In the halcyon days of TV there was a game show, “To Tell The Truth,” in which contestants bluffed – even lied – their way through their résumés, claiming experiences and expertise they did not have. The object of the game was to fool the panel into voting for the bogus contestants, instead of the one who really was who (s)he claimed to be. This seems to be the strategy Mitt Romney (R-MA) is using to get to the White House.
Romney has falsely claimed to have been a hunter “pretty much all my life”; to have been “endorsed” by the National Rifle Association; to have “made it tougher for people with meth labs” when he was governor of MA; and to have seen his father march with Martin Luther King, Jr. (in a 1978 interview with the Boston Herald, Romney had also claimed, “My father and I marched with Martin Luther King Jr. through the streets of Detroit.”)
The New York Times asks whether Romney has a “problem with blurring the truth”:
Some of the instances when Mr. Romney has tripped up on his facts show that he is prone to exaggeration, taking what is essentially a kernel of truth and stretching it to bolster his case. …
Indeed, with many of these instances, there has often been at least an element of his truth in his claims. But for a candidate who has featured his business background and made much of his propensity for careful analysis of data, he is not always precise.
Not always precise? The Times must mean that, um, figuratively. Here’s how Romney explains why no contemporaneous news accounts place him or his father at any of King’s civil rights marches:
Mitt Romney acknowledged yesterday that he never saw his father march with Martin Luther King Jr. as he asserted in a nationally televised speech this month, and historical evidence shows that Michigan’s Governor George Romney and the civil rights leader never did march together.
Romney said his father had told him he had marched with King and that he had been using the word “saw” in a “figurative sense.”
“If you look at the literature, if you look at the dictionary, the term ’saw’ includes being aware of in the sense I’ve described,” Romney told reporters in Iowa. “It’s a figure of speech and very familiar, and it’s very common. And I saw my dad march with Martin Luther King. I did not see it with my own eyes, but I saw him in the sense of being aware of his participation in that great effort.”
As Michael Dobbs, who writes The Washington Post’s Fact Checker blog points out:
Mitt Romney was 16 years old in 1963 at the time that Martin Luther King organized a series of “Freedom Marches” through American cities, including Detroit. At the time, the Mormon Church, of which the Romneys were prominent members, still maintained an official ban on the full participation of African-Americans in religious rites, a ban that was not lifted until 1978. Nevertheless, the senior Romney sympathized with the Civil Rights movement and issued a proclamation in support of a civil rights march through Detroit in June attended by King.
According to researchers at the Martin Luther King Jr. Papers Project at Stanford University, George Romney declined to attend the first march on June 23, a Sunday, on the grounds that he would not take part in political activity on the Sabbath. Susan Englander, who is associate editor of the King papers, said that Romney participated in a different march six days later through the suburb of Grosse Pointe. She believes that it is unlikely that King was present on that occasion, as contemporaneous newspaper reports fail to mention him.
Though the participation of the Romney père et fils at any of King’s civil rights marches is a figment of the candidate’s overactive imagination, he was nonetheless so moved by the thought of racism, that his eyes welled with tears (video) on NBC’s “Meet the Press” as he recalled hearing a news report on this car radio in 1978 that the Mormon Church would no longer discriminate against blacks, telling Tim Russert that he “pulled over and literally wept.”
That’s not how Romney played this supposedly seminal moment during his unsuccessful 1994 race against Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, reports Boston Globe columnist Joan Vennochi:
Joseph P. Kennedy II, Kennedy’s nephew and a congressman at the time, criticized the Mormon Church for its policy of racial exclusion. The Romney campaign angrily noted that the policy changed in 1978. Romney said he was greatly relieved, but said nothing about weeping for joy when he learned about it. During a press conference, Romney also accused Kennedy of betraying his brother John’s victory in 1960 when JFK faced voter skepticism about his Catholic religion.
Mission accomplished: Joe Kennedy apologized, and Senator Kennedy backed off, too. Romney’s Mormon faith was off the table, where it belongs. Romney never delved any deeper into his feelings about his church’s past policy, saving a Bill Clinton moment for national TV and his presidential quest.
Leaving aside that even back then, Romney used “religious bigotry” as a smokescreen, Vennochi means “Clintonian” in a “feel your pain” sort of way. Syndicated columnist Star Parker, uses the term in a “you can’t trust a word out of his mouth” sort of way:
It’s doubtful that anyone needs any more reasons to explain why Americans are fed up with politics as usual. Nevertheless, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney has given us one more.
Apparently when Romney said, “I saw my father march with Martin Luther King,” in his much publicized “Faith in America” speech … he meant this “figuratively.”
According to the former Massachusetts governor, “If you look at the literature or the dictionary the term ’saw’ includes being aware of in the sense I have described. It is a figure of speech….”
We haven’t seen a politician parse a sentence like this since Bill Clinton dissected the meaning of the verb “is” and explained that it was Monica who had sex with him and not the other way around.
The next sentence in the speech following the King claim was, “I saw my parents provide compassionate care to others, in personal ways nearby….” Also figuratively?
It sure sounds that way to Wall Street Journal editorial board member Jason Riley. By the time the Mormon Church issued its “Official Declaration” on June 8, 1978, to extend “priesthood and temple blessings to all worthy male members of the Church” – only after the church’s then-president Spencer Kimball received a “revelation” - Riley notes that “the U.S. was more than a century removed from a civil war over the status of blacks; W.E.B Du Bois and Henry Moskowitz had co-founded the NAACP; and President Truman had integrated the military three decades before.”
Until this “revelation,” Mormons regarded people who had even “one drop” of black in them “unrighteous,” “despised” and “loathsome” descendants of the biblical Cain, who was cursed for killing Abel. And afterward?
Riley cites Mormon scholar Armand Mauss who wrote in 2004 that “ironically, the doctrinal folklore that many of us thought had been discredited, or at least made moot, through the 1978 revelation, continued to appear … [in church literature] written well after 1978 and continues to be taught by well-meaning teachers and leaders in the church to this very day.”
No doubt, Romney was raised on these teachings – Riley writes that by in 1978, “Romney was a 31-year-old vice president at Bain & Co. and a lifelong devout Mormon. Throughout his current campaign for the Republican nomination, Mr. Romney has declined to distance himself from the repugnant racial teachings of his church.”
What if in addition to refusing to repudiate the (past?) racism of the Mormon Church, Romney himself repeated these repugnant doctrines while trying to win converts as a missionary in France, or teaching Sunday school as a church bishop?
The MSM shouldn’t allow Romney to hide behind “anti-Mormon bigotry” in refusing to answer questions about his beliefs – or buy into the fiction that asking such questions of a presidential candidate is imposing an unconstitutional “religious test.” As Riley puts it, “[i]t’s due diligence.”
Especially, as some suggest, the lack of truthfulness about Mormonism may go beyond Romney’s own personal problems with honesty.
In a Townhall.com column radio talk show host Bob Burney (weekday afternoons, WRFD, 880 AM in Columbus, OH) asks, “What has happened to the simple principle of telling the truth?,” referring to “notable change in the way the LDS Church presents itself to the general public, an effort that began sometime around the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City”:
Prior to that, there was not a readily-apparent effort by Mormons to identify themselves as a form of Christianity. … I remember a time when it was common for Mormons to be offended if you called them Christian. That was then.
Sometime around 2002 a very noticeable shift occurred. Suddenly they wanted to be accepted as a part of mainstream Christianity … [E]ven a peripheral study of Mormonism will reveal that the Jesus of Mormonism isn’t even in the same universe (literally) as the Jesus of orthodox Christianity. The Jesus of Mormonism is the “spirit child” of his “heavenly parents.” He is in no way part of a triune Godhead. …
At the same time, the official LDS Web site was totally overhauled and some of the more bizarre doctrines held by the Church were carefully hidden deep within the site - doctrines such as “the Fall” actually being a good thing … the ability to actually become a God and have your own planet to rule over … that Jesus and Lucifer (yes, Satan) were actually brothers. …
This is America. You can believe anything you want. … If you believe it, be proud of it - don’t try to hide it. …
[When presidential candidate Mike] Huckabee … wondered out loud to the veteran religion reporter Zev Chafets: “Don’t Mormons believe that Jesus and the devil are brothers?” Well, that’s exactly what they believe! Several news outlets immediately accused Huckabee of attacking Romney’s religion. Blogs went berserk!
How did candidate Romney respond to someone revealing what his church actually believes? He said, “But I think attacking someone’s religion is really going too far. It’s just not the American way, and I think people will reject that,” Romney told NBC’s “Today” show. …
Does this have anything to do with Mitt Romney and his qualifications to be president? Everyone will have to decide that in his or her own heart. I just wish the Mormons, including Mitt Romney, would simply be more candid and tell us the straight truth about their religion.
And who ran 2002 Winter Olympics when the Mormons were busy repackaging their religion for public (read MSM) consumption? Romney.
The only way John Fund, Hugh Hewitt, Charles Krauthammer and other pundits can call people who are asking inconvenient questions (in other words, doing their jobs for them) “bigots” is to choose to remain ignorant by confined their “research” on Mormonism to marketing materials sanctioned by the Mormon Church. They have abrogated their responsibilities as journalists by not bothering to delve into the “doctrinal folklore” that Fund’s colleague Riley briefly touches on in his column – unwritten, passed orally from Sunday school teacher to future priests and missionaries. For instance, Fund once dismissed the “White Horse Prophesy” as a fantasy. Perhaps he ought to bestir himself to look further into it.
To answer Burney’s question, if a man can lie about his core beliefs he will lie about everything else – and Romney’s record of flip-flopping on abortion and other fundamental issues certainly bears this out. If the pundits weren’t so busy ascribing character flaws to people who balk at voting for Romney, the candidate’s reluctance to forthrightly discuss Mormonism - further, to lie about its doctrines (second item) – would have raised red flags a long time ago.
As Parker bluntly puts it: “Republicans can win back the hearts and minds of Americans. But they have to get real and get honest. Unlike the former governor of Massachusetts.”
Note: The Stiletto writes about politics and other stuff at The Stiletto Blog.
Loading ...
24 users commented in " Romney Habitually Substitutes Truthiness For Truthfulness "
Follow-up comment rss or Leave a TrackbackThe real question is not what you thought Mitt meant but what Mitt thought he meant. I am satisfied that Romney has good intentions in all that he says. I have watched him for years, worked under him during the Olympics in 2002, and met him in person more recently at Steven Covey’s house. This is a man who is honorable in his intentions, and usually his words spill out the same way.
People talk about “standards of integrity” in journalism, but after the last two days I no longer believe in them. Are your standards so high that you would knock our top qualified candidate out of the race over words that may mean one thing to one person and another to another person? Would you really rather have Hillary and Bill in office than someone who has a track record as extraordinary as Mitt’s and who is dying to tackle little issues like, say, the budget deficit, overspending in government, immigration, health care, social security, the war in Iraq, and much, much more.
This is a guy who has been faithful to his wife since she was 15 in high school (they didn’t get married that early…) and continues to be a romantic even today. His kids love him. Liberals don’t. They even fear him… A wonderful endorsement.
Mitt admits he is not perfect, and has never even said he picks the perfect words every day, but that doesn’t keep him from being the perfect choice. There is no place we need Mitt more than Washington.
If what you have written is even half of the misstatements he has made in a campaign as long as this has been, I am pleased. I would have made ten times that amount under the same conditions. I also would not be tied with Giuliani for the national lead.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119810092342540425.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
Huckabee’s comment on Mormons was clearly intentional and intended to smear the church. It’s a common spin technique that religious “leaders” of other faiths use to attack my beliefs. As a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, I have become used to it. I have even seen pamphlets circulated by some “Christian” churches that are intended to denigrate my beliefs. Huckabee and any other slick religious bigots need to seriously look into the mirror and determine if they are doing a good job of being “Christian” when they spend their time trying to bash other’s beliefs. It’s pathetic.
The King James Version of the Bible that we use teaches that we are to love our neighbors. That is why you will not hear any sermons in the Church of Jesus Christ that would belittle anyone elses beliefs. Life is way too short for that type of childish behavior.
I realize that it is not as exciting and “sensationalistic,” but the cold hard truth is that the Mormon Church, like the Baptist Church and many other churches in this country, has abandoned any racist teachings it once held. I’m Mormon, and my wife is black. We were married in a Mormon temple, where the officiator told us that God approved of our marriage. My wife is treated well at church, as are the other African American members of our congregation. I’ve had a black bishop in several different Mormon congregations of which I’ve been a member.
You act as if the Mormon Church is the only church in this country with a history of racism. The Southern Baptist Church came in to being because it refused to denounce slavery. To this day, there are protestant-affiliated universities in this country that only allow interracial dating with parents’ permission. Perhaps we could respect the Mormons efforts to abandon their past teachings and instead focus productively on eliminating the racism that still exists in the country TODAY?
regardless of Mr. Romney’s political stances and points of view, he does not represent his church in this election. He is not his church, and his church is not Mr. Romney. They are two separate entities.
One can agree with Mr. Romney and disagree with his church just as easily as one can disagree with Mr. Romney and agree with his church. I personally disagree with a lot of what Mr. Romney is doing, but I can’t blur the line between individual and religion. That wouldn’t be the truth.
> I just wish the Mormons, including Mitt Romney, would simply be more candid and tell us the straight truth about their religion.
Tell me of any other church that has not only their doctrine, but also 30+ years worth of speeches and their magazines published online to the public, and this comment about the mormons trying to hide their faith might sound slightly less stupid.
By the way, on the issue of Mormonism, you should check your facts, or maybe you need to reevaluate what it means to be Christian.
Mormons consider there to be three general branches of Christianity: traditional, reformed, and restored.
Traditional (not an official term) would be Roman Catholic or maybe Eastern Orthodox. Clearly, neither is the same church as existed in the time of Christ and is recorded in the New Testament.
Reformed would be the work of the Protestant reformers. That would include Baptists, Lutherans, Methodists, and the like. By reason, these groups sought to realign their faith with the original teachings of the Bible.
Restored Christianity, which is what the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) refers to itself as, is where by revelation, not reason, the realignment of faith with the original teachings of Jesus occurs. In other words, Mormons say that Joseph Smith and others received revelations and authority from God to restore the original church that Christ established. Mormons say that first John the Baptist appeared and gave the Priesthood of Aaron (Aaronic Priesthood) to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery. Later, Peter, James, and John appeared as angelic beings to give the higher Priesthood of Melchizedek to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery, which they stated was lost from the Earth when the apostles were killed off.
Mormons differ from Catholics in that they believe that authority was lost for eighteen centuries. Peter may have given Linus authority over the flock, such as was left, but not the Apostolic Priesthood and the keys of revelation. Without apostles or revelation, the fulness of the truth and the original structure of the church rapidly fell into confusion.
Mormons differ from Reformists in that they believe reason is insufficient to restore the Church of Jesus Christ, though they are not against reason.
Mormons believe that both truth and authority from God are necessary to have the Church of Jesus Christ on the Earth, and they claim that.
Their doctrines are overwhelmingly simple, but are made to appear complex by those who do dissent or do not really know the truth. In a sense, it is a very reasonable position to take, that God would have to restore what he took away when his apostles were rejected and killed.
That said, Mormons differ from Reformists (including Evangelicals) on precious few points. The difference, from a Latter-day Saint perspective, is Mormons have and believe in revelation and scripture (including the Bible), where Reformists believe in reason being enough, together with the Bible. Mormons do not discount reason or the Bible, but say it is not enough for them, and is certainly insufficient if we are to have the original structure Christ organized, including prophets, apostles, pastors, teachers, evangelists, and so forth.
What I find fascinating is that, inverse to what happens with other churches, Mormons become more faithful in their church the more educated they are in the world instead of less. That may mean that they have actually found a stronger balance between faith and reason than other faiths.
One of Mitt Romney’s strengths is that he is able to see both sides of almost any issue. He can also distance his policy decisions from his personal convictions, if he believes that the Constitution requires it. (I don’t see this in any other candidate, but I may be wrong.) This is part of what made him successful in campaigning in Massachusetts. His personal convictions are highly conservative, but he is able to govern more liberal people and be tolerant, to a degree. When it comes to what he will do as President, I believe he will stand by his campaign promises, which are closer to his personal convictions than what he was willing to work with in more liberal Massachusetts.
Both liberals and conservatives should respect that he is extending his unique brand of respect to all Americans. This does not mean he will back gay marriage (he has said that he will not), though I would not be surprised to see him back their rights in the workplace, if it came up. (That is as far left as he has ever been on the subject, is basic constitutional rights. While I am a bit homophobic myself (maybe even proudly so), I am at least not against them as Americans, only their actions and the parading of them in front of our children and on TV. I admit that I would rather gays stayed in the closet.)
When any judge has tried to broaden the meaning of the Constitution, however, Mitt has gone after them like an attack dog.
At any rate, Mitt is reasonable, pragmatic, but also has high personal standards and hopes for this country. He practices what he preaches. That is important, and I expect him to bring about more change for good in less time than any other President of the United States since Lincoln, and perhaps ever. Do not underestimate Mitt, either in his personal abilities or his convictions.
In the end, I would hope Americans would study Mitt, meet him if they can, maybe pray about him, and make up their own minds. That is a pattern Mormons follow in coming to a testimony of their convictions. You can see his well thought out, positive campaign propaganda at:
http://www.MittRomney.com
and
http://mitt-tv.mittromney.com/
Best wishes to you all. (And to Mitt!)
Here is his speech on Faith in America, too:
http://mitt-tv.mittromney.com/?showid=718280
“I believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God and the savior of mankind.”
That is as Mormon as any statement ever could be.
If you have any question about what Mormons believe, here is Joseph Smith’s own statement of our thirteen articles of faith, originally found in a letter to John Wentworth of the Chicago Democrat.
http://scriptures.lds.org/en/a_of_f/1
And here was the event that led to the founding of the Church:
http://scriptures.lds.org/en/js_h/1
I don’t think there is more that can be said, though if you want general information about the church today, these are your two websites:
http://www.mormon.org/ (information for non-members)
http://www.lds.org/ (official website of the Church)
The Church and its members have nothing to hide. We tire sometimes of attacks, and not everyone has the training to be an apologist, let alone should have to be one, but we do have one thing that I think many people admire, and that is conviction. Few Mormons rely on the testimony of another, and probably would not last long in the church if it were so, as it takes commitment to live up to its teachings (as it did in Christ’s day), but follow scriptural counsel such as that found in James 1:5, that if any man lacks wisdom, he should ask of God, who gives to all men liberally without upbraiding them for asking, and he answers in a way that speaks to the heart and to the mind.
If you want to know what Mormons believe, ask one who is living their religion.
That is, by the gift and power of the Holy Ghost.
I am starting to sound like a fool here… (Too many corrections!) God confirms the truth to the heart and to the mind by the gift and power of the Holy Ghost, to those who exercise the faith to ask him. That is a distinctive Mormon doctrine that comes from the Bible.
I have been a member of the church for 26+ years. I believe I know something about what members believe and teach.
This statement is very misleading:
“I remember a time when it was common for Mormons to be offended if you called them Christian. That was then.”
It is absolutely not true. Every Mormon believes they are a Christian and they always have, so just take their word for it. If you can produce one document that says otherwise I will stand corrected.
“Reformed” means the doctrines of every traditional Christian denomination is “wrong” or “corrupted” and only Mormonism is the one true religion. Is it any wonder that evangelical and apostolic Christians find Mormon doctrine heretical?
Thanks for the informative posts about Mormonism.
I really could care less what religion Willard Mitt Romney practices. I do take great offense at his clintonesque lying. Call it what you want, but in my book if you have to try to tell me what the dictionary says for a three letter word either you either:
1) said something incorrectly and cannot admit you made a mistake
2) intentionally tried to mislead the American people, but were crafty enough to do it in a way that you defend in court
3) are a poor communicator
4) are prone to exaggeration
Anyone of these makes me hope that this man doesn’t get to the White House.
Do we want to hear lame excuses like this again?
“It depends on what the meaning of the words ‘is’ is.” –Bill Clinton
TJF: You hit the nail on the head! The man is a liar and a flip-flopper, plain and simple.
I’d like to point out that using saw in the way Romney did is fairly common.
If Romney is a flip-flopper what is Hillary? She has lied about what she did in the White House under her husband’s administration. She was for the war, then against it, then she said she was against it from the beginning…it goes on.
If Romney is a flip-flopper what is Huckabee? He didn’t get his theology degree, he called Bush “…arrogant…” then he said he didn’t write those words. He said he supported hard laws on illegal immigration, but when we checked his record he never signed the bill. He also enjoys gifts more then his ethics; accepting over $100,000 worth in one year.
If Romney is a flip-flopper then what is McCain? McCain voted against the Bush tax cuts, now he says he’s for them. McCain supported a terrible immigration bill that supported Amnesty. The only way this didn’t get shoved down our throats is because the American people yelled NO! Now he’s against Amnesty. Now he’s against his McCain-Fienhold bill…..
If Romney is a flip-flopper what is Giuliani? He changes wives like politicians change positions. He flip-flops on what department should handle the receipts for security and hotel room expenses for his mistress.
The truth is Romney’s life is consistent, his values are undeniable. He holds his personal relationships in the highest regard. He doesn’t’ look at places he can hide receipts or accept gifts. His life is consistent, I don’t have to worry about being embarrassed with any scandals or looking out for what he can take from the American tax payer or favors he owes his gift givers.
I can count on his experience to clean up spending and balance the budget. I can count on his experience to implement a plan for Health Care. I can count on his experience to make strong trade agreements and end the years of trade deficits. I can count on him to get the right people for the right job. I can count on Romney to solve the Immigration problem and strengthen our boarders.
In response to “The Stiletto”
I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, we might share more beliefs than you might think. Here’s a few of our beliefs:
-Jesus Christ is our Savior and Redeemer, He is the Truth, the Light and the Way. It is through Him and only through Jesus, that we can return to live with our Heavenly Father.
-We believe in God, The Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.
-We use the King James Version of the Bible, accepting both the Old Testament and the New Testament to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly.
-We believe that it means very little to profess a belief in Jesus without having a willingness to “walk the walk”. We believe that we will be judged by God, not only for our actions but for the desires of our hearts. Charity, love, compassion, service, and true friendship are all qualities that we seek for daily.
-We believe we have been commanded to love our neighbors (meaning, everyone) and respect the right and privilege of all men to worship as they choose. In some future period, I hold out hope that this favor will be returned to us in kind.
-We believe in the 10 commandments, as found in Exodus, chapter 20; These include keeping the Sabbath Day Holy and not taking the Lord’s name in vain.
-The message of our missionaries is to come unto Christ, through Faith, Repentance, Baptism by Immersion for the remission of sins, and through receiving the Gift of the Holy Ghost.
-We believe that is the privilege of every man, woman, and child to communicate daily with God through prayer, through both family prayer and individual prayer.
Certainly, we have doctrinal differences and I doubt you are surprised at any of the commonalities I have briefly listed. I don’t think a discussion of presidential candidates is the appropriate forum for this conversation, but your attempt to sully what I believe deserves a timely response.
TK: Just because all these other people are flip-floppers and liars, doesn’t make Romney any less so.
Still Looking: We cannot share any doctrinal commonalities as long as the Mormon Church insists on “saving” evangelical and apostolic Christians by postumously re-baptizing them into your faith. Some Christians, notably Armenians, Assyrians and Greeks, were slaughtered by Muslim Turks because they refused to renounce Christianity. To re-baptize these martyrs because you consider the tenets of their faiths “corruped” or “wrong” is an insult to their sacrifice - and to their surviving family members. Ditto the families of Holocaust victims who died as Jews but have been baptized as Mormons. And how do you suppose Catholics feel when you guys keep baptizing their Popes - to Catholics, the Pope is the intercessor between them and G-d. Mormons are very disrespectful of other people’s religions, so they shouldn’t be surprised that other people of faith don’t respect Mormonism. In addition to repudiating racism, if your current Church president should have a “revelation” to stop re-baptizing people after death then perhaps Mormons will get more slack from others.
The Stilleto:
I’m sorry that according to you, you don’t share any of the beliefs/doctrines that I listed in my previous post(that Christ is our Savior, charity, 10 commandments, The Bible, Faith, etc.). I will not blast you for your beliefs, however.
I believe you are trying to belittle my faith with your next attack about baptisms for the dead. Again, I don’t believe this forum (discussion on politics) is the right area for a discussion of religion differences but I believe you are already aware of the hundreds of websites that will address each doctrinal difference for you (start with lds.org, a great website that openly shows more details about our faith than you probably have time to read, including every Sunday School Lesson for each age group-Teacher’s version and student version, every General Conference talk for the last I don’t know how many years, The King James version of the Bible, The Book of Mormon, The Testimonies of the 12 apostles, Family Home Evening ideas, all of the Adult & Children’s Hymns - put to music if you’d like, Tips for families, for finance, emergency preparedness, lessons on service, stories for children, etc.).
Very briefly, we do believe that all mankind should be given the same opportunities to hear the Gospel. Therefore, if someone is born in a distant land where they have never heard of Jesus Christ, it would be unfair to this person to judge him/her on how they obeyed Christ teachings. Nor do we believe that little children who die before baptism will be damned to hell because they didn’t have the chance to be baptized.
One of the most fundamental tenets of our faith is that every person is granted free agency, which means they are free to choose for themselves. We believe, the same as is found briefly in the New Testament (I can look it up if you need the reference, but I’m betting that you don’t), that the early Christians were already providing baptisms for those who didn’t have the opportunity. As I am an imperfect sinner, I can’t tell you who will accept or who will refuse these ordinances, it’s not man’s judgment to make. So, just as the early Christians, as documented in the King James version of the New Testament, we provide a choice for all, to accept or reject. When the missionaries come to your door, you have the same free agency to accept or reject the message. It’s all about choice and free agency.
That is why I am so grateful to live in this great country where we all have the right to practice our beliefs without fear of retribution (at least, we only get bashed in a figurative way today, and I still believe the time will come when even figurative bashing will be much less common).
The only candidate that scares me from a religious standpoint is Huckabee. He should stick to policy and not worry so much about trying to belittle any others religious beliefs. I think a Guliani/Romney ticket or Romney/Guliani ticket would be the best option for our country, because they both accomplished so many positive things under their leadership (ie Cleanup of NYC for Guliani and universal-without-free-loading-health-care in Mass. for Romney).
The tenets of my religion have remained unchanged since antiquity, wheras yours change everytime one of your leaders has a “revelation” so the doctrinal similarities you laid out in this comment string are at best, what you believe today. Next month a revelation may change all that. So I will not comment on any “similarities” you perceive in our religions.
Are you telling me that posthumous baptisms do not occur? Becauuse other Mormons tell me they have first-hand knowledge that these baptisms occur - and that Mormonsa consider it the ultimate gift that they can be bestowed on the deceased, to be “truly saved.” One who was miffed that I did not want this gift, told me that whether I like it or not the practice will continue and there is nothing I can do to stop it. So either you are being Romney-esque by claiming this practice does not occur, or these other Mormons are lying to me.
And if you think my bringing up the topic of postumous baptism is an attack on your religion, I think the baptisms themselves are a far more grevious attack on my religion.
I want my relatives - my whole family - left in peace to worship as we have worshiped for centries before Joseph Smith saw his “revelation.” The religion we lived our whole lives practicing, the religion we died believing we practiced - and the religion some of us were killed for practicing - Mormons have no right to mess with that.
What if I decided to postumously convert Joseph Smith into my religion? How would you like it? You would be insulted, and feel that someone was messing with your religious identity and traditions. Well, that’s how the rest of us feel, buddy.
By the way, Huckabee is starting to scare me too - but if he can roll the evangelicals into one nice round bundle he will be every one else’s choice for veep. (Just wanted to end this on a friendly note, even though we have serious disagreements.)
The Stilleto,
Please go back and read my last post again. I explained why the practice of baptisms for the dead was started as far back as New Testament times, as it says in the King James version of the Bible. I also explained that this practice has never been “forcing ones religion on another”. It is something that can be accepted or rejected, the same as when a missionary comes to your door, you can simply accept or reject their message. It is not forcing anyone to do anything, that has never been God’s plan, it is completely about choice. Since you are so intent on pointing out and putting a negative spin on my beliefs, I will again suggest that you go to LDS.org to learn about our beliefs from the source.
One day, I believe the attacks on my beliefs will go down, hope it’s during my lifetime. Actually, I think they have already gone down significantly so I’m very optimistic that this trend will continue as people look in the mirror and ask themselves why they feel the need to belittle things that are dear to their beliefs.
Again, that is the beauty of this country, freedom of religion. Whatever beliefs you have in your church are in some ways different from that of all other churches. I tried to share some common themes with you which are common to most Christian beliefs but you choose not to find any common ground to build on.
So you’re saying that every Catholic Pope who has been postumously babtized into the Mormon faith has consented - on his deathbed, or after he was laid to rest? So then why is the Catholic Church scouring the Earth trying to find evidence of miracles that can be attributed to John Paul II so he can become a Catholic Saint? Why don’t they just give up this futile effort since he’s obviously going to end up Mormon - if he hasn’t been re-baptized already.
And what of the letters sent by prominent rabbis begging the Mormon church to ask its members not to baptized Jews, some of whom are Holocaust victims or survivors? Was there a ceremony to unbaptize them? No there was not - and the baptisms continued.
You don’t call this forcing your religion onto others - dead or alive? Again I was told by one of your bretheren that there is nothing I can do to stop the practice so I better get used to the idea that I will be Mormon after I die. So whom do I believe - you or him?
In America one can indeed believe whatever (s)he wants and my parents came to this country to escape religious persecution. I take my religious freedom very very seriously and will fight for it if only to honor the blood sacrifice of my own forebears. But by inposiing their religion on others in this way, it is Mormons who are trampling on everyone else’s religious rights and freedoms.
Stilleto,
You have your agenda. Good joob. Pat yourself on the back. Continue to disregard everything I said about free agency. I’m sure I’ll read more lies and negative spinning about my faith on other boards that should have nothing to do with religion.
I recommend that you apply your energies to practicing your own faith and allow others to practice as they choose. One day it will be seen as ignorant to say that you will not vote for someone because they are Mormon. The world is overcoming race and gender bigotry, soon maybe it will overcome religious bigotry.
Again, if you’d like to learn anything about our doctrines, go to LDS.org, plenty of good stuff there. You can also look up your local Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and call them for their meeting schedules. Most will probably start around 9 AM, feel free to stop by to learn more and to have any questions answered. No appointments necessary, all are welcome to worship with us.
The Stiletto will not learn anything about LDS doctrine from LDS.org - that Web site is for public consumption only. Should The Stiletto convert, attend Sunday school and participates in the rites and ceremonies open only to church members in good standing then she will know all the unwritten doctrines that are kept from outsiders. Sorry, this trick of steering people to church-sanctioned information sources may work on The Wall Street Journal’s John Fund but it won’t work on The Stiletto.
For the record, The Stiletto never said she would not vote for Romney because he is Mormon.
The Stilletto will not vote for Romney because (a) he has been dishonest about the tenets of Mormonism; (b) because he has been dishonest about his own positions on abortion, gun control, gay marriage and a host of other issues; and (c) because he has not explicitly repudiated such repugnant doctrines as blacks being “unworthy” for priesthood; that the tenets of other religions are corrupted and invalid; and that the only path to salvation for a non-Mormon is either conversion while alive or after death.
Hiding behing “anti-Mormon bias” doesn’t do anything to dispell the very valid concern voters have about Romney’s personal honesty and about discriminatory doctrines he may still espouse (never mind the Jesus-Satan thing, or heaven is located in the middle of Missouri or when you die you will become a G-d ruling on your own private planet - it’s America and you can believe whatever outlandish thing you want). But when you also belive (even secretly) that dark skinned people or Catholics are inferior, then don’t be suprised that these people don’t rush to vote for you.
It might be comforting for you to point a wagging finger at The Stiletto and call her an ignorant bigot but it’s not going to get your guy in the White House. Dealing effectively with the issues The Stiletto has raised - even if they are nothing more than a “perception problem” on the part of us ignorant non-Mormons - will do your guy more good.
Finally, never will the day come when it will be seen as ignorant to refuse to vote for a liar and a fraud.
Stilleto,
Once again. Congratulations.
Leave A Reply