Skip to comments.Dem Drives Anti-Mormon Card
Posted on 01/11/2012 11:55:36 AM PST by americanophile
On MSNBC just now, South Carolina Democratic chair Dick Harpootlian painted Republican voters there as potentially refusing to vote for a Mormon, while trying to make it so. From memory: It does not bother me that he may believe the Garden of Eden is in Missouri, but it may bother them.
This is an ugly card and I hope...
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
If lds actually knew the history of the foundation (and continuing history) of their “church” would they still be lds? place marker
Sorry I hadn’t read it when I ??? you.
I did just look at it, but it’s not of any interest to me so they don’t really mean anything to me. If you like, I’ll reject them...or agree with them, whatever makes you feel better.
It's actually more complicated. And 'non-faithful' actually means academic, bear in mind. I found that cite on the fairLDS.org website while researching what fairLDS (a faithful history site) had to say about faithful history. FARMS is published by the Neal A. Maxwell Institute, which is a faithful history institute, and part of BYU, which is required to teach faithful history as part of the LDS church. Smith's book of essays, once I went back and read the online version again, included both faithful and non-faithful essays, but was published by a publisher, Signature Books, of both non-faithful and quasi-faithful LDS historians.
So the cite to Gary F. Novak, "Review of Faithful History: Essays on Writing Mormon History by George D. Smith," FARMS Review of Books 5/1 (1993) from fairLDS.org was a faithful site's cite to a faithful review of a non-faithful(?) editor's collection of faithful and non-faithful essays about faithful history, published by a publisher of non-faithful and quasi-faithful history, as printed in a faithful journal published by a faithful instituted sponsored by a faithful university.
As I said, it's not doctrine, this 'faithful history' admonition by Boyd K. Packer, but when it leads to articles by non-faithful LDS historians and other academics titled "How to Read a Mormon Historian," "Objectivity and History," "On Being a Mormon Historian," "Thoughts on the Relation of Faith and Historical Knowledge," "Faithful History/Secular Religion," "An Address to the Crisis in Mormon Historiography," and so forth:
Yes, reading both 'faithful' and "non-faithful" LDS history and knowing the difference is important.
If Mitt Romney secures the nomination, certainly he'll face problems with those who take issue with liberal views he's espoused in the past. Others will take issue with specific teachings and quotes of the LDS church about the apostasy of *all* other churches. For some people, the of the issues facing Mitt Romney will be separate and distinct from anything theological. It's that the LDS church and vocal apologists (see, e.g., MormonVoices.org and fairLDS.org), through the lenses of 'faithful history' or otherwise, denies, distorts, and (in the case of apologists) blatantly lies about obvious historical facts. That makes good people - fine, upstanding Mormons whom I work with in Scouting or know in the community - look like liars, like they have 'everything' to hide.
It's time for the LDS church to admit some truths that aren't pretty. Brigham Young was a racist. Blacks and the priesthood wasn't Joseph Smith's idea (there were blacks in the priesthood in his day) - it was wrong the moment men in the church made it up. Polygamy was wrong, from the beginning, and the First Presidency lied in 1890 and continued to bless polygamy until caught with the Reed Smoot hearings. And Gordon B. Hinckley lied about when polygamy was practiced when questioned on the Larry King show ('when we went west'). If you believe in exaltation, and a Celestial Kingdom open only to Mormons who have earned it through works and following rules, just say it. If it involves becoming a god and populating your own planet (and goodness knows, that's been taught by prophets, and is part of a doctrinal exposition by the First Presidency, and is currently taught in Gospel Principles, in the Celestial Marriage guide, in the CES materials for children 4-11, seminary, and institutes), just say so. And so forth. Then move on.
Americans are open to religions that believe in reincarnation - but they're not open when somebody denies believing in something that we can read in the educational materials (which may explain why CES materials are being placed behind portals that require an authorized LDS password to view).
Let's celebrate LDS beliefs, not deny them.
You 'Inmans' are an elite crew and should be paid accordingly.
thanks, I bookmarked the article for later reading.
Romney fired all the ISMs
theres not a one to be had...
I’ll FRp you my mail so you know where to mail the check.
Wow, not a single grammatical error or misspelling. Very professional. You guys really should dirty-up your responses a tad so you look more like actual people and not operatives. I’m a script doctor and I can help you with that.
The word you are looking for is Ignore.
It’s difficult to ignore something you never paid attention to in the first place, but I’ll give it a shot...
...5 minutes later;
Ya feel better now?
Good for the FR class of '98 to get together sometimes.
As regards Romney, as an LDS myself, I will only vote for him as a candidate of last resort. His former positions, and relatively recent "conversion" to more conservative principles are a little too convienent for me. He needs a lot more time proving that what he is saying now is really what he believes.
Having said that, at least he is saying the right things by and large, and if he was the nominee, I would vote for him to beat Obama rather than not vote or go 3rd party and hand it to Obama. I will noot do anything to make it easier for that abject marxist, who is actively destroying this republic.
In the meant time, lets work and hope that one of the more conservative candidates (Santorum, Perry, or Newt) can become the single conservative candidate and calese the conservative vote and beat him so we do not have to make that choice.
...aslo, as I am sure you are aware, watch out for incoming on you comments, I have no doubt you will receive it, claiming all sorts of things about your person because you would say it, LOL! But we've seen worse on these boards.
Take care my FRiend, and God's speed.
Mind our knot.
For the record, I consider Romney the political man and what I percieve as attacks on Mormon ism as separate and distinct topics.
I was a Cain Man and wrote an essay comparing the Texan Perry with the Yankee Romney. I was not a Perry guy but the gubernatorial contrast was interesting. I oppose Mitt for being governor of Massachusetts and a North East Yankee. Either or both are adequate for his disqualification in my view.
I have pretty much decided to support Newt, but if the past indicates the present, the issue will pretty much be decided by the time we have our primary in Tennessee.
As a long time Freeper I am saddened by what I percieve as the use of Free republic to attack a religious body of what are good American citizens. The anti Mormon group of course deny it and throw up technical defense grounds that may or may not be accurate. I fear the perception by others will cast FRee Republic in a bad light. We need to attract people, not drive them away
Thanks for your sound counsel
Wow, not a single grammatical error or misspelling. Very professional. You guys really should dirty-up your responses a tad so you look more like actual people and not operatives. Im a script doctor and I can help you with that.Yes, I am confident that you could help anyone sound stupid especially since you're so accomplished at affecting stupidity yourself--or, maybe it's not an affectation--in any case I don't care about your script doctoring to help people appear dumber than they are, what I care about is your support for Willard Romney, a support that helps you appear dumber than you are, and a support that immediately announces that you are hostile to both conservatives and conservatism, so take your ad hominem insinuations elsewhere.
In the same way, it will be a sad thing for the conniving, unscrupulous, lying, two-faced Mitt Romney to be the first Mormon president. The truth of what and who Mitt Romney is brings no honor to faithful conservative Mormons.
Oh, shut up.
“We need to attract people, not drive them away”
anti mormons LOL