DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Mucho on June 16, 2007, 07:14:07 PM
-
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-na-mormons16jun16,1,5715786.story?coll=la-headlines-frontpage
From the Los Angeles Times
For them, faith trumps works
Evangelicals say Romney's Mormonism is the sticking point, not his politics.
By Stephanie Simon
Times Staff Writer
June 16, 2007
ROCK HILL, S.C. — Here's the problem with electing a Mormon president, as Jason Thurman sees it: "I don't believe he would be guided by God."
Thurman, 26, is tidying the annotated Bibles in the Shepherd's Fold bookstore. Over by the rack of Christian CDs, his co-worker Marty Thomas raises a similar concern.
"When it comes right down to it," says Thomas, 40, "a Mormon's strength is human. A Christian person's strength is superhuman. I want [a president] who has that extra on his side."
In his quest for the Republican presidential nomination, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney — a lifelong Mormon — has often reminded voters that he's running for commander in chief, not pastor in chief. What's important, Romney says, is that he has strong faith; the details are irrelevant.
But a sharp concern about the Mormon Church shows up in poll after national poll. About one in three voters would be less likely to support a Mormon candidate. The faith draws among the most unfavorable ratings of any religion. Doubts run especially deep among evangelicals, who may account for as many as half the votes cast in Republican primaries in the South.
Some evangelicals can articulate specific Mormon beliefs that disturb them — for instance, the teaching that only married couples can achieve the most exalted realms of heaven.
Many others want to give Romney a chance; they like his conservative politics. Yet they feel uneasy about turning over the country to a man who has a radically different — and in their view, heretical — understanding of God.
This is not an arcane theological dispute; to some born-again Christians, it's at the very core of presidential leadership. If Romney does not understand what they take to be God's true nature, can he still receive divine guidance? If he doesn't accept the Trinity as they conceptualize it, can he still be filled with the strength of the Holy Spirit?
Some evangelicals answer "yes" to such questions: "Just because he's Mormon doesn't mean God can't bless the country through him," says Carissa James, 36, a pastor's wife in this suburban community of 50,000.
But in the back room of Shepherd's Fold Books, owner Thomas L. Wilson Jr. is not so sure. Dapper in a crisp bow tie, Wilson, 82, expresses "a lot of reservations" about a Mormon president. His concerns are not about Romney's policies or his character. They're far more fundamental: "I wonder who he figures his savior is."
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints claims 13 million members worldwide, including nearly 5.8 million in the United States. Its roots stretch to 1820, when a teenager named Joseph Smith knelt in the woods of upstate New York. A pillar of light suddenly appeared above his head, Smith later wrote. Two figures descended: God and Jesus.
They told the boy to join no religion, for all were false, and to await word of the truth.
Over the next seven years, Smith said, he was visited by an angel named Moroni, son of Mormon, who guided him to buried gold plates inscribed in a mysterious language. Moroni gave Smith "seer stones" to translate the text, which told of Christ appearing in the Americas a few months after his resurrection.
Smith published his translation in 1830. Members of his church consider the Book of Mormon a holy text, a revelation from God, on par with the Bible. That alone is heretical to Christians of most denominations.
Smith laid out other novel theologies as well: Mormons hold that God is made of flesh and bone. He's all-powerful and all-knowing, but not mysterious; he has a physical body just like man's, and he's even married to a Heavenly Mother. And man can become God-like after death, a concept called ultimate deification.
Mormons also believe God communicates with modern prophets — such as the president of their church. In 1978, for instance, the Mormon president announced God had directed him to open the church to full participation by blacks, though the Book of Mormon describes dark skin as a divine mark of disfavor. Mormons fully accept the New Testament account of Christ's life and resurrection, which in their view makes them Christian. But they don't accept the doctrine of the Trinity — Father, Son and Holy Ghost as one entity. Instead, they view God and Jesus as separate beings, both of flesh and blood. Given these beliefs, traditional Christians tend to view Mormonism as a cult. That perception is reinforced by the church's secrecy, which officials say is necessary to protect their sacred ceremonies.
Outsiders cannot enter a Mormon temple after it's been dedicated. Even practicing Latter-day Saints must have a recommendation from their bishop to attend temple weddings and other rituals.
(In the most controversial of those rites, known as baptism by proxy, Mormons scour historical records for names, then induct the dead — by the millions — into the faith, to give them a chance at salvation.)
This secrecy disturbs Patrick Garren, 38, a business owner here who belongs to a laid-back evangelical church favored by the Harley crowd.
"Why am I not cleared to go into your church? What is there to hide?" Garren says.
"I won't vote for Mitt Romney, because of his faith. I don't approve of the way they conduct business."
His pastor, Tim Fowler, in jeans and black T-shirt, listens sympathetically but can't quite agree. "Am I concerned about his faith? Yes. But would it stop me from voting for him? No," says Fowler, 46. Before he makes a decision, he explains, he'll want to learn more about Romney's policies.
Those policies appeal to many evangelicals, especially in the conservative South. Romney has switched views on several key issues, but the strong stances he now takes against abortion and same-sex marriage resonate with voters here. His lifestyle, too, wins wide approval. In accordance with Mormon doctrine, Romney does not smoke or drink alcohol — or even coffee — and he gives 10% of his income to the church. He has been married to his high school sweetheart for 38 years.
That all sounds good to Rhonda Johns, who has just spent an evening at Trinity Bible Church, watching teenage girls in white gowns pledge chastity until marriage.
"Morally, there are a lot of things we have in common," says Johns, 55.
There are, however, a few subtle distinctions.
Many evangelicals consider abortion — in any circumstance — murder. Mormons do not. The Mormon Church teaches that our spirits are alive long before we are conceived; the theology is vague on exactly when those spirits enter the fetus in the womb. Perhaps because of that flexibility, the church permits abortion in cases of rape or incest, if the mother's health is at risk, or if the fetus has severe deformities.
After years as an abortion-rights supporter, Romney now opposes abortion and says he would like to protect life from conception onward. But he has declined to call abortion murder — a hesitation that one of his opponents has tried to exploit. Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback, who is Roman Catholic but has strong ties to evangelicals, sent out a news release this month with the heading: "Mitt Romney Doesn't Believe Abortion Is Murder."
Romney — who is leading in early polls in Iowa and New Hampshire — has also faced more direct attacks on his faith. An anonymous eight-page screed against Mormons was mailed to some South Carolina residents before a Republican debate last month.
A Florida pastor named Bill Keller recently sent out a mass e-mail comparing Romney to Satan and proclaiming that Mormons would "spend eternity in hell."
Still, Romney has not conceded the evangelical vote. He invited leading pastors to his home for dinner last fall and gave the commencement address at Pat Robertson's Regent University in May. This courtship has paid off with public statements from leading evangelicals who have pledged to give Romney a fair hearing.
"The Mormon faith — most Christians would consider it a cult," says Franklin Graham, who runs an evangelical association named for his father, Billy Graham.
"But I've met Mitt Romney. He's a very nice man. Very brilliant. And he's a conservative…. In certain circumstances, I could vote for him."
Many here agree with that assessment: In the general election, they'd much prefer a conservative Mormon to a liberal of any faith. Democrats Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter are both born-again evangelicals — but conservatives widely consider their presidencies disasters.
"I have no problem voting for a candidate who disagrees with me on theology. I do have a problem voting for a candidate who disagrees with me on moral values," says James, the pastor's wife. The women of her Bible study nod. "I think we would all say 'Amen' to that," says Trudy Laub, 69.
But to reach the general election, Romney first has to win in the primaries, when Republican voters uneasy about his faith can choose another conservative.
Several women in the Bible study favor former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, a Baptist minister. They're also eager to hear more from former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson.
Back at the bookstore, assistant manager Thurman puts it this way:
"If the candidates line up on policy, you go to the next line. If one's a Christian and one's Mitt Romney? I have a feeling I'd vote for the Christian."
stephanie.simon@latimes.com
-
What do you agree with them about?
-
What do you agree with them about?
He discriminates against others based on their religion.
-
The Mormon religion contains many rather goofy beliefs, but then again, so do Islam, Judaism and pretty much every other religion to some degree.
Rarely do these goofy beliefs actually cause problems with politicians.
We have had a lot of Christians in the US government, but none of them has tried to fund casting of the demons that cause insanity into pigs, as Jesus one is said to have done, to cite but one example.
I don't think Romney would be a bad president because he is a Mormon. It is rare that a president's religion has made a major difference in his success or lack of same as president. He could turn out to be a rotten president, but I think that this would be unrelated to his Mormonism.
Jimmy Carter and George Bush are the most recent two presidents to make a big deal of their religion.
-
What do you agree with them about?
That Mor(m)orns are nuttier than they are.
-
Some religions might be nuttier than others, but the issue is whether Romney as an individual is nuttier than his opponent(s).
Besides which, once you start with one irrational belief system (the basics of any major monotheistic religion) it's a moot point which is crazier than the others, because when you admit the existence of one omnipotent Supreme Being who acts arbitrarily for His or Her own reasons, who's to say if one possible scenario developed from the basic premises is any crazier than any other possible scenario?
-
The Mormon religion contains many rather goofy beliefs, but then again, so do Islam, Judaism and pretty much every other religion to some degree.
Rarely do these goofy beliefs actually cause problems with politicians.
We have had a lot of Christians in the US government, but none of them has tried to fund casting of the demons that cause insanity into pigs, as Jesus one is said to have done, to cite but one example.
I don't think Romney would be a bad president because he is a Mormon. It is rare that a president's religion has made a major difference in his success or lack of same as president. He could turn out to be a rotten president, but I think that this would be unrelated to his Mormonism.
Jimmy Carter and George Bush are the most recent two presidents to make a big deal of their religion.
While it is true that the various religions all contain some comparatively goofiness, we as a whole are protected by the bigger picture, the great meld, in political translation.
But all this tolerance depends on the amount, the degree of control within any of those religions.
What disturbs me most about the Mormon issue, and the one that I do not find culled by summary of the various opinions, is the amount of over-all control they have in their individual lives.
At least from the standpoint of the scope of that obedience through individual control, I would agree that the Mormon religion lies within the parameters of the label of 'cult.'
One of the salient defining characteristics of any cult is that over-riding control that each member is subject to, and Mormons live under the mantle of their own collective, strongly enforced, down to very small detail in their lives.
In the Mormon religion, any approach to politics that would include holding individual opinions that vary from their common creed would be antithema.
It is one thing to fling from an outside, goofy stance the label of 'cult,' but there are a lot of disparate groups of people who are suspicious regarding this issue. which lends to establish the case for legitimate concern.
Knowing this, it becomes an issue on its face, and it is incumbent for any Mormon politician running for office to address this issue openly, and not try to obfuscate it like Romney seems to be doing ("the details don't matter").
-
One of the salient defining characteristics of any cult is that over-riding control that each member is subject to, and Mormons live under the mantle of their own collective, strongly enforced, down to very small detail in their lives.
The Mormons have less enforcement over small details in their lives than most Socialists would impose over society as a whole.
It's kinda like your claim that Seventh Day Adventists are required to be vegetarians; it's not a true statement.
-
Some religions might be nuttier than others, but the issue is whether Romney as an individual is nuttier than his opponent(s).
Besides which, once you start with one irrational belief system (the basics of any major monotheistic religion) it's a moot point which is crazier than the others, because when you admit the existence of one omnipotent Supreme Being who acts arbitrarily for His or Her own reasons, who's to say if one possible scenario developed from the basic premises is any crazier than any other possible scenario?
Normally I would agree with this. I used to be proud to feel that all religions are equally fucked. Mor(m)orns and most fundie churches however qualify as cults. I needed to hold my nose to vote for both Carter and Clinton because they claimed to be "born again", but voting for a Mor(m)on would to me be like voting for a member of Heavensgate, a Koreshite or a member of the Charles Manson family. Romney has the additional disadvantage of being a dishonest flip flopper for the worst of reasons .
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/15/us/politics/15romney.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&ref=politics&pagewanted=print
-
<<Romney has the additional disadvantage of being a dishonest flip flopper for the worst of reasons .>>
Reason enough right there not to vote for him. The man has no integrity.
-
<<Romney has the additional disadvantage of being a dishonest flip flopper for the worst of reasons .>>
Reason enough right there not to vote for him. The man has no integrity.
I know, but I do so enjoy making fun of stupid religions and their sucker believers.
-
Romney has apparently flipflopped on abortion and gun control.
Since there is not any reason for him to have an abortion, and his wife could pump out a kid every year without affecting his personal fortune, I doubt that his personal views have had much effect on his position on abortion. He probably is not a gun nut, either. I think he is vastly more in favor of being president than having any effect on abortions or guns.
I am more frightened of his being a member of the GOP, really. I will never have an abortion, and I am not much concerned with guns, but warmongering, sucking up to fatcats, and rewarding the Military Industrial Complex are all greatly more scary to me.
-
<<I know, but I do so enjoy making fun of stupid religions and their sucker believers.>>
Well, no one'll ever know who's right or wrong and I'd feel kinda bad laughing at Mormons 'cause we have such great Mormon neighbours. It's almost like, "hey, you guys are such fantastic people, you can believe whatever you like, because there isn't any God in this universe under any religion I know of that would give you a failing grade, and if it turns out that there's no God at all, nothing was lost anyway."
These guys have their beliefs and that's that. They do sound like pretty strange beliefs, but no stranger than believing that a dead Jewish carpenter is God. I'd trust any one of them with my life and I'd vote for any one of them if they were running for office. Can't say the same for Romney, obviously, but it was never the guy's religion that turned me off him.
-
<<I know, but I do so enjoy making fun of stupid religions and their sucker believers.>>
Well, no one'll ever know who's right or wrong and I'd feel kinda bad laughing at Mormons 'cause we have such great Mormon neighbours. It's almost like, "hey, you guys are such fantastic people, you can believe whatever you like, because there isn't any God in this universe under any religion I know of that would give you a failing grade, and if it turns out that there's no God at all, nothing was lost anyway."
These guys have their beliefs and that's that. They do sound like pretty strange beliefs, but no stranger than believing that a dead Jewish carpenter is God. I'd trust any one of them with my life and I'd vote for any one of them if they were running for office. Can't say the same for Romney, obviously, but it was never the guy's religion that turned me off him.
I have equal disdain for Christians , Jews and everyone else who is weak enough to rely on a big daddy in the sky god. Its just that Mor(m)ons are a smidge nuttier than most except the most RW fundie loonies and shoulldnt be trusted to operate a car much less a country. Who knows when the rapture will overcome them and they will need to blow US all up?
-
Who knows when the rapture will overcome them and they will need to blow US all up?
==========================================================
The rapture does not require anyone to blow you up. When the rapture comes, the idea is that the believers will get sucked up by the Great Electrolux in the Sky and nonbelievers won't. WE are supposed to prepare for their unmanned cars and other vehicles, though, I think, since they won't be there to avoid hitting us.
Mormons do not believe in the usual Revelations stuff. They believe that with the proper attitude, good Mormons can become gods. You cannot avoid becoming a Mormon. They can convert you after you have died by just recording your name on God's registers, that are kept by the LDS Church and stored away in caves in Utah and under the World's of Fun amusement park in Missouri.
If you are converted after you are dead, you do not have to wear the sacred Mormon underwear, but otherwise it's pretty much the same.
-
One of the salient defining characteristics of any cult is that over-riding control that each member is subject to, and Mormons live under the mantle of their own collective, strongly enforced, down to very small detail in their lives.
The Mormons have less enforcement over small details in their lives than most Socialists would impose over society as a whole.
It's kinda like your claim that Seventh Day Adventists are required to be vegetarians; it's not a true statement.
"The Mormons have less enforcement over small details in their lives than most Socialiists would impose over society as a whole."
The operative word in your statement is "would"--an assumption. What I am familiar with is the extent to which Mormons are monitored down to their teeth.
Interesting that you should introduce the comparison of Mormons to Socialists; I would not claim that a Mormon with power would advocate a socialist society, but I will claim that their own organized church is a very socialist enterprise. Actually, I think they embrace several good aspects of socialism. You won't find a Mormon standing in the welfare line. They provide their own welfare to those amoung them who are unemployed, and they seem to handle that aspect much better than the one designed by the Great Society of the Dems.
"It's kinda like your statement that Seventh Day Adventists are required to be vegetarians; it's not a true statement."
Are you sure it was I that made this statement? I do not remember making this statement at all.
-
The operative word in your statement is "would"--an assumption. What I am familiar with is the extent to which Mormons are monitored down to their teeth.
I'm quite familiar with it, too. And it's voluntary.
If a Mormon decides to drink caffeine, he can. They don't have to pee in a cup to prove that they don't.
The rest of their beliefs are just as voluntary.
-
The operative word in your statement is "would"--an assumption. What I am familiar with is the extent to which Mormons are monitored down to their teeth.
I'm quite familiar with it, too. And it's voluntary.
If a Mormon decides to drink caffeine, he can. They don't have to pee in a cup to prove that they don't.
The rest of their beliefs are just as voluntary.
Looks good on the flyers.
Make a sentence out of the following: blue, I, shunned, been, have.
It is like pointing out that the Food and Drug Administration has a delineated program for regulating the shit that goes into pet food, for which they certainly do.
Trouble is, they enforce nothing, intentionally, to protect big business, and fuck the puppies and kitties.
Hence . . .
Has anybody in here had their pet die recently? Can't be a FDA problem . . . they got good flyers.
-
Looks good on the flyers.
Make a sentence out of the following: blue, I, shunned, been, have.
I know a Mormon that drinks Pepsi and Mountain Dew. He continues to be a member of his stake, goes to all the ceremonies, still interacts with the various members.
When does the shunning start?
-
Looks good on the flyers.
Make a sentence out of the following: blue, I, shunned, been, have.
I know a Mormon that (sic) drinks Pepsi . . .
'All Indians walk in single file . . . at least the one I saw did.'
A serious interpretation of the rules against Pepsi and other toxins is usually less cavalier and forgiving in the Mormons I have known than yours is, and Mormons are serious about interpreting their rules.
They, being disciplined and informed as they are, usually take the factual, scientific approach to toxins in the body, and eschew the more emotional, infantile-based advocation of such toxins on sentimental grounds--McDonald's don't tell a kid directly to eat their burgers, they instead want him to love them. The rational person passes a Pepsi by, and Mormons, being in the collective sense very rational, do so too. In this instance, were more Americans Mormon, there would likely not be the current pandemic of diabetes.
Shunning is a powerful force in the world of control. Many groups use it. The more tightly controlled the group, the more the tactic is used. Name me another tactic that works as well to enforce conformity, or one that is used as often.
Shunning is not a rural Pennsylvanian cartoon, drawn in black and white. There are degrees of shunning . . . shunning or the promise of shunning is contained in the vaguest of Christian disapprovals. A woman in the elevator who, seeing you slavver, looks cold to the floor can issue a potent form of pure shun.
I will give you this: Mormons are very forgiving, while most VISIBLE Christians are quick to hate, which, in context, is yet another degree of shunning--probably right at the apex of the swing of its pendulum to the Right.
-
The most loving people I've met here are the Mennonites.
-
'All Indians walk in single file . . . at least the one I saw did.'
A serious interpretation of the rules against Pepsi and other toxins is usually less cavalier and forgiving in the Mormons I have known than yours is, and Mormons are serious about interpreting their rules.
Your limited observations trump my limited observations?
Not very cult-like if they let even one get away with it, huh?
-
I have equal disdain for Christians , Jews and everyone else who is weak enough to rely on a big daddy in the sky god. Its just that Mor(m)ons are a smidge nuttier than most except the most RW fundie loonies and shoulldnt be trusted to operate a car much less a country. Who knows when the rapture will overcome them and they will need to blow US all up?
Spoken like someone who has no understanding of faith and belief. Yet, even if you do not believe in God, why hold such "disdain" for those who do? Why consider them "weak?"
There is more to life than science and math. There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
-
I have equal disdain for Christians , Jews and everyone else who is weak enough to rely on a big daddy in the sky god. Its just that Mor(m)ons are a smidge nuttier than most except the most RW fundie loonies and shoulldnt be trusted to operate a car much less a country. Who knows when the rapture will overcome them and they will need to blow US all up?
Spoken like someone who has no understanding of faith and belief. Yet, even if you do not believe in God, why hold such "disdain" for those who do? Why consider them "weak?"
There is more to life than science and math. There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
I believe that I understand faith perfectly. It is a crutch for the weak , ignorant ,fearful and enslaved.
The whole conception of a God is a conception derived from the ancient oriental despotisms. It is a conception quite unworthy of free men.... We ought to stand up and look the world frankly in the face. We ought to make the best we can of the world, and if it is not so good as we wish, after all it will still be better than what these others have made of it in all these ages.
-- Bertrand Russell, "Why I Am Not A Christian," Little Blue Book No. 1372 edited by E Haldeman-Julius.
-
I believe that I understand faith perfectly. It is a crutch for the weak , ignorant ,fearful and enslaved.
The whole conception of a God is a conception derived from the ancient oriental despotisms. It is a conception quite unworthy of free men.... We ought to stand up and look the world frankly in the face. We ought to make the best we can of the world, and if it is not so good as we wish, after all it will still be better than what these others have made of it in all these ages.
-- Bertrand Russell, "Why I Am Not A Christian," Little Blue Book No. 1372 edited by E Haldeman-Julius.
Yet, some of the greatest minds to ever grace the Earth have been men and women of faith. If you read the quote you have given from an exceptionally intelligent Englishman, you'll note that he has faith as well. He simply places his faith in mankind. What makes such a faith any more well placed?
-
I believe that I understand faith perfectly. It is a crutch for the weak , ignorant ,fearful and enslaved.
The whole conception of a God is a conception derived from the ancient oriental despotisms. It is a conception quite unworthy of free men.... We ought to stand up and look the world frankly in the face. We ought to make the best we can of the world, and if it is not so good as we wish, after all it will still be better than what these others have made of it in all these ages.
-- Bertrand Russell, "Why I Am Not A Christian," Little Blue Book No. 1372 edited by E Haldeman-Julius.
Yet, some of the greatest minds to ever grace the Earth have been men and women of faith. If you read the quote you have given from an exceptionally intelligent Englishman, you'll note that he has faith as well. He simply places his faith in mankind. What makes such a faith any more well placed?
Because it is not in an anthropomorphic God or giant fricasee in the sky like the religionists. Those faiths have created more destruction than faith in man has.
Indeed your Horatio lived during a time when wars were more often fought over food, sex,, territory & ego rather than evil abstractions like religion. I suspect that the more God was on their side, the worse war became.
-
Because it is not in an anthropomorphic God or giant fricasee in the sky like the religionists. Those faiths have created more destruction than faith in man has.
Are you sure about that? It doesn't seem to me that man has been all that wonderful to his fellow man even in recent times and wars that had nothing to do with religion. It certainly was not faith in God that created nuclear weapons, or invented new and horrible methods of torture. These were the inventions of humanity. Creatures who will murder, rape, beat, threaten, and perform all sorts of unspeakable acts to obtain land that has diamonds, gold, or petroleum.
I'm not sure I want to place my faith in that.
Indeed your Horatio lived during a time when wars were more often fought over food, sex,, territory & ego rather than evil abstractions like religion. I suspect that the more God was on their side, the worse war became.
You might want to consider when Shakespeare wrote Hamlet and who was Queen and who followed her as King. Where did Hamlet return from University in the very beginning of the play? I'd say religion played a very significant role in Hamlet and for Shakespeare, who was likely a recusant Catholic as his father was.
-
Because it is not in an anthropomorphic God or giant fricasee in the sky like the religionists. Those faiths have created more destruction than faith in man has.
Are you sure about that? It doesn't seem to me that man has been all that wonderful to his fellow man even in recent times and wars that had nothing to do with religion. It certainly was not faith in God that created nuclear weapons, or invented new and horrible methods of torture. These were the inventions of humanity. Creatures who will murder, rape, beat, threaten, and perform all sorts of unspeakable acts to obtain land that has diamonds, gold, or petroleum.
I'm not sure I want to place my faith in that.
Indeed your Horatio lived during a time when wars were more often fought over food, sex,, territory & ego rather than evil abstractions like religion. I suspect that the more God was on their side, the worse war became.
You might want to consider when Shakespeare wrote Hamlet and who was Queen and who followed her as King. Where did Hamlet return from University in the very beginning of the play? I'd say religion played a very significant role in Hamlet and for Shakespeare, who was likely a recusant Catholic as his father was.
Faith in man is not the same as faith in greedy men like the Bushidiot who use(misuse?) God as their reason to kill innocents just as Al Quaeda uses Allah. They are both cut from the same maniacal cloth. God is al;ways on the side of evil it seems.You are right that our weapons make the Crusades or Jihad worse. That is progress which makes their fanaticism worse.
You are a far better Shakespeare scholar than I will ever be so I will take your word for it, but the fact that religion was causing havoc then sorta supports what I was saying. In many ways, I support the barbarians over any Xtian or other sect.
-
While it is true that the various religions all contain some comparatively goofiness, we as a whole are protected by the bigger picture, the great meld, in political translation.
But all this tolerance depends on the amount, the degree of control within any of those religions.
What disturbs me most about the Mormon issue, and the one that I do not find culled by summary of the various opinions, is the amount of over-all control they have in their individual lives.
At least from the standpoint of the scope of that obedience through individual control, I would agree that the Mormon religion lies within the parameters of the label of 'cult.'
One of the salient defining characteristics of any cult is that over-riding control that each member is subject to, and Mormons live under the mantle of their own collective, strongly enforced, down to very small detail in their lives.
In the Mormon religion, any approach to politics that would include holding individual opinions that vary from their common creed would be antithema.
It is one thing to fling from an outside, goofy stance the label of 'cult,' but there are a lot of disparate groups of people who are suspicious regarding this issue. which lends to establish the case for legitimate concern.
Knowing this, it becomes an issue on its face, and it is incumbent for any Mormon politician running for office to address this issue openly, and not try to obfuscate it like Romney seems to be doing ("the details don't matter").
You have an incredibly skewed - and wildly inaccurate - view of Mormonism.
My Bishop is a liberal Democrat. So is Harry Reid, who happens to be a Mormon and Senate Majority Leader.
My religion has no control over me whatsoever, except that which I choose to give. The highest value in Mormonism is that of Free Agency. We are taught that choice is the most important thing we have. We can give nothing to God, since he gives us everyhting in the first place, except our will - which is the only thing that comes solely from us. In that regard, Mormonism has no more control over its members than any religion. e learn what is right and choose to follow that course or not. The consequences of our choices are NOT ours to choose, but that is true in any situation.
I've been a Latter-Day Saint for thirty years, and I always get a chuckle out of the warped views that many people seem to have of my faith.
Ami is right, the church has control only on membership status, nothing else. Most churches reserve the right to promote certain kinds of behaviors, and many to discipline within the ranks. Catholicism imposes exactly the same sort of disciplines. Indeed, most Christian churches share a history of far more serious disciplinary measures - such as beheading and burning. And the political control that was imposed over a century ago when Utah was still a territory is no different from the political control practiced by mainstream Christianity over several centuries.
Catholics don't burn heretics anymore, and Mormons don't control their members in any way other than through church status.
I pay no attention to Knute's nonsense, it is designed to be silly. But I expect something close to rational debate from yellow.
-
"....and Mormons don't control their members in any way other than through church status. "
Mormans have a mistique , is this not so?
Is the public perception of Mormans as more then usually disaplined a plus or a minus for a serious politician?
-
"....and Mormons don't control their members in any way other than through church status. "
Mormans have a mistique , is this not so?
Is the public perception of Mormans as more then usually disaplined a plus or a minus for a serious politician?
You mean like this?
A sphinx with the head of LDS founder Jospeh Smith, carved by a devout mid-twentieth century artist named Thomas Child. Feast your eyes:
(http://bp3.blogger.com/_mhAfYZI_eFY/Ri1tFGS46sI/AAAAAAAAAog/fLISAdRb13o/s400/smith-sphinx.JPG)
http://themasticator.blogspot.com/search/label/art
-
While it is true that the various religions all contain some comparatively goofiness, we as a whole are protected by the bigger picture, the great meld, in political translation.
But all this tolerance depends on the amount, the degree of control within any of those religions.
What disturbs me most about the Mormon issue, and the one that I do not find culled by summary of the various opinions, is the amount of over-all control they have in their individual lives.
At least from the standpoint of the scope of that obedience through individual control, I would agree that the Mormon religion lies within the parameters of the label of 'cult.'
One of the salient defining characteristics of any cult is that over-riding control that each member is subject to, and Mormons live under the mantle of their own collective, strongly enforced, down to very small detail in their lives.
In the Mormon religion, any approach to politics that would include holding individual opinions that vary from their common creed would be antithema.
It is one thing to fling from an outside, goofy stance the label of 'cult,' but there are a lot of disparate groups of people who are suspicious regarding this issue. which lends to establish the case for legitimate concern.
Knowing this, it becomes an issue on its face, and it is incumbent for any Mormon politician running for office to address this issue openly, and not try to obfuscate it like Romney seems to be doing ("the details don't matter").
You have an incredibly skewed - and wildly inaccurate - view of Mormonism.
My Bishop is a liberal Democrat. So is Harry Reid, who happens to be a Mormon and Senate Majority Leader.
My religion has no control over me whatsoever, except that which I choose to give. The highest value in Mormonism is that of Free Agency. We are taught that choice is the most important thing we have. We can give nothing to God, since he gives us everyhting in the first place, except our will - which is the only thing that comes solely from us. In that regard, Mormonism has no more control over its members than any religion. e learn what is right and choose to follow that course or not. The consequences of our choices are NOT ours to choose, but that is true in any situation.
I've been a Latter-Day Saint for thirty years, and I always get a chuckle out of the warped views that many people seem to have of my faith.
Ami is right, the church has control only on membership status, nothing else. Most churches reserve the right to promote certain kinds of behaviors, and many to discipline within the ranks. Catholicism imposes exactly the same sort of disciplines. Indeed, most Christian churches share a history of far more serious disciplinary measures - such as beheading and burning. And the political control that was imposed over a century ago when Utah was still a territory is no different from the political control practiced by mainstream Christianity over several centuries.
Catholics don't burn heretics anymore, and Mormons don't control their members in any way other than through church status.
I pay no attention to Knute's nonsense, it is designed to be silly. But I expect something close to rational debate from yellow.
I have found that a rational debate regarding religion and politics is rarely possible on the internet, and in the political clubs.
A lot of this is true due mainly to the easily recognizible tactical advantage that religious institutions who are actively engaged in the political world in America employ. When their religion is discussed in political terms, many, and especially including the Jews here, will decry that their very 'faith' is under attack, no matter how harmless or carefully worded the questions are asked.
But I am willing.
Mr postulation, before the reactionary snipes, was that Romney did indeed have the responsibility to discuss the details of his religion, based on the structure of his church, one that a lot of Americans find extremely secretive and carefully controlled, because he is running for the highest job in the land.
I could post sites of former Mormons who decry at length just exactly the point I made--excessive control of its members, and the discussion of helping others trying to extricate themselves from the control of the church which is framed in terms of intervention and shaking the baggage of inculcation, but that is not where I see a rational discussion.
When I use the term "cult" and "cultist," I do so knowing I am far from solitary is using these terms. Whether or not I am 100% accurate in ascribing the word 'cult' to the Mormon Church, there is enough certainty in my perception (I grew up with Mormons, and may have known more Mormons than most) as well as a prepondering repeating of the charge from society at large to give the question cred. In light of what I find true, what in the world would legitamately prevent a free press from asking: "Mr. Romney, many have deemed the Mormon Church a cult . . . how would you respond to those assertions?" Americans are sick and tired of automatic spin, imho, and a response of " . . . . the details are unimportant . . ." from Romney serves to diminish his credibility. One then is left to wonder what he does not want to discuss.
But even if this were amiss, it is still incumbent upon Romney to explain the errors of perception regarding this label. It is incumbent upon Romney to not run from the issues regarding his church since at least one in four Americans, before a sunlight discussion, say they would not vote for a Mormon period. It would seem that Romney would seek to rectify the misunderstandings in detail, to broaden his church's appeal, and when he spins with a quick dismissal, I think many wonder why.
When you say my views are 'skewed,' 'warped' and 'wildly inaccurate,' I am reminded of another small r republican who characterized my views on the Iraq War, which were reinforced by a majority of Americans who were polled over several years, as 'radical,' 'foaming' etc etc etc.
So discuss a few points to begin:
When you say that Ami is right (usually a fair assertion) about what you describe doctrinally as 'Free Agency,' could you discuss any possible variation of that concept when considered in the ranking system of your church? What I mean here is the 32 degrees of positions or rankings that members in your church attain?
If the assertion of "contol" is so philosophically off the mark as to motivate you to dis them in flashpoint rhetoric, why do you think this misperception is so widely extant in America?
And can you tell all if your church still holds black Americans as unable to go beyond the first degree? Since minority concerns and possible racism is so important in America (remember Virginia), does your church's dogma still assert that the black race is the enemy?
Both these initial points, as all can see, are asked because they pertain to politics, and are not random pot shots to 'attack your faith.'
-
"....and Mormons don't control their members in any way other than through church status. "
Mormans have a mistique , is this not so?
Is the public perception of Mormans as more then usually disaplined a plus or a minus for a serious politician?
I can think of no other time in history when perceiving a politician as 'disciplined' is as important as now, but to answer your question--depends upon to what agenda the discipline is applied.
Arguably, the Japanese are as highly disciplined as most, and were during the early forties. But look at what they applied this discipline to.
The Mormons are, I would argue, as disciplined as any organization in America, religious, poltiical, etc.
They were disciplined when they surrounded Nixon, and were when they put Howard Hughes in the back room to take pills and watch "Ice Station Zebra" eight hundred times, while his Mormon aides (he hired them for their pure cleanliness) took over. Many of his funds are still in question. I make no accusations. But I certainly think these things should see the light of day.
And I might ask, Plane: how much of a factor is disciplince in cult mentality?
-
"....and Mormons don't control their members in any way other than through church status. "
Mormons have a mystique , is this not so?
Is the public perception of Mormons as more then usually disciplined a plus or a minus for a serious politician?
I can think of no other time in history when perceiving a politician as 'disciplined' is as important as now, but to answer your question--depends upon to what agenda the discipline is applied.
Arguably, the Japanese are as highly disciplined as most, and were during the early forties. But look at what they applied this discipline to.
The Mormons are, I would argue, as disciplined as any organization in America, religious, political, etc.
They were disciplined when they surrounded Nixon, and were when they put Howard Hughes in the back room to take pills and watch "Ice Station Zebra" eight hundred times, while his Mormon aides (he hired them for their pure cleanliness) took over. Many of his funds are still in question. I make no accusations. But I certainly think these things should see the light of day.
And I might ask, Plane: how much of a factor is discipline in cult mentality?
When President Clinton wrote of the stuff he had done he said he did it "because I could".
I would like to see self controll in a person who is going to be vested with great power , but not necessarily controll imposed from a poorly understood organization.
The LDS Church certainly encourages self control , that is positive .
Do they exert leverage on adherents who are elected to responsible positions ? his would be negative to the extent that the Church organization was not trusted.
This is very like the candidacy of John F Kennedy , it seemed that the people back then were ready to believe that a Catholic President was not unduly under the thumb of Rome but was schooled in morality sufficiently.
-
Crane, you are confusing Mormonism with the Masonic Order.
There are not 32 degrees in Mormonism.
Blacks were, indeed, prohibited from holding the priesthood in the past. But that policy ended thirty years ago.
I am not claiming my religion is under attack. I am claiming that you have an appalling ignorance of the topic. Your perceptions about Mormonism (as is often the case) are not only skewed by your obvious lack of actual research into the topic, but also confused with other groups. I have been told that "Mormons are the same as Quakers, Jehovah's Witnesses, Masons (which is not even a religion) and Mennonites. We are not in any way related to any of those groups.
XO also stated a false doctrine, claiming that "there is no way to avoid becoming a Mormon in the afterlife" and citing proxy baptism as proof. That is untrue, but it is at least an honest misunderstanding of the doctrine - not the creation, wholesale, of myth. Your long, rambling diatribe was filled with nonsense. I don't have time to answer it all.
BTW, I teach Gospel Essentials and I drink Diet Pepsi every day.
Oh no, I'll bet the Pepsi Police are gonna read this and excommunicate me!
Perhaps you should try attending a few LDS church services (anyone can - only the temples are members only) and taking a few classes to actually meet a few of us robots. At least take the time to visit www.LDS.org or some other sites to at least get a working knowledge of the church that isn't culled from skewed observations and anti-LDS publications.
-
XO also stated a false doctrine, claiming that "there is no way to avoid becoming a Mormon in the afterlife" and citing proxy baptism as proof. That is untrue, but it is at least an honest misunderstanding of the doctrine
=========================================================================
I am happy to know that my misunderstanding is honest.
I was actually saying this in jest. I was thinking that is someday, one of my descendants decides to become a Mormon, then they would submit the family tree and seal the whole tribe into the LDS Church, despite the fact that none of us in life was sufficiently enthused to seal ourselves.
Could you explain what it is I have misunderstood about this?
My father was a genealogist and a historian in Clay Co., MO, and was rather glad that the Mormons had such an excellent genealogical database. Personally, I don't imagine it would bother me it I were baptised in proxy. I am sure it is painless and I can't see God complaining, either.
-
BTW, I teach Gospel Essentials and I drink Diet Pepsi every day.
And you weren't even the Mormon that I mentioned...
So, I know another one that drinks Pepsi now...
-
I find this entire conversation disgusting and tasteless.
We all know that Coke is far superior to Pepsi.
Friggin Pepsists.
-
I find this entire conversation disgusting and tasteless.
We all know that Coke is far superior to Pepsi.
Friggin Pepsists.
Well, I try to convince people who drink Pepsi to stop - but it's got nothing to do with religion or caffeine.
-
Crane and Michael identify the salient questions regarding Mitt Romney's Mormonism and its potential effect on the presidency and the nation. The scrutiny, as Michael points out, must be centered on the individual not on a guilt-by-association model. Crane focuses on the flip side of this issue, concentrating on the degree of control one's sect exercises both over you but also generally. This latter aspect matters perhaps in subtle ways, maybe as a default, revert-to-form response to severe stress, which is sure to come, or as a more placid organizing principle in the first, innocent instant.
Catholicism is perhaps an equally "cultish" religion, save for its longevity, its wide acceptance, its spread as a numerically dominant branch of Christianity, and thus its familiarity through endless vetting, and its fertile seasoning with "American" (wider, more "sophisticated") principles through the agency, partly, of more its "liberated" members (like JFK?), who nod in the direction of the Church yet pursue more earthly aims "on the sly" yet consistent with a (non-hypocritical) continued communion. This amalgam, the individual's autonomy negotiating the religion's dictates in artful embrace, seems to me to be the stuff from which character is forged. Thus, within reason and an appropriate degree of politeness, Romney's "details" should matter as the raw material of a (potential) election decision. It ain't beanbag folks (but it can be polite). Indeed, giving Romney a pass on his "religious details," which are self-proclaimed to be central to his life, would a renunciation on the voters' part of their "sacred" trust.
-
Domer,
Believe it or not, this is not a criticism at all!
I noticed your response and I wanted to ask you a question.
Would you not also agree that Catholicism has added a great deal to the intellectual realm, and with that quite a bit of lattitude has been tolerated in her theologians and thinkers?
Karl Rahner, for example is considered one of the modern masters of theology - even by non-Catholic Christians and he certainly challenged the Church's views on many topics. Hans Urs von Balthasar is another well-regarded theologian, who has not always been 100% lock step with the Church. Liberation theologists, despite right-wing American myth, are still a part of the Latin American Church and are not persecuted (their work is only condemned when it does something drastic like denies the divinity of Christ).
My point being that I'm not sure the Mormons, Quakers, Jehovah's Witnesses can claim the academic integrity of the Church. Though, that does not make any of them "cults." I think it does lessen the effect of that term when used on the Church.
-
JS, I am closely familiar with Catholic intellectual traditions, having been educated at leading Catholic institutions, but there is vast room for improvement in my alienated judgment. What Catholics have that Mormons don't is a long history of intellectual contributions. But from what I understand, on most other bases of intellectual merit, the Mormons are competitive. To my understanding, Brigham Young University is a fine university. Beyond that I can't speak. Certainly Mitt Romney and our own Stray Pooch may be pointed to as examples (how typical I don't know) of the life of the intellect being compatible with Mormonism.
-
I am happy to know that my misunderstanding is honest.
I was actually saying this in jest. I was thinking that is someday, one of my descendants decides to become a Mormon, then they would submit the family tree and seal the whole tribe into the LDS Church, despite the fact that none of us in life was sufficiently enthused to seal ourselves.
Could you explain what it is I have misunderstood about this?
Gladly. The doctrine of ordinance by proxy does not negate free choice. Here it is, in a nutshell:
Everyone needs to have a chance to hear and understand the gospel of Jesus Christ. If they do not, how can they be judged by it? There are many faiths who preach that anyone who, through no fault of his own, never hears the gospel is condemned to hell, or at the least to "limbo." But if that is true, God would be awfully unjust.
We believe that anyone who has not yet had the opportunity to hear and understand the gospel in this life will be given an opportunity in the next life before the final judgement. But the Bible clearly states that one must be baptized to enter the kingdom of heaven. Since this and other ordinances (such as marriage, which the Bible states is not to be done in heaven) must be done on earth. Proxy ordinances are done in the name of the deceased person. But that person may choose to accept it or not. You do not lose your choice in the next life. Just being listed as "baptised by proxy" on the rolls of the church does not make you a member. This church does not have dead members. It simply indicates for those who may be seeking to do the ordinances that these people have already been given the opportunity.
Now of course, this raises the question "Why would anybody reject the gospel in the NEXT life, having already seen that there IS a next life?" I'll tell you - I dunno! But we believe that in the next life we keep our free choice, and we also keep many of the traits that we had on earth. Sometimes people just can't accept that something is right, even in the face of strong evidence. Some are stubborn, some are afraid, some simply do not want the responsibilty that comes with commitment. This is also true on earth. Many say "I would be a Christian if i didn't have to give up [insert your weakness here]." Some say "I would join your church, but my family would disown me." It happens. Since we have free choice on the other side, we can choose to say "Lutheranism was good enough for me on earth, it's darn well good enough for me here." Unlike many other religions, we do not presume you will go to hell for such a decision. We believe that you will still receive a reward if you were faithful to whatever you believed. You simply will lose the opportunity to advance beyond a certain point. There is a "Hell" for the worst, those who knew better but rejected there own knowledge. So yeah, Hitler probably isn't going to heaven. However, someone here on earth may well have submitted his name and the work may be done (I have heard rumors to that effect). Don't worry. If a person rejected truth on earth even a proxy Baptism will not help him. If you hear and understand the gospel on earth and reject it, you have had your chance. Your ancestors may do your temple work, but it will only be obedience on their part. You will have already made your choice.
In effect, if Mormonism is right, a cosmic dilemma is solved - and nobody loses their choice to accept or reject it. If they are wrong, no harm is done to the person for whom the proxy stands. After all, if a good Christian dies in Christ, what difference would some odd rite done after he is dead make? But if that same good Christian finds that, while his faith was good there is more to know and accept, he has not lost the chance to have the fullness of the gospel.
Hope that clears it up.
-
Certainly Mitt Romney and our own Stray Pooch may be pointed to as examples (how typical I don't know) of the life of the intellect being compatible with Mormonism.
Praise from Caesar. :)
-
Wow. I find this most interesting. I imagine that many of my ancestors might have had a CHANCE to have the LDS explained to them, but they heard it was rather goofy, and declined, just as many refuse to even read the Watchtower (which isn't Mormon, I know), On the other hand, we have all had tons of ancestors who bought the farm before the Angel Moroni made his appearance to Joseph Smith.
The Mormons sound a bit like Jesuit theologians discussing purgatory and what goes on there. Free will always causes so much speculation among theologians everywhere.
Except, of course for the temple garments.
I doubt that Romney's Mormonism would influence his behavior as president, but I wager that there are a lot of Fundies that do not agree with me.
-
Pooch, the praise was intended to endorse your intelligence (and Romney's), not necessarily your sanity.
-
There are many faiths who preach that anyone who, through no fault of his own, never hears the gospel is condemned to hell, or at the least to "limbo."
That is not what limbo is and that is a misrepresentation of Catholic doctrine.
Domer, I was not saying that there aren't brilliant Mormons or that BYU isn't a fine Univiersity. My point was that there is a strong academic tradition in Catholicism and it tends to accept varying viewpoints. This is especially true of theology.
-
The acceptance is a variable commodity, and the limits of acceptance, though perhaps somewhat elastic in the fullness of time, for the most part become rigid when challenged and certainly do not countenance what can be termed the full range of valid intellectual discourse. These present times, perhaps still reacting to the abominable ideologies of Nazism, Stalinism and the whole host of modern offshoots or standalones insulting to both God and humanity, have spawned a reactionary drive, led by the last two Popes, to retrench Catholic teaching and thought. You're fooling yourself if you think you can eke out an imprimatur for a truly free intellectual journey, especially in theology.
-
You can read from Rahner to Ratzinger. You can read theology from von Balthasar to Pimental.
That covers quite a range of views Domer, whether you'll admit it or not. Rahner and von Balthasar are universalists and definitely on the theological left. Ratzinger has ranged in his career and Pimental is a covenantal theologian of the conservative view.
There are occasions where the Church does not accept one's theology, as in the recent case of Father Sobrino, but the reasons for doing so are clear (denying the divinity of Christ, questioning the salvific value of His death).
-
Hans Kung? and many others. And your last observation proves my point. Where would those lines of inquiry lead? I guess we'll never know, in the context of a Catholic theological inquiry. In a Talmudic system, I imagine, they could gain expression, and be argued to death or retirement.
-
Hans K?ng is a Catholic Priest Domer. The Vatican removed his right to teach Orthodox theology, but he remains a professor to this day.
You can purchase his books right now. He can perform the Mass right now. In his books he'll tell you that he doesn't like the celibacy rule for priests and that he believes women should be ordained. He doesn't like papal authority and he's a huge fan of science.
He has never been excommunicated, defrocked, or removed.
Even in the case of Father Sobrino, who comes very close to completely denying the divinity of Christ and the salvific value of His death in one of his books, he has not been condemned or censured. He may still teach and lecture and perform all of his priestly duties. The nihil obstat was removed from some of his works.
I think you are being a bit overly critical. I doubt that all of the Jewish traditions allow anything to be written by their rabbis either.
-
Censorship is quite offensive enough in my book. It tends to ghettoize Catholic education, reinforcing a closed system that at its heart is authoritarian rather than inquisitive, let alone creative.
-
My experience has been that while Catholics and Jews can argue on and on about transustanciation, kosher, the meaning of baptism and a hundred or more theological positions, most Protestants don't really think about more than one issue per sect at most. Baptists think baptism but immersion is really important, Seventh-Day Adventists are insistant on the Sabbath being Saturday, but other issues are just not worth fighting over for anyone but the preachers. Jehovah';s Witlesses are the exception: they have dozens of disputes with tradition.
Mormons mostly only want you to know that they are not polygamous anymore: the days of Bigamy young have ended. The weirder bits of Mormon theology seem to be rarely discussed.
Mitt Romney might or might not be a great president, but I don't think his being a LDS would have much to do with how he'd run the country if he were elected. It might, however, provide a huge warchest that would help him get elected, or an "expose" of the LDS Church (Jon Voight is making a film of the Mountain Meadows Massacre, due out very soon) might cause many to vote against him.