Skip to comments.Will the Mormon Church’s Attempts to Stay “Apolitical” Send the Opposite Message?
Posted on 08/03/2011 4:48:52 PM PDT by greyfoxx39
Last month, a Gallup poll indicated some trouble for Mormon presidential candidates: 22 percent of respondents said they would not vote for a Mormon. And this time, the main problem was not among conservative evangelicalsas was once thoughtbut among self-identified Democrats, where the anti-Mormon bigotry was most pronounced.
Today, the Wall Street Journal has a fascinating article laying out the Mormon Churchs strategy for the current campaign, in which two candidatesJon Huntsman and Mitt Romneyare members of the LDS Church:
We not only dont want to cross the line between religion and politics, Michael Purdy, director of the churchs media relations office, said in an interview at church headquarters here. We dont want to go anywhere near the line.
And that means being actively apolitical. In contrast to its relatively quiescent approach in 2008 when Romney ran for president, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is going on the offensive, aiming to swiftly counter anti-Mormon political arguments and push back against what it considers unfair portrayals of the faith.
The article also notes the Church will bar permanent employees and their wives from participating in the campaign, which will to some degree undermine the fundraising of the Mormon candidates. But this line the Church plans to walknot supporting Mormon candidates but pushing back against anti-Mormon bias that emerges during the campaignis bound to get blurred. When a presidential candidate is not Protestant, he is often taken as a representative of his faith. This is less of an obstacle for Catholics and Jews, who are familiar enough to the greater population they dont usually need to worry about being the only Catholic or Jew voters will be acquainted with.
But that is not necessarily the case with Mormons, which is perhaps one reason Gallup found that 7 percent of respondents wouldnt vote for a Catholic and 9 percent wouldnt vote for a Jewish candidatenumbers significantly lower than those who say they wont vote for a Mormon.
But more problematically, what happens in a general election if Romney is the Republican nominee? President Obama was, as a candidate, shockingly negative. (It is still difficult to imagine Obama was shameless enough to make an ad like this, which would have made Nixon or Kennedy blush and which inspired a defense of McCain from a vice president of La Raza.) When the inevitable attempts to summon this far-too-prevalent anti-Mormon prejudice provoke a response from the Church, wont they be seen as defending Romney, first and foremost?
It may not be fair, but the Church is going to have a difficult time separating its own public relations work from that of the Romney campaignat least as voters see it.
in fact he was running for POTUS in 1844 when he got himself killed in that shootout
and the mormons went out and canvassed for him door to door throughout the land..
The standard policy inside an LDS building is NO discussion of politics. Period.
- - - —
That may be the official policy, but I have been in the pews when ‘voting guides’ came down from SLC on things like gambling initiatives.
There is official policy and there is how things really work in the LDS church.
Don’t forget the Islamic type response to persecution :
Oration Delivered by First Counselor Sidney Rigdon On the 4th of July, 1838, which Smith made into a pamphlet. (excerpts):
We take God and all the holy angels to witness this day, that we warn all men in the name of Jesus Christ, to come on us no more forever, for from this hour, we will bear it no more, our rights shall no more be trampled on with impunity. The man or the set of men, who attempts it, does it at the expense of their lives. And that mob that comes on us to disturb us; it shall be between us and them a war of extermination, for we will follow them, till the last drop of their blood is spilled, or else they will have to exterminate us: for we will carry the seal of war to their own houses, and their own families, and one party or the other shall be utterly destroyed. —Remember it then all MEN.
No man shall be at liberty to come into our streets, to threaten us with mobs, for if he does, he shall atone for it before he leaves the place, neither shall he be at liberty, to villify and slander any of us, for suffer it we will not in this place.
Neither will we indulge any man, or set of men, in instituting vexatious law suits against us, to cheat us out of our just rights, if they attempt it we say we be unto them. http://www.mrm.org/topics/documents-speeches/sidney-rigdons-4th-july-oration
Moreover, when Smith became the target in a newspaper known as the Nauvoo Expositor, he ordered the destruction of the press. http://www.mrm.org/violence-in-early-mormonism
Not quite right...
Will the Mormon Churchs Attempts to SAY Apolitical Send the Opposite Message?
Was the BoM 'translated' AFTER 1831??
No by 1831 he had “heard about” “the gospel” and so he tried it out with Fanny Arger
“Later Joseph Smith claims that the gospel included multiple sex partners for exaltation, the younger the better..”
I for one can not understand why Mormons want to be considered Christian. After all from day one Mormons did not want to be considered Christian. They battled to be seperate for the first 140 years, now they want you to believe that they are Christian too.
I think it’s a difference between wanting to be considered “Christian” & “orthodox Christian”. Christian is a belief in Christ as Savior. Orthodox Christian is rather a set of “orthodox” Christian beliefs. For centuries, Protestants weren’t considered “Christian” by Catholics. They were considered heretics. Funny how time changes things.
I used to enjoy the battles here between the LDS & Anti’s. There were some fascinating arguments that were very educational. Seems like all the good LDS advocates have been kicked off. Too bad from an educational standpoint.
Other than the oxymoron, the LDS folks committed harikari in one fashion or another.
Protestants and Catholics didn't disagree as to the number of gods; Christians and Mormons do. (Sorry, but polytheism doesn't qualify as "Christianity" any more than it'd qualify as Judaism)
Protestants and Catholics didn't disagree on the Scripture laying out Jesus' basic role in relation to salvation; Christians and Mormons do (Sorry, but the Mormon redefinition of Jesus as a "saved being" and Mormons in general as fellow saviors alongside Jesus doesn't qualify as Christianity)
Protestants and Catholics didn't disagree on the Scripture laying out mankind's role as adopted children of God through Jesus Christ; Christians and Mormons do (not only do Mormons say we've been children all along due to a made-up "pre-existence," but Mormonism = adopted "gods" who will know all things and have all things subjected to them. (Sorry, that's not Christianity)
Protestants and Catholics have always agreed that the end game was living eternally with Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ; Mormons somehow think people can be "saved" in a lesser degree of heaven and never be reconciled with the Father. What? That is "salvation?"
Maybe you missed the point. Protestants & Catholics disagreed on who was Christian for centuries. You’ve named many differences between LDS & “Christians”. There many differences between Catholics & Protestants as well such as authority, baptism, faith vs. works, etc.
I guess the point is, what makes you more authoritative on who’s Christian, than the Catholics who claimed likewise for centuries? Because LDS differ on Christian dogma?
If a Catholic confronted you & claimed you weren’t Christian because you don’t accept the Pontiff & the line of Authority, or because you don’t believe that works are part of the saving process, as they did for centuries, would he be correct?
Christians have killed each other for centuries over these very points. Seems like kind of a ridiculous argument to me.
All religions teach that others are wrong. Yours too. Pot meet kettle.
Are you a Mormon ???
If a Catholic confronted you & claimed you werent Christian because you dont accept the Pontiff & the line of Authority, or because you dont believe that works are part of the saving process, as they did for centuries, would he be correct?
Thats never happened to me in my lifetime...
Catholics and Protestantsd agree on the virgin birth of Jesus
That the LORD Jesus Christ is and has always been, God
Jesus shedding His blood on the Cross and dying on the Cross for our salvation
That there were no gods before God
Mormons do not believe any of those tenets of Christianity...
Allow me to give two word pictures which I think outlines what we're talking about.
Let's say for now we compare the Protestant-Catholic feuds to a type of Hatfield-McCoys' feud. These families actually lived in differing states. (McCoys, Kentucky; Hatfields, WV).
The thing is: They actually all lived in the same Tug Valley, largely separated by the Tug River.
Let's say for argument sake -- to make this word picture fit -- that there were boundary disagreements somewhere as to what was really Pike County, Kentucky -- and what constituted Mingo County, WV. Let's say a # of citizens lived among and across these boundaries -- and there was just plain disagreement over where the actual boundaries were meant to be.
Even though the real Hatfield-McCoy battles began over a McCoy returned Union soldier killed by Confederate-minded Hatfields in 1865, let's say in my analogy that many murders occurred over pure boundary issues. Somebody might have a residence in one state, but was killed for being perceived to be in the other; or, somebody's property straddled both properties, but was killed for not being considered a true "West Virginian" or not being a Confederate or not being a true "Kentuckyian." [Certainly, in the real Tug Valley, the McCoys were at a disadvantage in that the Valley leaned heavily Confederate].
Let's say in my word picture that eventually peace was sown by reformers who were able to emphasize that, "Hey, we're all residents of the same Tug Valley. We're all Americans. Let's unite over those two points of unity."
The Reformer added that he wasn't going to sweep under the rug the differences of Union vs. Confederacy; or KY vs. WV; or Pike Co. vs. Mingo Co.; or ill-will over past injustices (murders, etc.). But the reformer emphasized that just as God was a diverse trinity--a "tri" within a "unity," they, too, could be both diverse and to some degree united.
Now. Where do the Mormons fit into to this word picture?
Well, you're argument is like somebody coming into the Tug Valley region and saying:
"McCoys & Hatfields disagreed on who was a true Tug Valley representative citizen for generations...There many differences between McCoys & Hatfields...You've named many differences between Americans and Kolobians. I guess the point is, what makes you more authoritative on whos a Tug Valley resident or who's a true American, than the Hatfields who claimed likewise for generations? Is it because Kolobians differ on similar truth claims? Tug Valley residents have killed each other for generations over these very points. Seems like kind of a ridiculous argument to me."
Do you see what you're doing? You're using local disagreements (Hatfields & McCoys) -- which, indeed, were serious...no need to downplay that -- to reduce the differences between say, Americans and Kolobians. (And, btw, ask Mormons...they'll tell you they think they pre-existed on a star near Kolob).
Give us a break, Confab! What? Just 'cause the Hatfields & McCoys did what they did...
...you claim we can't determine who's a true resident of...
(Or who's a true citizen of America?)
(Or who's a true citizen of the Tug Valley?)
Believe me, if Kolobians came into the Tug Valley and claimed, "we're citizens of Tug Valley," too, ya think the boundary disagreements in my analogy makes it too difficult of a question as to determine if Kolobians are Tug Valley residents (or aliens), too?
Imagine me doing the same thing you're doing: Imagine that I point back the 30s & 40s when...
...the Utah Mormons were having it out with the fundamentalist Mormons (over polygamy)
...& the Missouri-based RLDS would have nothing to do with the Utah Mormons
...& the Utah Mormons were mad @ the small Temple Lot offshoot restorationists 'cause they wouldn't sell the very property that Joseph Smith prophesied the Mormon Jesus would return to near Independence, MO.
* Temple Lot had claim to the prophesied property.
* The RLDS had claims to Smith's copyrighted revision of the KJV Bible as well as claims to Joseph Smith's bloodline -- his child, grandchild, and great-grandchild taking over as head "prophets" of the RLDS.
* The FLDS had claims to being the only Mormons still being faithful to Doctrine & Covenants 132.
* And the Utah Mormons had claim to being the biggest, richest & most well-organized.
Obviously, they're all divided. They all had their own head "prophets" who disagreed with each other -- over even who was the true & faithful Mormon remnant.
Now what if I came into this and said (similarly to what you have said):
"The RLDS & FLDS & LDS & Temple Lotters disagreed on who was a true Mormon for generations...
"...There many differences between these four groups...
"...We can agree many differences exist between LDS and its offshoots. I guess the point is, what makes you more authoritative on whos a true Mormon? -- Especially given that the LDS who have claimed these other groups aren't Mormon..."
[Note #1: see Lds "prophet's" Hinckley comments on the Larry King show about fundamentalist Mormons, for example...where Hinckley said there was no such thing as a fundamentalist Mormon].
[Note #2: I know RLDS Josephite missionaries were shot at in Utah in May 1864 by Lds. Union Vedette (May 13, 1864): "RLDS Missionaries Beaten and Nearly Murdered by LDS" http://www.truthandgrace.com/1864UnionVedette0513.htm]
Bottom line: My point is that if I claimed Christians were Mormons, too,
and that because the Mormons couldn't agree among themselves who the real Mormons were,
does that mean then that the brand name "Mormon" is so convoluted & so up for grabs that Christians could be determined to be in the running to claim it, too?...
...and then for keepers, how'd it be if I reacted to people who said that Christians couldn't be Mormons with comments like 'Seems like kind of a ridiculous argument to me?'"
Nice try, tho, Confab on your wedge arguments. They tend to work pretty well on people. Mormons claim all the time that the denominations are so divided that one prophet and one church is needed and that's it -- as if the Mormons were all unified...[of course, they have to define the fLDS out of existence -- like Hinckley did; or they have to ignore or try to downplay Temple Lot & JST (revised Bible) realities...etc.]
With advocates abroad like yourself, no wonder people slide down a religious Bahai-like pathway where they run everything together about God and begin to conclude things like...
...a fundamentalist Mormon-is-a-Mormon-is-a-Christian-is-a-Jonestownite-is-a-Branch-Davidian-is-a-Heavens-Gate-ian-is-a-Urantia believer-is a Church Universal & Triumphant-is-a-Wiccan-Witch-is-Voodoo practitioner-is-a-New-Ager-is-a-whirling dervish-is-a-Hindu-is-a-Sikh-is-a-Muslim!
So just 'cause differences exist and competing claims to authority over what is the true religion exists and some overlap upon each other on things...no true faith exists? Or they're all in doubt? Or they can all claim to be "Christian," too to various degrees?
Ping to post #35
Neither do Calvinists and Arminians,
or tongue speakers versus not.
We don't do DEFENSE at all (unless someone gets really riled) and we avoid rabbitholes and red herrings like the plague.
What I have noticed is that Protestants fight the Catholics on the Catholic threads. I also noticed they kill each other in other parts of the world.
I also noticed that I made some pretty basic comments & questions & was treated w/ the same rudeness as many others here even though I rarely post here.
As a Christian, I pray for you folks.
As a Christian, I pray for you folks.
We need a LOT of it!
"Are you still so dull?" Jesus asked them.
Matthew 231. Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples:
2. "The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat.
3. So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.
4. They tie up heavy loads and put them on men's shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.
5. "Everything they do is done for men to see: They make their phylacteries wide and the tassels on their garments long;
6. they love the place of honor at banquets and the most important seats in the synagogues;
7. they love to be greeted in the marketplaces and to have men call them `Rabbi.'
8. "But you are not to be called `Rabbi,' for you have only one Master and you are all brothers.
9. And do not call anyone on earth `father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven.
10. Nor are you to be called `teacher,' for you have one Teacher, the Christ.
11. The greatest among you will be your servant.
12. For whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.
13. "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the kingdom of heaven in men's faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to.
14. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.
15. "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are.
16. "Woe to you, blind guides! You say, `If anyone swears by the temple, it means nothing; but if anyone swears by the gold of the temple, he is bound by his oath.'
17. You blind fools! Which is greater: the gold, or the temple that makes the gold sacred?
18. You also say, `If anyone swears by the altar, it means nothing; but if anyone swears by the gift on it, he is bound by his oath.'
19. You blind men! Which is greater: the gift, or the altar that makes the gift sacred?
20. Therefore, he who swears by the altar swears by it and by everything on it.
21. And he who swears by the temple swears by it and by the one who dwells in it.
22. And he who swears by heaven swears by God's throne and by the one who sits on it.
23. "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices--mint, dill and cummin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law--justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former.
24. You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.
25. "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence.
26. Blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and dish, and then the outside also will be clean.
27. "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men's bones and everything unclean.
28. In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness.
29. "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You build tombs for the prophets and decorate the graves of the righteous.
30. And you say, `If we had lived in the days of our forefathers, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.'
31. So you testify against yourselves that you are the descendants of those who murdered the prophets.
32. Fill up, then, the measure of the sin of your forefathers!
33. "You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell?
34. Therefore I am sending you prophets and wise men and teachers. Some of them you will kill and crucify; others you will flog in your synagogues and pursue from town to town.
35. And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar.
36. I tell you the truth, all this will come upon this generation.
37. "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing.
38. Look, your house is left to you desolate.
39. For I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, `Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.' "
26. The woman was a Greek, born in Syrian Phoenicia. She begged Jesus to drive the demon out of her daughter.
27. "First let the children eat all they want," he told her, "for it is not right to take the children's bread and toss it to their dogs."
And St. Paul chimes in...
As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!
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.