As those smartly dressed young men and women with their toothpaste smile who knock on your door ‘Just to chat’ will tell you. Mitt Romney is not the first Mormon (or to be politically correct Church of Latter Day Saints) to run for president. The first was Mormon founder Joseph Smith. My personal theory is that he lost voter confidence after the debacle of forgetting which field he had found those gold tablets in, and lets face it, with that kind of track record, would you trust the man with the national economy?
The Mormon’s have come under the scrutiny of the media lately, they have been breaking the land speed record on those dry salt lake flats in Utah to distance themselves from the Warren Jeffs debacle. Now a couple of film makers are creating pro and anti waves for this organization.
September Dawn, was released on August 24 and stars Jon Voight, Trent Ford and Tamara Hope. This is a very benevolent look at the historical events involving the early Mormon Church and the Mountain Meadows Massacre. This is a plus vote for Mitt, we see the trials and tribulations that this ground breaking band of pioneers endured.
Slated for release in 2008, and no doubt at the most inconvenient moment for Mitt Romney, comes A Mormon President, produced by filmmaker Adam Christing. Production has wrapped up on this movie, and early reports are that it has been created in a documentary style.
To quote from the press release:
The goal of the film is to offer sound biographical information on the Mormon Prophet Joseph Smith and his run for the presidency. It has become, in addition, an exploration of anti-Mormon feeling in America.
Nevertheless it is important to understand the tides of history and the only way to understand Mitt Romney and his run for the highest office in the land is to go back to the roots of his faith and the first Mormon to run for president, Joseph Smith
Ouch, this sounds like fun to me! I have contacted the PR company for Adam Christing, and hope to have a trailer and an interview to share very soon.
Simon Barrett
Loading ...
12 users commented in " Mitt Romney, The Mormons, And The Movies! "
Follow-up comment rss or Leave a TrackbackNo need to be “politically correct” when a simple “correct” will do. The official name of the so-called “Mormon Church” is “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.” Note the dash and the small “d,” and note the name of our Lord and Savior, which you casually omitted.
Our name testifies of Christ in three ways:
1. Christ means Messiah, Savior, the Anointed One. “Jesus Christ” affirms our belief that the historic Jesus of Nazareth is the Only Begotten Son of God and the Savior of all mankind.
2. A Saint is one who seeks sanctification (cleansing and forgiveness of sins) through the atoning blood of Jesus Christ. The Book of Mormon testifies of a group who worshiped Jesus Christ many years before his birth: “Nevertheless they did fast and pray oft, and did wax stronger and stronger in their humility, and firmer and firmer in the faith of Christ, unto the filling their souls with joy and consolation, yea, even to the purifying and the sanctification of their hearts, which sanctification cometh because of their yielding their hearts unto God.” (Helaman 3:35) http://scriptures.lds.org/en/hel/3/35#35
3. Latter-days refers to the times before the second coming of Jesus Christ to rule and reign personally on the earth.
Joseph Smith never forgot where he found the plates, and to this day Latter-day Saints visit the Hill Cumorah in upstate New York and hold an annual pageant there. He did not rebury the plates, but rather returned them to the angel Moroni, in whose possession they remain to this day. Before returning them, however, he obtained eleven eye-witnesses. Three of them saw the angel and the plates and heard the voice of God declaring that their translation was true. The eight others handled the plates and turned their leaves under natural circumstances. Thus we have twelve witnesses, including Joseph Smith, to the reality of the plates, and every one of them remained faithful to his testimony to his dying day. Their testimony has been published in every edition of the Book of Mormon since the first edition of 1830.
http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/ttlpg
While you are striving for correctness, please note that the plural is NEVER formed with an apostrophe. “Among educated persons . . . incorrect forms, especially misuses of apostrophes, stand out like red flags. One area executive has said he will not hire an applicant whose letter or resume includes such an error.”
http://www.meredith.edu/grammar/plural.htm
I’m assuming that you had tongue in cheek when you referred to the “benevolent look” of “September Dawn” — or perhaps you meant “malevolent?” That b-grade production has to be one of the trashiest anti-Mormon polemics ever to come out of Hollywood. It was universally panned by critics and wisely ignored by movie-goers.
All of this, of course, has nothing to do with any Latter-day Saint who may be running for political office. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints maintains a strict policy of neutrality and non-intervention in political affairs. Please read the policy for yourself at lds.org. Select “News and Events,” “Newsroom,” and in the left bar, under “Public Issues,” “Political Neutrality.”
No good Mormon will ever ridicule the religious beliefs of another. Article 11 of our 13 Articles of Faith, written by Joseph Smith, declares: “We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.”
Better luck next time!
Tracy
hthalljr’gmail’com
FYI, the official name of the Mormon church is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. I figure that if you are going to be “politically correct” (or at least to establish some credibility about what you are giving your opinion about) it would be good to actually get the name of the church right. The “Jesus Christ” part of the name is pretty important, especially given the claims by some that Mormons aren’t Christian.
Joseph Smith did not win the nomination because he was killed by an anti-mormon mob four months after announcing his candidacy while being held on bogus charges of treason.
P.S. I also think your analysis of these films’ impact on Romney is backwards. There is no way that a movie about the Mountain Meadows Massacre helps him. ON the other hand, a look into Smith’s surprisingly progressive presidential platform and the anti-mormon bigotry that prematurely ended his campaign just might.
The comments by Tracy Hall Jr. are intended to be illuminating to some who are unfamiliar with the Mormon church organization and history. While he is correct about the PRESENT name of the church organization, and repeats the official story about the gold plates and the witnesses to their existence correctly, he and Michael show a slight lack of historical knowledge about the ‘Mormon’ church, currently incorporated as the ‘Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints’.
When this church was first organized in New York on 6 April 1830, it was called simply ‘The Church of Christ’. For reasons of expedience (which most ‘Mormons’ are completely unaware of) the original name was indeed changed to the label that was used in this article: ‘The Church of Latter-Day Saints’ (yes, without ‘Christ’ or ‘Jesus Christ’ as part of the name). It was later changed to it’s present day form.
Actually, more than the name has been changed over the years, when one begins to dig into the history, one finds a plethora of changes from what was originally instituted by the Joseph Smith and early church leaders, ranging from some not-so-minor changes to the uniquely LDS scriptures (Their ‘Doctrine and Covenants’ and ‘Book of Mormon’ which they (LDS) claim to have been directly inspired of God), to not-so-minor changes in ordinances (Priesthood ordinations, the sacrament, Temple ceremonies - again, held by the LDS to be revealed by God). Even the organizational structure has changed, and some priesthood offices have been eliminated (or radically altered from their first ‘revealed’ form).
Personally, I believe that God is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow, and He does not change (and therefore anything revealed by Him will never change). The Bible declares a curse to those who break God’s covenants and change His ordinances (or change His word!) If one truly believe that God inspired or revealed these things to Joseph Smith Jr to restore to mankind, then how does one justify the changes that have been made?
I often find that non-Mormons know more about the early history and tenets of this church than do most of the current members.
There are many members belonging to this LDS church, or Mormons, or Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, (or whatever name they wish to be called by)that will probably take offense at these remarks, but the historical documents in the archives and the literature of their own organization provide the proof - I haven’t fabricated it.
By the way - just an opinion, but couldn’t Tracy’s comment using SAINT and POLITICAL OFFICE in the same sentence qualify as an oxymoron in the current political arena?
I’m sure this blog will generate some righteously indignant (and most likely naive) comments. I hope those who do comment make an truly honest attempt to be historically accurate and completely honest in what they have to say.
Norm,
Here is your righteous indignation that you were begging for:
The history of the church is much more cohesive than your antagonistic narrative gives it credit for. From the very beginning of the restoration of the gospel and Church of Jesus Christ, Joseph Smith acknowledged his own imperfections and the need to rebuild the kingdom line upon line and precept upon precept. Just as the apostles of Christ in ancient time, he did the best with the knowledge he was given. Just as with presidential candidates, (such as Mitt Romney) people will unfairly accuse the church of flip-flopping when, in truth, they receive greater light and knowledge and additional instruction on how to implement such truths.
God does not change. He has used revelation to teach his prophets in the past, and he will continue to do so in the future. Adam and Ezekiel did not perform identical ordinances. John the Baptist and Malachi did not perform identical ordinances. It would be sophomoric to look at these transitions and claim that Adam, Ezekiel, John and Malachi therefore believe in a changing God. Yet, that is exactly what you have tried to do with regard to God’s kingdom restored in these last days.
Shame on you Norm for being so callow.
p.s. When arguing with Mormons, don’t use the “God doesn’t change” argument. You will play into their hands. They will start to talk about how, because God had a prophet anciently, he would also have one today. Same with authority. Same with 1 church. Same with continuing scripture. Same with temples. Same with tithing. Same with full-time voluntary missionary work. You get the picture.
jmf,
I didn’t ‘beg’ for any ‘righteous’ indignation, but you seem to have fulfilled my prediction to the letter, including the naivety.
Sophomoric and ‘Callow’ are both interesting choices of adjective for you to use. Callow means ‘young and inexperienced’ or ‘lacking adult maturity’. Sophomoric means much the same thing with a lack of judgment. If you were trying to be cute or intending insult, I’m afraid you merely amuse me, since it appears that yours is the more inexperienced view.
Did you check history, and verify the validity of what I stated about the name of the church changing? Are you aware of the contents of the Kirtland Revelation Book, which was the precursor to the Doctrine and Covenants and compared the contents with your ‘modern’ D&C version? - for that matter, did you know that there were changes to the D&C in 1935? I’m sure you know about the changes to the wording in the Book of Mormon in a couple paragraphs, aren’t you? Are you fully aware of the two major changes to the temple endowment ceremony in the last hundred years? Major portions of both of the preceding examples have been completely deleted and others distorted beyond recognition from the originals. How does the church explain the changing of what they claim to have been revealed directly to them from God, through their prophet?
These changes I speak of have not been made between the ‘dispensations’ of the different prophets and patriarchs you referred to in your response, but by the LDS church - and since it was organized in 1830 - most of them occurring during and since Heber J. Grant’s tenure as 7th church president. These are changes to things the church tells us come directly from God - not what you’d think would be considered ’small stuff’ to a Mormon.
Here’s just one example of a change to the priesthood organization in the church:
Recorded in the ‘History of the Church’ vol. 2, (page 476 in my copy - I paraphrase except where set off in ”) - dealing with the regulation of the seventies - errors had been made by certain individuals - Joseph Smith Jr, took pains to point them out, and said the procedures followed were ‘not according to the order of heaven’. He corrected the situation himself, and instructed those who had erred. This same ‘mistake’ was AGAIN made by church president David O. McKay, VERBATIM, with the presiding quorums of seventy.
If Joseph Smith Jr was correct in asserting that what had been done initially in his day was not in accordance with ‘the order of heaven’ then (as recorded in church history) please explain how the ‘order of heaven’ has changed and is different today.
As I said, God doesn’t change. Show me how then, the church justifies this one example of change, I’ve described. You indicate changes come by revelation. You wouldn’t be attempting to tell me that what the Lord reveals to one president of the church changes when the next one decides it should, are you? Have you seen or read or heard of this revelation? That’s because it doesn’t exist. Go ahead -try to find it. I’ve read the church’s official explanation, but it’s not a revelation, by any stretch of the imagination, nor is it claimed to be. These changes have all been made for expediency alone.
I’ve got many other examples covering scripture changes, to priesthood ordination, temple ordinances, tithes and consecration, missionaries, 1 church - the whole gamut you refer to in your p.s. and more, complete with historical references from sources within the LDS church, but I doubt very much that you’d like to have it laid before this public forum for all to see and you to explain.
Almost everyone in the church (active members anyway) know about the changes in the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants. The Doctrine and Covenants is meant to be a changing document. As new revelation comes from God it is added. God has never sat down with a prophet and pointed out which revelations belong, and so as time has passed some sections have been removed as they are deemed less important than the other revelations. The process is no more ambigious than the process that the first church fathers took in compiling the Bible. As for the Book of Mormon, there is a book put out by BYU that demonstrates every one of those changes. It’s a pretty boring book since most changes are in punctuation or obvious grammar errors. Other errors include bad transcription when it went to the press, and a curious little error involving “pure and delightsome” people. The current Book of Mormon has reverted to the original manuscripts and first two editions, which were edited by Joseph Smith. Some other edits in the second edition include changing phrases involving Mary’s relationship to Jesus from “Mother of God” to “Mother of the Son of God”, an edit made by Joseph Smith. Since he was the publisher of the book, we can assume that’s what he had intended to be printed in the first edition. No other doctrinally significant changes have been made. By the way, I learned all of this from church publications, so if Mormons don’t know about it, it’s not because the church hasn’t published it.
As for the other changes, there are plenty of books out there that address every issue you’ve brought up. Visit the FARMS or FAIR website
dsc,
Your post is refreshing in nature, and informative to future readers. Thanks for adding the references to the FARMS and FAIR website. I’ll just add the links for those wishing to jump there from here.
FARMS (Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies)
http://farms.byu.edu/
FAIR (Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research)
http://www.fairlds.org/
I’ll add some additional links here also:
http://www.exmormon.org/
http://www.mormonfortress.com/
Norm,
I really have to question why you are so combative against the Mormons. As an outsider, I think your attacks really sound ridiculous. Who cares what the Mormons believe? So maybe Joseph Smith found some gold plates, maybe he didn’t, what do you care? The Mormons did nothing to hurt you… but wait… in your mind they did do something to you… you feel Joseph Smith lied and twisted your religion into some perverted form of Christianity. You feel that what he did was so wrong and such an obvious fraud! And if you really feel that way, you ought to be even more outraged by the Muslims. They believe Christ was a prophet but never claimed to be the son of God. They believe the writers of the bible changed his doctrine after the fact to say he was the son of God. You ought to be really angry at them.
And if you want to talk about all the evidences that Mormonism fails to live up to, let’s take a moment and look at Christianity as well. How well does Christianity stand up to “evidence”? What about the fact that science has shown that the whole world was never submersed by a flood as the bible claims? What about the fact that science has clearly shown that the earth is older than 10,000 years old? The fact that it wasn’t made in 7 days as the bible claims, but over the course of billions of years? What about the fact that people don’t just rise from the dead? Snakes don’t talk and tell people to eat forbidden fruit. There is no such thing as the giants mentioned in the old testament or the dragons or the unicorns! And don’t even get me started on evolution and the garden of Eden!
You know, I’m almost angry for the poor Mormon guy who had to write so much to defend his faith to an attacker like you. I think it’s really pathetic that you have to knock down his religion to validate your own. You’re like the bully in grade school that builds himself up by knocking others down. Before you pick on the poor Mormons, look at yourself. You think their religion is so stupid and such an obvious fraud. But think about how you look to all the non-Christians out there. Your belief looks just as silly.
If I were you, I would band together with the Mormons. Isn’t religion in the USA coming under attack? Do you realize that people are trying to remove Christmas from Schools? You and the Mormons have a common bond, you both have a religion which society is trying to place behind closed doors. If you attack the Mormons, you are merely justifying every attack that is directed towards your own religion. Please, be more mature and rise above such petty bickering. I don’t care about either of your religions, but I wish you could be a bit more respectful of each other.
Jaytee,
Hello! Something sure got you fired up, didn’t it?
You’ve certainly made some assumptions that are a bit off the mark.
First, you have no idea what my religious background is or is not.
Second, you assume that I feel ‘combative’ against mormons in particular.
Third, you think I’m trying to validate my own religion (wow!).
I’m not sure how you managed these leaps in logic, but - you’ve got just as much right to jump to conclusions as the next guy. Be my guest.
The first two comments to this blog were attempts at correcting the initial blogger for not using “the proper name”. I pointed out that the original article did in fact use one of the names that ‘the mormons’ had used. I then also stated that in addition to changing the name they used, they had also changed their scriptures and beliefs. These are all historical items that can be verified by anyone.
You’re absolutely correct in your view of how Christianity stands up to the historical evidence. No argument there. It’s been butchered and abused. Same with Islam. Same with Hindus, Buddhists, yada yada - no need to name them all - they all have their inconsistencies and changes.
In case you missed it, the only thing I ‘attacked’ was inconsistency, and it WAS done respectfully with no name calling or negative sounding adjectives. This blog happened to concern Mormonism, and thus my comments on it’s history.
I might be wrong, but you sound as if you are an atheist. If you don’t want to believe in a God, or if you have a different God, that is perfectly all right with me. Just be consistent, or some ‘bully’ (as you put it) might notice and point it out.
Just for the record, I have absolutely no problem with removing Christmas from schools - I think it would be an improvement.
Norm,
1. I don’t think I’m jumping to conclusions about your religion. I do have an idea what your religious background is. You are Christian. Your first post says:
“Personally, I believe that God is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow, and He does not change (and therefore anything revealed by Him will never change). The Bible declares a curse to those who break God’s covenants and change His ordinances (or change His word!) If one truly believe that God inspired or revealed these things to Joseph Smith Jr to restore to mankind, then how does one justify the changes that have been made?”
2. I can see very clearly that you are trying to point out inconsistencies in the Mormon guys’ faith. I just don’t see what good comes out of that. It’s basically telling someone that their belief that has made them so happy is stupid. There’s no need for that. It’s disrespectful.
3. I don’t think you feel the need to point out all these inconsistencies just for the sake of philosophy. You obviously have a deep resentment or you wouldn’t have typed so much. I’m not sure why.
Ouch . . . sucks to be Norm. Yeah, i’m 14 - who cares?
Hey dsc,
Have you read the 1880 revelation? 1886 to John Taylor? 1889 to Wilford Woodruff? They’re all more current than what’s contained in the D&C, but the church refuses to publish them, and they ARE current. Bet you don’t even know what’s in them….
Leave A Reply