Mitt Romney's victory in the Iowa Republican caucus is not, by itself, very significant. But it does show Romney's strength among conservative activists, and it confirms that his candidacy cannot be dismissed. Many analysts across the political spectrum believe that Romney won' t have a chance to be a serious contender until he addresses the Mormon issue. Many political strategists have suggested that Romney make a move similar to the one that John F. Kennedy made when he went before the Baptists and essentially told them that his Catholicism would have no bearing whatsoever on his decisions as president. So should Romney make a similar declaration?
No. What Kennedy did was perhaps politically necessary to diffuse anti-Catholic prejudice. Yet this is not the correct meaning of separation of church and state, which as the founders envisioned it would merely forbid the establishment of a national church or official theological orthodoxy. (In fact the founders had no problem with states having their own established churches, and several of them did.) Nowhere did Washington, Adams, Madison or even Jefferson (perhaps the least devout of the founders) claim that presidents could not be influenced by their own religious convictions. They would rightly have recognized this as absurd. Of course what was absurd for the founders is not necessarily absurd in the Kennedy household. If President John F. Kennedy knew how to govern without his Catholicism, Senator Ted Kennedy's moral values are so private that he refuses to impose them even on himself!
Leaving aside our peculiar Camelot crew, most people cannot separate their religious beliefs from who they are. Romney has a wonderful opportunity to make an important distinction. The distinction is between Mormon theology and Mormon morality. Theology is the province of revelation, and it is in the nature of revelation to be outside the province of rational debate. I cannot, for example, give you reasons why I believe in the Trinity. Morality, however, may derive from religion but it is entirely defensible in terms of reason. I don't need to appeal to the Book of Daniel or Jonah in the belly of the whale in order to convince you why government policy should protect human life or support the family as the institution for raising the next generation. Moral argument is at the core of what democratic debate and democratically-approved legislation is all about, as the debates over slavery and the civil rights movement clearly show.
Mormon theology is, at least for us non-Mormons, very strange. But Mormon morality is not strange at all. In fact, it is generally the same morality espoused by traditional Christianity and also by traditional Judaism, traditional Islam, and traditional Hinduism. Mormons as a group are wonderful people: creatively entrepreneurial, thoroughly devoted to their families, law-abiding and decent. They are, in fact, exemplary Republicans and conservatives. Romney should argue that his Mormon theology is a private belief but Mormon ethics and values are precisely those traditional American principles that built this country and now need to be revived.
Reader Comments ( Page 6 of 8)
76. midwestgirl, comment 66, you are also ignorant. Everything you mentioned are RECOMMENDATIONS, not REQUIREMENTS. They are recommendations in regards to living a full and rich life and staying away from temptation, not for getting into heaven. They are recommendations because the church knows that different people are tempted differently and you cant impose the same lifestyle restrictions on everyone all the time. Thats why there are no real restrictions beyond what every christian believes, merely recommendations. Even the stuff about ear piercings for girls are recommendations... I know a couple mormon girls at my office who have way more piercings, and they are avid church-goers. There are some recommendations that no mormon follows, like restricting meat intake. Even I, who understands mormonism intimately, think "not drinking coffee" is a silly recommendation for them to have... in fact many mormons are avid coffee fans. We have plenty of coffee shops in Utah.
anon at 11:03AM on Aug 14th 2007
77. Some excellent points and some wasted bits above. Way too many for me to respond to each so I'd like to just explain my position.
I am a mormon now and former southern baptist. I would vote for a southern baptist instead of a mormon today IF I felt I could trust that person would better lead the country in the direction I hope it goes. I can't imagine a situation where I would not vote against Reed.
I believe TRUST is the core element that Mitt's religion is interfering with among persons of similar values.
One of the qualifications to enter a mormon temple is an appropriate response to the question 'Are you honest in your dealings with your fellow men?'. As a faithful mormon myself, nothing on this world is worth enough that I would choose to be dishonest and making myself ineligible and unworthy to spend eternity with my Father in heaven. Because both Mitt and Reed share my understanding of honesty, I expect I can trust them both. Now moving past trusting the truthfulness of what they say, it is easy to decide that one agrees with my hopes for a better future and the other does not.
I hope this honest insight into why I trust Mitt can help others move past the trust issue as well and decide between candidates based on genuine merits.
HR at 12:15PM on Aug 14th 2007
78. I really don't care much for Romney's religion... But I can say this... He doesn't let his religion enter into his political decisions..
Back in January 2004, Romney dropped the last hold-over from prohibition which made it possible for liquor to be sold, on SUNDAYS, in Massachussetts. Here is the link so you can read for yourselves.
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=14141
I'm sure that many thought he'd try to bring back prohibition, Because in his religion, consumption of alcohol is forbidden. This was a smart move on Romney's part. It brought in extra sales tax revenues to the state, and kept some people from going over the border into New Hampshire to buy on Sundays.
In 2002, he made some unfavorable changes in Medicare in Mass. that caused most of the elderly {my mother included} to be without dental insurance and vision plans from 2002 til sometime in 2006. This meant bigger incurred medical expenses for the elderly. In my opinion? This was morally wrong to take away something from people who already can barely afford to pay their co-payments!
I'm not sure I would be comfortable with Romney as president.
Melliebean at 12:11PM on Aug 14th 2007
79. anon(#70),
Name calling now, are we?
If they are just recommendations then why are they listed under "requirements?" And in my previous post(#72-was#66-don't know why it changed) I failed to mention the main requirement for mormon heaven--temple marriage--or in other words, celestial or eternal marriage (which by the way, was synonymous with polygamy before it was "banned"). One of the REQUIREMENTS to get a temple recommend or "pass" is NO coffee, tea, or alcohol. So if you drink coffee, tea, or alcohol you can't get in the temple, and if you can't get in the temple you can't get married in the temple, and if you can't get married in the temple, YOU CAN'T GO TO MORMON HEAVEN.
midwestgirl at 12:02PM on Aug 14th 2007
80. Per George Morales in post 76. dear las vegas
the constitution divinely inspired?
"is this the same constitution that held that blacks were not equal and allowed for their slavery?
is this the same constitution that held that women could not vote?
"doesnt sound very define or egalitarian to me!!!
and those are only two examples of how flawed the constitution is!!!"
---------
KB - Well, I do not know about divine inspiration, but I do know this nation was founded on Godly principles by mainly Protestant, God-fearing men. Even though I am Roman Cathloic, the fact that this nation was founded by God-fearing Protestants who routinely and publically asked for divine guidance (i.e. they prayed often and in public) does not bother me in the least. In fact I am grateful to God to have been born and American.
True, our constitution is not perfect, but can you name one country on earth that has a perfect constitution? Can you name one nation on earth that has everywhere and at all times has lived up to the ideals presented in its constitution? I thought not.
George, you and others who prefer bashing the USA to almost anything else should try to understand the difference between one's Ideals, and the Reality of the human condition, of life on earth. None of us ever entirely lives up to our ideals. That is because we are flawed human beings. This does not mean our ideals are flawed; it means we are flawed, and we need to keep working on improving ourselves.
True, our founding documents present high ideals, and at times, we as a people have not lived up to those ideals. That however, does Not mean the ideals presented in our founding documents are bad. It means we need to keep working to improve ourselves and our society.
I would venture a guess Mr. Morales, that you do not live up to your own ideals, and neither does you wife, nor your children, nor even your mother. I know I do not always live up to my ideals; nobody does, because none of us is perfect.
And so now George, you may descend from your high horse.
Ken Berg at 5:18PM on Aug 14th 2007
81. re #61
Teri...seriously, hon, who you tryin' to fool?
Let's take it bite by bite, shall we?
Teri wrote:
(Gosh, don't you think the most important "process" that mankind will ever go through would be detailed SOMEWHERE??? And it wasn't President Lorenzo Snow who first said this, but Joseph Smith himself. More on that later. But I digress...)
>
How does this contradict what I wrote?
Hint: it doesn't. I never said "salvation" (what YOU consider "salvation", which is DIFFERENT from biblical salvation) was "through a prophet." You should read and comprehend before responding! I said that to be "saved", you have to do whatever Joe Smith/Brigham Young/Whoever TELLS you to do....and if that is you have to believe that "Jesus is your Savior" then THAT is what it means.
By your own words, you state that "good works are required"....you just add "Grace" as well.
So, allow me to clarify (something the LDS prophets LOVE to do) "Mormon theology states that God was once a man, like all of us, and became a God through his good works AND GRACE."
(Of course, the logical question then becomes "WHO'S grace", if Jesus Christ was a creation of THIS "universe's" "God", was "OUR God" "saved", if it was NOT "good works alone", as Teri states.....? Some OTHER "Jesus"....?)
Because the bible, which you claim to "follow", is very clear on who and what God is. God did not "begin (pre-)existence" as "a man." According to the bible, God is God, and always HAS been God, and always WILL be God, the same now as God was in the beginning, forever and ever.
ALSO according to the bible, Jesus is ALSO God (see John), not a "creation" of God.
According to Joseph Smith, however:
"Joseph Smith explained, "I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see. He was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ Himself did" (LDS History of the Church, Vol. 6, p. 305). "The Father has promised us that through our faithfulness we shall be blessed with the fullness of his kingdom. In other words we will have the privilege of becoming like him. To become like him we must have all the powers of godhood; thus a man and his wife when glorified will have spirit children who eventually will go on an earth like this one we are on and pass through the same kind of experiences, being subject to mortal conditions, and if faithful, then they also will receive the fullness of exaltation and partake of the same blessings. There is no end to this development; it will go on forever. We will become gods and have jurisdiction over the world, and the world will be peopled by our own offspring. We will have an endless eternity for this" (Doctrines of Salvation, Vol. 2, p. 48). "
When the Mormons make claims that humanity can become "gods", they fulfill the DEFINITION of a CULT. Look, if you can't accept what your cult believes, then you should probably look for another one.
Regarding the REST of your first paragraph...again, the bible says "It is by grace (and grace alone) you are saved, through faith. And not of YOURSELVES, it is a GIFT from God. And NOT OF WORKS, SO THAT NO ONE CAN BOAST."
That's what the BIBLE says. Your "holy works" (BOM, D&C, POGP) contradict that. It's pretty clear. That means that NO work, no matter HOW good, will buy ANYONE'S salvation.
Am I telling you to abandon your cult beliefs? No. By all means, God created you with free will to believe what you like.
But please do not claim that Mormons "follow Christ" in any way. You do not. You follow a fictional Jesus, a Jesus that never existed. And, again, that's fine, you're free to believe ANYTHING YOU WANT. But please stop using the bible as one of your "holy books", because you are not FOLLOWING the bible and what it teaches, any more than you are following the Bhagavad-Gita.
timber at 12:59AM on Aug 15th 2007
82. Huh...AOL's html screwed that up. Let's try it again....
re #61
Teri...seriously, hon, who you tryin' to fool?
Let's take it bite by bite, shall we?
Teri wrote:
(((All of the “facts” you listed are half-truths and therefore NOT FACTUAL. Your first two points are related. President Lorenzo Snow did say that 'As man is, God once was; and as God is, man may become.' He was the fifth president of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (LDS) and a prophet, just like the prophets from the Old and New Testament. But nowhere in doctrine or scripture is this process detailed,)))
(Gosh, don't you think the most important "process" that mankind will ever go through would be detailed SOMEWHERE??? And it wasn't President Lorenzo Snow who first said this, but Joseph Smith himself. More on that later. But I digress...)
(((and nothing in LDS teaching EVER says that only through good works is how eternal salvation is achieved. It is through Grace, after all that we can do. Grace of the Savior and good works. And LDS and Biblical scriptures are very clear, Salvation ONLY comes through the Savior, Jesus Christ, not a prophet or anyone else.)))
How does this contradict what I wrote?
Hint: it doesn't. I never said "salvation" (what YOU consider "salvation", which is DIFFERENT from biblical salvation) was "through a prophet." You should read and comprehend before responding! I said that to be "saved", you have to do whatever Joe Smith/Brigham Young/Whoever TELLS you to do....and if that is you have to believe that "Jesus is your Savior" then THAT is what it means.
By your own words, you state that "good works are required"....you just add "Grace" as well.
So, allow me to clarify (something the LDS prophets LOVE to do) "Mormon theology states that God was once a man, like all of us, and became a God through his good works AND GRACE."
(Of course, the logical question then becomes "WHO'S grace", if Jesus Christ was a creation of THIS "universe's" "God", was "OUR God" "saved", if it was NOT "good works alone", as Teri states.....? Some OTHER "Jesus"....?)
Because the bible, which you claim to "follow", is very clear on who and what God is. God did not "begin (pre-)existence" as "a man." According to the bible, God is God, and always HAS been God, and always WILL be God, the same now as God was in the beginning, forever and ever.
ALSO according to the bible, Jesus is ALSO God (see John), not a "creation" of God.
According to Joseph Smith, however:
"Joseph Smith explained, "I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see. He was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ Himself did" (LDS History of the Church, Vol. 6, p. 305). "The Father has promised us that through our faithfulness we shall be blessed with the fullness of his kingdom. In other words we will have the privilege of becoming like him. To become like him we must have all the powers of godhood; thus a man and his wife when glorified will have spirit children who eventually will go on an earth like this one we are on and pass through the same kind of experiences, being subject to mortal conditions, and if faithful, then they also will receive the fullness of exaltation and partake of the same blessings. There is no end to this development; it will go on forever. We will become gods and have jurisdiction over the world, and the world will be peopled by our own offspring. We will have an endless eternity for this" (Doctrines of Salvation, Vol. 2, p. 48). "
When the Mormons make claims that humanity can become "gods", they fulfill the DEFINITION of a CULT. Look, if you can't accept what your cult believes, then you should probably look for another one.
Regarding the REST of your first paragraph...again, the bible says "It is by grace (and grace alone) you are saved, through faith. And not of YOURSELVES, it is a GIFT from God. And NOT OF WORKS, SO THAT NO ONE CAN BOAST."
That's what the BIBLE says. Your "holy works" (BOM, D&C, POGP) contradict that. It's pretty clear. That means that NO work, no matter HOW good, will buy ANYONE'S salvation.
Am I telling you to abandon your cult beliefs? No. By all means, God created you with free will to believe what you like.
But please do not claim that Mormons "follow Christ" in any way. You do not. You follow a fictional Jesus, a Jesus that never existed. And, again, that's fine, you're free to believe ANYTHING YOU WANT. But please stop using the bible as one of your "holy books", because you are not FOLLOWING the bible and what it teaches, any more than you are following the Bhagavad-Gita.
timber at 1:01AM on Aug 15th 2007
83. Next....
Teri wrote:
(((The next three comments are also related. The Book of Mormon is translated from ancient texts.)))
And what language would that be.....? And where is that language "recorded"?
(((The similarity to the Bible is because it also contains the teachings of Jesus Christ. It is a testament that he speaks the same words to all of God's children.)))
Let's introduce you to some history: Jesus didn't speak English. He didn't speak Latin. He PROBABLY didn't speak much Greek.
He spoke Aramaic. He spoke Hebrew.
The writers of the bible, as well, did not speak English. They DID speak Greek, they DID speak Hebrew, and they DID speak Aramaic, and likely a few of them were passing in Latin.
THOSE are the languages we KNOW (as in, we have PROOF of, in physical evidence going back to at LEAST the 2nd century) they wrote the New Testament in. Greek, Hebrew, possibly some Aramaic, doubtful Latin. Mainly Greek and Hebrew.
They did NOT write the New Testament in 17th century English, because, obviously, it DID NOT EXIST.
The King James version is but one of MANY translations over 1,000 YEARS after the fact, and translated from the Latin Vulgate by Jerome, itself a translation from the Greek and Hebrew!
King James spoke EARLY 17th century English. And the dialect he spoke was UPPER CLASS (obviously), and already falling out of use with the common people in 1611. HOWEVER...it WAS the vernacular dialect of the nobility, as well as the clergy (at least in everyday usage, not sacred), and merchant class, and that was how they actually SPOKE to one another: in the language of the day.
That is what the King James version was written as: a version of the bible written IN THE LANGUAGE OF THE DAY, so that, if not necessarily the peasants, at LEAST the nobility and clergy and the merchant class could READ it without needing to know Latin backward and forward.
In other words, so that EVERYONE could read it and understand it.
17th century English was a DEAD DIALECT by 1800. It was not spoken by ANYBODY, LEAST of all a group of common Americans!
Why, then, is the Book of Mormon (and D&C, and POGP) written in a DEAD dialect from a country halfway across the world, when it was supposedly "God's revelation"?
Are you following me, here?
It is not a "testament" to "Jesus speaking the same words to all of God's people". THAT'S a load of horse manure, because JESUS DIDN'T SPEAK ENGLISH. ENGLISH DIDN'T EVEN ***EXIST***. It's SIMILAR because it's STOLEN, because Joseph Smith didn't have the brains to write it in 1830 American English, choosing instead to try to fool people by using the language of the bible that was then being used: the KJV.
If he REALLY, TRULY wanted to "speak the words that Jesus spoke", he would have written it in ARAMAIC, or at the very least, GREEK...NOT 17th century English....and left it to OTHERS to "translate"...THAT would have been SPECTACULARLY brilliant.
But no, of course he didn't. Joe Smith knew about as much Greek and Aramaic as *I* do, and since he couldn't understand it, he certainly couldn't WRITE it, now could he.....?
It is a testament to PLAGIARISM, because Joseph Smith wanted to FOOL gullible people into believing that this book was "inspired by God", despite all the errors, despite all the changes, despite all the "clarifications", and despite the fact that it was "inspired" in a DEAD DIALECT.
If God wanted to reach "his people"....don't you think he would have used the language THEY ACTUALLY SPOKE??
But that wouldn't have worked, would it? If Joe Smith had written it in 19th century American English, do you think he would have been taken *as* seriously?
If I wrote something in 21st century American English, and claimed it was "a revelation from God", would *I* be taken seriously if I didn't inject some "thees" and "thous" into it?
Here, watch....I can do it, too:
"Thus saith the Lord...that in the year of our Lord, Two Thousand and Seven, Teri did spake upon an AOL message board, and any who opposed her will be SMOTE by God, and yea, verily, shall be cast down into eternal damnation! And any of thee that stand betwixt the Lord and His enemies shall likewise be SMOTE!" (1st Confusions 3:18, all rights reserved.)
Sounds impressive, huh?
Yeah, Joseph Smith thought so, too.
That's why he did it.
(((There are absolutely NO quotes from Shakespeare or any other ancient texts (a few chapters from Isaiah are included because they were the scriptures that the ancient Americans studied).)))
Let's set aside the concept of PROOF of "ancient Americans studying the OT", and disabuse you of the notion that the BOM isn't plagiarized.
The BOM isn't "similar" to the bible....it's PLAGIARIZED. Large parts of Isaiah and others are lifted, whole cloth, and just dropped into the BOM. And yes, Shakespeare was indeed plagiarized by Joe Smith:
"from whence no traveler can return;..." (2 Nephi 1:14)"
"from whose bourn no traveller returns..." (Hamlet, Act 3, Scene 1,)
Josiah Priest's book, "The Wonders of Nature and Providence Displayed", published in 1825, quotes Shakespeare, but says it this way:
"...from whence no traveler returns." (The Wonders of Nature and Providence Displayed, 1825, page 469)
The BOM:
"from whence no traveler can return;..." (2 Nephi 1:14)
Coincidence? Yeah, OK. Sure. If you say so.
The BOM also plagiarizes from Alexander Pope's "Essay on Man", as well as the Westminster Confession of Faith, and MANY OTHERS.
timber at 1:05AM on Aug 15th 2007
84. Next....
Teri wrote:
(((As for the dialect of the Book of Mormon and early America, the dialect is like the King James version of the Bible, with a highly formal and respectful voice. I am an English major and the early 19th century writings are not so different, but they vary widely based on region and education of the author.)))
Oh boy....now it's getting REALLY thick. Let's consider the US Declaration of Independence. Didn't get more "highly formal" and "respectful voice" than that, right? And yet, the DOI, written 50+ YEARS before the BOM, is written in 18th century AMERICAN English, and is vastly different from that of 17th century ENGLISH English, despite only being seperated by a mere 160 years.
It is therefore just an invention of yourself or your "church" that King James English, a DEAD dialect in 1830, was used by ANYONE for ANY purpose at that time, OTHER THAN TO FOOL THE GULLIBLE.
In other words, YOU are lying, or someone else lied to YOU.
If you're an "English major", SHAME on you, and go back to class! You have a LOT to learn.
Teri wrote:
(((The “Clear revelation from God for the world today” refers to the message and lessons in the Book of Mormon of a whole nation that fell because of pride and wickedness, not the language it was written in.)))
Do you understand that this makes no sense? How is a message "clear", if it's not in a language that THE PEOPLE CAN UNDERSTAND?
Do you, and/or "the church", think that it's "clear" because the message and lessons are "simple"? How, then, would the message and lessions be "simple" if they were in a dialect and/or language that THE PEOPLE COULD NOT EASILY UNDERSTAND? They could be the clearest and simplest messages and lessons in the WORLD to comprehend, but NOT if they were in a dialect no one could understand.
Is any of this sinking in....?
Teri wrote:
(((As for your claim that there were no witnesses, this is totally false. On the second page of the introduction of the Book of Mormon is written The Testimony of Three Witnesses and The Testimony of Eight Witnesses. All eleven witnesses saw and held the plates with the engravings written in them. The Three witnesses also saw an angel of God that showed them the plates. These three men, Oliver Cowdry, David Witmer and Martin Harris, all left the church, but NEVER denied what they saw. Cowdry eventually returned to the LDS church in his old age.)))
I'm sorry, my apologies. I wasn't clear. I meant ACTUAL, DETACHED, REAL witnesses that could be relied upon as honest because they had no reason not to be, not members of the same "organization" that had a VESTED INTEREST in toeing the party line.
You know, like how the records of the Egyptians talk of the Hebrew slaves, and how Josephus, a Roman historian, mentions Jesus and the christians in his writings...stuff like that. People who had no personal interest in the matter, and who therefore could not be persuaded/intimidated/bribed, or otherwise compromised as witnesses.
My bad.
*I* can get 11 of my friends to testify to something that could later not be proven OR disproven, just by paying them all enough money. "Here, here's $1000....all you have to do is swear you saw these "Golden Plates", and then they're going to "disappear", so no one can prove or disprove it."
Or, I could be crazy and SCARE people into testifying, on threat of some sort of horror if they didn't.
And....conveniently....since there are no plates around, their "testimony" stands, right....?
I would think....not being God, I dunno....but I woudl THINK that if something THAT important was around, I'd want to PRESERVE it, you know, as PROOF.
Crazy me!
Teri wrote:
(((The Book of Mormon is not so influential because of scientific evidence or great debates, but because of the promise that anyone can pray about it and ask God for themselves if it is true.)))
The BOM is influential, because, through your shiny, fresh faced missionaries, it promises something that appeals to people: goodness, hope, fellowship.
Things that ALL human beings need.
But if you want to claim it's "true", then your own leaders have gone to great lengths to hide any proof thereof. And, that it contradicts the bible (and no, it's not "poorly translated") in so many places pits one of "your" holy books against the others. Which one is "correct"?
Hmmm.....the work that's lasted unmolested for almost 2000 years, and often more in the case of the OT, whose message is harmonious throughout, despite being written over the course of roughly 1300 years, by a couple dozen different authors....
Or the work that was written in a dead dialect, by a disillusioned preacher's kid, using "golden tablets" that aren't anywhere to be found, been changed several thousand times in less than 200 years, and contradicts the former work in hundreds of places....
HMMMMMMMMMMMMM. Tough choice.
Oh, and finally...for the record....in a debate, someone makes (a) point(s), and the other side is supposed to refute those points directly, with evidence. All YOU did was say "you're wrong", and then proceed to not do anything to PROVE that I was wrong.
Also...there's an easy test to prove whether a prophet is from God or not: if their prophecies all come true, every last one of them, right down to the most insignificant. If they are wrong EVEN ONCE...then they are not prophets of God. This is according to the scriptures YOU say you "follow." (Deuteronomy 18:20-22, to be specific.)
That rules out virtually every Mormon leader from day 1.
In the course of 18 years, founding prophet Joseph Smith made 64 specific prophecies. Only six of them were fulfilled -- fewer than 10 percent. How many "prophecies" did Joseph Smith make that didn't come true?
58.
Here's one:
In September of 1832, he stated that the city of Independence would become the "New Jerusalem ... even the place of the temple, which temple shall be reared in this generation.
Six years later the Mormons were driven out of Independence. No temple was built there.
In 1835, Smith prophesied that Jesus would return in 56 years......
Well? What happened? Did he miss the train?
Look, like I said, believe what you wish. I am not here to convince you of the "rightness" of any belief. But I'm at least honest enough to admit that my beliefs are just that...BELIEFS. I cannot PROVE that God exists, any more than anyone else can prove God DOES NOT exist. It is faith, and faith alone, and we are all free to believe anything we want.
But when you believe something as clearly contrived and wacky and a cult as LDS....your judgement is (rightfully) going to be called into question.
Just like people who wear tin hats on their heads to prevent the government from reading their thoughts.
timber at 1:11AM on Aug 15th 2007
85. Oh, and I know this likes to get glossed over by revisionists, but the reality is, a large majority of our Founding Fathers were not "God-fearing Christians."
John Adams was, but many were not.
Ben Franklin was a Mason, as was George Washington, John Hancock, and Paul Revere., Masons are decidedly ANTI-Christian, though they won't state that. Thomas Jefferson was a Deist.
Not that they weren't free to believe what they wish, but they certainly weren't Christians, and this wasn't a "Christian nation, founded on Christian principles."
timber at 3:31AM on Aug 15th 2007
86. Timber 59
While I do not dispute your list of Republican firsts, in honesty, it must be pointed out that with the exception of the Cuban refugee-turned-congresswoman Lehtinen and Justice O'Connor, all of the firsts that you list were from an era when the Republican party was the repository of American LIBERALISM. BTW, you forgot to mention:
First Hispanic person ever to be elected to the US Senate (New Mexico 1934) -Dennis Chávez, a DEMOCRAT
First Asian American elected to the US House of Representatives (1959)Daniel Inouye a DEMOCRAT
First black mayor of a major US city(Cleveland 1967)-Carl Stokes,a DEMOCRAT
First black US Supreme Court justice-Thurgood Marshall nominated by a DEMOCRATIC president.
First black woman to be elected to the US Congress (1969) and to run for POTUS(1972)-Shirley Chisholm a DEMOCRAT
First woman to run for VP on a major US party ticket -Geraldine Ferraro, A DEMOCRAT
First female Attorney General -Janet Reno, a DEMOCRAT.
First female Secretary of State- Madeleine Albright, a DEMOCRAT.
First Hispanic woman to serve as an executive officer in a president's cabinet(Small Business Administration 1997)-Aída Álvarez, a DEMOCRAT appointed by a DEMOCRATIC president.
First Muslim elected to the US House of Representatives -Keith Ellison, a DEMOCRAT.
The most powerful popularly elected woman in the United States (Speaker of the House of Representatives, second in line to the presidency)-Nancy Pelosi, a DEMOCRAT.
I could easily continue, but wouldn't it have been much easier to note Condi Rice and Colin Powell than it was to reach back into the 19th and early 20th centuries to come up with some on your list?
Speaking of the general, wasn't he heckled at the 1996 Republican National Convention? Gee, I wonder why. Didn't the Republican presidential nominee that year feel compelled to make a verbal statement about not wanting the vote of anyone who felt the need to discriminate against minorities? That sentiment is taken for granted among modern Democrats.
I agree than too often today, the terms "Republican" and "Democrat" are too easily interchanged with "conservative" and "liberal". I believe that is what happened with BT...s/he was using "Republican", when "conservative" would have been more appropriate.
Ventrue at 11:09AM on Aug 15th 2007
87. re: 84
Couple of corrections to your misstatements:
No, I didn't "forget" to mention anything. The list was a response to another poster's claim that the "Rethuglys" as he/she/it so politely refers to them, are far behind the Democrats in terms of equality. No "list" of "first Democrats" was necessary, because the question wasn't ABOUT "Democrat firsts." A poster claimed that the Republicans HAD no such "firsts." I proved him/her/it wrong. The Democratic "firsts" weren't in question, so, again...no list was necessary, or "forgotten."
Oh, but I DID forget to mention that the first black Secretary of State? Yes, that would be Colin Powell, a Republican. Shame to forget him. Probably because, you know, it's NOT A BIG DEAL, and this was a list of "firsts" to demonstrate that the Republicans have had them going back nearly 150 years.
And, to equate 19th and early 20th century "Liberalism" (which was concerned with mostly ECONOMIC liberalism, not social or religious liberalism) to late 20th/early 21st century "liberalism" is absurd. BOTH the Republican Party AND the Democratic party, compared to TODAY, were WILDLY conservative until the 1960's. John F. Kennedy....a "liberal"...was MORE conservative than ANY of the current REPUBLICAN candidates!
So, no....any conclusions drawn on the "idea" that the Republican party of the late 19th/early 20th century was a "bastion of liberalism" as it is understood TODAY are therefore invalid.
As for "that sentiment is taken for granted among modern Democrats" is yet another broad, sweeping generalization that cannot be proven. There are PLENTY of Democrats (many in the South) who would GLADLY discriminate against minorities, if the cultural attitudes were different. And few "discriminating Republicans"
It's simply intellectually dishonest to paint ALL Republicans as backwater racist uneducated zealots, and ALL Democrats as enlightened egalitarian perfected angels of humanity. Sorry.
timber at 3:51PM on Aug 15th 2007
88. re: 83
Jacosta, are you kidding? Seriously?
"The LDS Church has fought racism and slavery since its existence! They believe that ALL mankind are brothers and sisters!"
Are you serious?
http://www.lds-mormon.com/racism.shtml
Some choice statements:
"When he told Enoch not preach the gospel to the descendants of Cain who were black, the Lord engaged in segregation. "
"I think I have read enough to give you an idea of what the Negro is after....He will not be satisfied until he achieves it by intermarriage. That is his objective and we must face it. "
"When the Lord chose the nations to which the spirits were to come, determining that some would be Japanese and some would be Chinese and some Negroes and some Americans"
Americans.....? As if "Negroes" weren't Americans....?
And you're trying to convince OTHERS that LDS has "fought racism" since the beginning?
Are you KIDDING?
Jacosta wrote:
"Instead of spewing ignorance and fear....find out the facts first!"
Well, in your uneducated opinion, they may have been spewing out "ignorance", but there was no "fear" anywhere in there. Where was the "spewing fear" part....?
Stop being a tape recorder and learn how to come up with your OWN thoughts.
And for God's sake, READ YOUR "CHURCH" HISTORY.
timber at 3:57PM on Aug 15th 2007
89. Oh, and for the record..."www.blacklds.com" is nothing but "whitewashing" (no pun intended) of the past, and outright lies.
It is a historical FACT that LDS has traditionally considered blacks as second class citizens, not a "myth" as this website lies.
It is a historical FACT that LDS barred blacks from joining the priesthood until 1978. WHY were they barred? Simple: they considered blacks to be LESS THAN WHITES, PERIOD.
This is not a MYTH. This is LDS CHURCH HISTORY.
That there are SPARSE EXAMPLES of blacks being allowed that LDS members hold on to for dear life is nice, but it was not institutional.
EMBRACE your church's history, and stop lying about it because it's now "politically incorrect."
timber at 4:16PM on Aug 15th 2007
90. Why is it that any time there is an article about Romney, the comments morph into a theological debate about Mormons? I am soooo over reading the exact same regurgitated anti Mormon hogwash, when what I really want to learn about has NOTHING to do with Mormon theology. You Mormon bashers need to take give it a rest!
McGeese at 5:13PM on Aug 15th 2007