where Obama is a Muslim, Romney is Rising while losing in Iowa and Nationally and dogs love to be strapped on car tops !!! Oh and don't forget those mysterious not ready for prime time push pullers
This site gets more deranged everyday. Seriously. Is there anyone out there that can point out to town hall.com that Obama is not a Muslim???
Actually this is why I come this is the best train wreck going. Just wait till the Tigers thrash the Buckeyes in the annual SEC stompdown
Love
dirL |
|
Maybe Romney will explain why it is wrong for voters to not vote for him becuase he is Mormon.
Hopefully he will also explain why it is alright for him to not appoint any Muslims to his potential Cabinet simply becasue they are Muslim.
Hopefully he covers both issues! |
|
Guys,
I'm being nice to Romney here (shock... I know).
Romney's Mormonism is a relative non-issue. So far the chatter about "it" being an "issue" has far outpaced actual reports of anti-Romney, anti-Mormon bigotry on the ground in Iowa and South Carolina. Thankfully.
In fact, it's such a non-issue that *false*, *baseless* rumors about Obama being a Muslim seem to generate a lot more chatter than Romney's Mormonism, at least according to the data I presented.
Romney's religion is a private matter. He shouldn't be forced to give a speech on it any more than Obama should be forced to prostrate himself on a bogus rumor. |
|
If people are looking for Romney to explain his religion, they will be disappointed. He's not going to, and shouldn't.
Let's face it, the ones who want the speech are mostly the ones who will not be swayed by it. It's all quite ridiculous.
Romney is not going to explain LDS doctrine, nor apologize for it. |
|
|
Amen Manfred. I'm Mormon and have been bothered by the bigotry shown toward Romney's faith by both the right at the left, but Patrick's post makes no sense. Obama is not Muslim and never was. Romney is. |
|
Huck needs to explain why he is a Minister of a faith that was founded to preserve slavery about as much as Romney needs to explain anything about Mormonism and Racism.
Mormons have been a lot less racist than most Evangelical for decades. It is perhaps the most integrated major denomination (somewhat similar to the Catholics). Mormon missionaries try to convert who ever will listen.
There are people in my Ward that were born in more than 38 countries. It is a small Ward. That is not unusual when you get out of UT. |
|
Romney shouldn't have to give a Mormon speech any more than Obama should have to give a Muslim speech? That is clearly a smear in the guise of a stupid comparison. Romney IS Mormon; Obama isn't Muslim. Why not say Romney need no more give this speech than Fred Thompson give a Satanism speech? McCain a Scientology speech?
Additionally, he clearly does need to give the speech. Mormonism is not playing well in many states that have few or no Mormons, and he needs to explain it. Frankly, he also needs to explain how he could have been an ADULT member of a church that retained institutional, racist rules, for example. There are certainly elements of his religion that are difficult to defend, and he should have to answer for them. |
|
The timing of the speech is right. However, it will take more than just this speech for Romney.
Huckabee has made Religion a key issue. Huck claims his religion is his identity and his primary marketing positioning.
Romney's religion has always been a key aspect of his positioning. However, he has not been able to emphasize it. He is going to take the negatives out of that positioning.
After the speech he (or other candidates) will be able to put negatives into Huck's positioning. What type of "different" Baptist is Huck? Is he like Clinton and Carter? Is he another slick talking ethically challenged minister like Haggart, Swaggart and Baker? He already openly admits to mixing church and state. In past political positions he has used religious justifications for enacting laws and raising taxes.
So far Romney's religion has been a negative. Huck has been able to use his religion as a positive. That is going to change. |
|
|
|