BWAAAHHHAAAA HAH HAH HAH HAH HAH HAH HAH!
Posted on 06/10/2007 7:24:29 PM PDT by Reaganesque
Sally Denton uses today's Los Angeles Times op-ed page as a launching pad for the movie based on her book, "American Massacre: The Tragedy at Mountain Meadows, September 1857," and as a means to propagate more anti-Mormon bigotry at the expense of Mitt Romney. Denton insists that Romney has to respond about the nature of his faith if he expects to win the nomination for the Presidency -- and uses a lot of 19th-century examples to "prove" her case:
MITT ROMNEY'S Mormonism threatens his presidential candidacy in the same way that John F. Kennedy's Catholicism did when he ran for president in 1960. Overt and covert references to Romney's religion — subtle whispering as well as unabashed inquiries about the controversial sect he belongs to — plague his campaign. None of his responses so far have silenced the skeptics.
Recent polls indicate that from 25% to 35% of registered voters have said they would not consider voting for a Mormon for president, and conventional wisdom from the pundits suggests that Romney's biggest hurdle is his faith. Everyone seems eager to make his Mormonism an issue, from blue state secularists to red state evangelicals who view the religion as a non-Christian cult.
All of which raises the question: Are we religious bigots if we refuse to vote for a believing Mormon? Or is it perfectly sensible and responsible to be suspicious of a candidate whose creed seems outside the mainstream or tinged with fanaticism?
Ironically, Romney is the only candidate in the race (from either party) who has expressed discomfort with the idea of religion infecting the national dialogue. While his GOP rivals have been pandering to the evangelical arm of the party, Romney actually committed himself (during the first Republican debate) to the inviolable separation of church and state.
First, Denton is hardly an unbiased pundit in this regard. She's flogging a book and a movie about an atrocity committed by Mormons 150 years ago. For Denton, 1857 is relevant to 2007, but for most Americans. The suggestion that Romney needs to answer for Brigham Young would be as silly as saying that Democrats have to answer for Stephen Douglas or that Lutherans today have to answer for the anti-Semitic rants of Martin Luther.
Denton first off would have people believe that all Mormons are "tinged with fanaticism," but does nothing to advance that case. She discusses the beginnings of their church in great detail, but her history lessons appear to end at 1857. In the only mentions of any connection to the present, she uses the HBO series Big Love and Warren Jeffs, neither of which has any connection to the modern Mormon church or to Romney's faith. Both the fictional account in Big Love and the unfortunately non-fiction and despicable Jeffs involve polygamist cults -- and in the TV series, are showed as in mortal opposition to the Mormons.
Denton includes this helpful instruction at the half-way point:
It's not a church's eccentric past that makes a candidate's religion relevant today, but its contemporary doctrines. (And it's worth noting that polygamy and blood atonement, among other practices, are no longer condoned by the official Mormon church hierarchy.)
So what contemporary doctrines does Romney need to explain? Denton never says. Instead, she spends her time writing about how Joseph Smith once declared his intention to run for President -- in 1844. She discusses how John C. Fremont's candidacy died on the rumor that he was Catholic -- in 1856. She mentions 1960, in which John Kennedy dealt with anti-Catholic bigotry, but only barely notes that he prevailed over it -- and that was almost 50 years ago.
Denton then frames the question that she feels Romney has to answer:
Do you, like the prophet you follow, believe in a theocratic nation state? All the rest is pyrotechnics.
Unfortunately for Denton, Romney has answered this question every time it gets asked. And somewhat incoherently, Denton appears to forget that she herself acknowledges this near the beginning of the column:
While his GOP rivals have been pandering to the evangelical arm of the party, Romney actually committed himself (during the first Republican debate) to the inviolable separation of church and state.
Romney has no need to enter into the field of religious apologetics in his campaign for the presidency, no more than does Harry Reid in order to run the Senate. He certainly has no guilt to expiate on behalf of a massacre committed almost a century before his birth, and for people like Warren Jeffs who do not have any connection to the Mormon church. In other words, Denton has taken up space at the LA Times to exercise her bigotry and to not-so-coincidentally sell a few books and movie tickets. She and the LA Times should be ashamed.
UPDATE: One commenter suggests that people opposed Keith Ellison on the basis of his religion. Er, not quite. We opposed him on the basis of his association with the notoriously anti-Semitic group Nation of Islam and its leader, Louis Farrakhan, and his association with CAIR, which has supported terrorist groups like Hamas. If Romney had spoken at Warren Jeffs' compound for political donations, then the analogy would be apt. Ellison's problem isn't his religion but the company he keeps, politically, a fact that he and his apologists like to wrap in a false cloak of religious antagonism.
Paragraphs are your friends.
BWAAAHHHAAAA HAH HAH HAH HAH HAH HAH HAH!
Is God a bigot?
Are they “internally consistent?”
They are. St. Paul the Jerk said "I" instead of "God" when giving his own opinions. (That's a whole different discussion...)
P.S. So you’ve appropriated Christ’s role as my Judge?
Christ Himself did, do you mind?
I’ll let my Savior be my Judge.
... Guess not...
I really wouldn’t draw attention to this article if I were you. As I said, it is heresy in the highest form, and Christians would be deeply offended by it.
If Romney wants to win any election including dog-catcher, I would keep this type of “revelation” under wraps.
As I said the OT clearly points to Christ as the final Prophet. Now you wish to say publicly that the Prophets of old were not prophesying of Christ but were pointing to Joseph Smith instead?
Just WOW!
Of course I know these types of “revelations” since I was once a Mormon, but I presumed you were not arrogant enough to try and pull this one off on the general Christian public at large. Now I know better.
“What did your “Savior” save you from?”
An excellent question CC! You are a thoughtful lady.
And if someone believes in universal salvation - everyone
goes to heaven, just a matter of which level, based on
works - what are they being saved from???
Did the church of mormonism ever tell you the answer to
this question?
ampu
No kidding. Here you have a guy arguing that Joseph was a direct descendant of the Jesus Christ, which would mean that Jesus had to have been married, which would be an adulterous relationship inasmuch as the Church is supposed to be the Bride of Christ.
Yeah that kind of article is not going to help Romney at all. Not only will it tick off evangelicals, but also Catholics and Jews as well.
Even though I would not have a specific problem with a Mormon in the white house, I think that because the religion is marked by so many strange and weird doctrines and such a bizzarre history, that the election of a Mormon is not going to happen in my lifetime or Romney's.
Romney's best shot is for a VP slot behind Fred Thompson and I think that is a longshot.
I understood that Christ was the Savior of all mankind. When I was raised in Mormonism, he wasn’t to be considered a “personal” Savior at all. He was simply the one who came up with the plan, the firstborn Spirit Child of God, and the chosen Spirit Child to place into effect the “plan of exhaltation.”
The Jesus Christ I knew in Mormonism saved all mankind from eternal death, but hadn’t atoned for any of my personal sins. Since then (the 1960’s and 70’s) there has been an evolution of the teachings, I’m not sure what they teach now. That’s why I asked the question.....and got no answer.
Heresies? According to who?
Of course, you may wish to claim that Smith had God's blessing in rewriting the Book of Genesis to include himself after the fact (adding hundreds of words and more than a dozen verses to chapter 50 * http://scriptures.lds.org/en/jst/contents *), but that is the very essence of said heresies, taking authority to speak for God where it is not given by God.
Thanks.
Wonderful that you have come to know Christ now.
And it remains a good question - if everyone goes to heaven, why does anyone need a “personal Savior”?
best,
ampu
Lol! Jewish sources not Mormon! But thanks anyway for giving Mormons credit for it!
LOL! You don’t know your New Testament! In Acts there are prophets after Jesus.
Again, Jewish sources back up the orginal point. Nice trying to distract from the issue on hand.
“According to whom? Well, Orthodox Christianity as advised by the New Testament and the teachings of Jesus ... Mormonism claims to be THE restored Christian Authority, a slap in the face heresy for any Chrisitan sect or Catholicism. What a way to start a new religion don’tchaknow.”
>>>> Ahem! How did Christianity get started?? By adhering to the teachings of the orthodox religions of the day? Or were the original Christians not considered heretics then by biased critics with personal interests to protect?
“Of course, you may wish to claim that Smith had God’s blessing in rewriting the Book of Genesis to include himself after the fact (adding hundreds of words and more than a dozen verses to chapter 50 *”
http://scriptures.lds.org/en/jst/contents *) but that is the very essence of said heresies, taking authority to speak for God where it is not given by God.
>>>> Hold it right there. I have not claimed anything, nor do I wish to do so. This is not about what I believe or don’t believe. It is about what you seem to believe, and why you believe it. You named the Mormons’ beliefs heresies — I”m merely trying to elicit from you upon what UNBIASED authority you do so. Can you furnish any such?
And how do you KNOW FOR SURE that the Mormons beliefs are heresies — or is it just what your priest or minister told you?
No evidence of adultery! DNA evidence has shown the only progenitors of Smith were through Emma! I could ‘spiritually or figuratively’ marry a million woman but if I marry none by the law then it is pointless.
You are looking at a member of the Heresy police. Nevermind that they conveniently leave alone oddities of other faiths alone such as Catholics, etc.
Yes - or - No
Mormonism claims that ALL Christian witness following the death of the last Apostle and prior to the advent of Joe Smith has been apostasy (roughly 1500 years contradicting what Jesus told His Apostles regarding the gates of Hell not winnign against The Church). You will not see me shrink from exposing the Mormonism doctrines if for no other reason than that proclamation at the start of the smithianty religion. But going further, I seek to share the Gospel rather than a church. Are you interested?
Your naivety in service to your cult is amazing. But not surprising at this point.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.