Hitchens: It’s “essential” that Romney be asked about Mormonism
posted at 1:34 pm on November 26, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Following on his Cavuto appearance from last week. There isn’t much here that you haven’t heard before and he’s a bit too credulous of the claims that Mitt orchestrated the suspicious anti-Mormon phone poll in Iowa, but this is sharp:
Until 1978, no black American was permitted to hold even the lowly position of deacon in the Mormon Church, and nor were any (not that there were many applicants) admitted to the sacred rites of the temple. The Mormon elders then had a “revelation” and changed the rules, thus more or less belatedly coming into compliance with the dominant civil rights statutes. The timing (as with the revelation abandoning polygamy, which occurred just in time to prevent Utah from being denied membership of the Union) permits one to be cynical about its sincerity. However that may be, it certainly makes nonsense of Romney’s moaning about any criticism or questioning being “un-American.” The Mormons have already had to choose—twice—between their beliefs and American values.
Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., has had to be asked about his long-ago membership of the Ku Klux Klan (which, I would remind you, is also a Protestant Christian identity organization), and he was only a fiddle-playing member, not a Grand Kleagle or whatever the hell it is. Why should Romney not be made to give an account of himself? A black candidate with ties to Louis Farrakhan could expect questions about his faith in the existence of the mad scientist Yakub, creator of the white race, or in the orbiting mother ship visited by the head of the Nation of Islam. What gives Romney an exemption?
My pal Barnett wonders whether the “Christian leader” graphic in Huck’s new ad isn’t his way of subtly contrasting himself with the Mormon in the field. Possibly, but if touting one’s Christian bona fides is now beyond the pale then it extends Hitchens’s lament here even further. His gripe is that Mitt has largely succeeded in rendering questions about Mormonism taboo; the next step is to render any reference to religion taboo lest it make an issue by implication, intentionally or not, of Mitt’s faith. There’s a certain appeal to that for atheists, but as we’re seeing in the comments to the post about Huckabee’s ad, not all Christians will receive warmly the idea that a candidate shouldn’t be encouraged to talk about his beliefs.
Speaking of Huck, he spent yesterday morning preaching. “After the later service ended in Fountain Inn, Huckabee and his wife Janet lingered for an hour shaking hands with dozens of church-goers who had lined up to meet them, many of whom told CNN they were already supporting Huckabee’s presidential bid.”
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »
Bingo.
As for the meat of this thread, the Romneys are about the most tolerant people on the planet and were active in promoting civil rights , so I see no problem with Mitt responding to this challenge:
This is how Mitt was raised; that’s who he is, and indeed it is fair to say that he is a far more ‘tolerant’ man than Hitchens.
Buy Danish on November 26, 2007 at 4:46 PM
I am not certain what the professor’s religious beliefs are. I could not determine that from his posts.
Perhaps he can clear the air.
Professor, do you believe that their is a giant omnipotent being that is all powerful? And, if so, which flavor do you prefer?
JayHaw Phrenzie on November 26, 2007 at 4:47 PM
Obviously, the Professor can answer for himself. He, however, doesn’t owe you or anyone else an explanation of any kind.
Belief or non-belief doesn’t determine level of IQ.
Entelechy on November 26, 2007 at 4:50 PM
Your inability to use spell check is starting to get to me.
1. Your statement has nothing to do with believers. All believers could in fact be functionally retarder, and it still wouldn’t prove that no atheists were unintelligent.
2. Your point wasn’t implied. It was stated.
This is really strange. I’ve seen you post before, but this is the first time I’ve seen such illogical posts from under your user name. I’m nearly convinced someone’s hacked you.
You’re confusing very basic arguments. It is a fallacy to assume that one group’s intelligence has anything to do with the intelligence of another group.
Esthier on November 26, 2007 at 4:51 PM
The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike.
- Delos B. McKown
MB4 on November 26, 2007 at 4:53 PM
First, this
Then, this
Esthier on November 26, 2007 at 4:51 PM
Just smile/laugh at yerself Esthier :) Regards,
Entelechy on November 26, 2007 at 4:55 PM
The gods offer no rewards for intellect. There was never one yet that showed any interest in it.
- Samuel Langhorne Clemens
Some folks get rather perturbed when I quote Mark Twain, so I thought that I would quote that other fella instead.
MB4 on November 26, 2007 at 4:58 PM
Thanks for that. And you’re right. I did smile.
Typos and misspellings simply stand out for me when the person making the mistakes is calling another person unintelligent.
Esthier on November 26, 2007 at 4:59 PM
Sorry, but come on, it’s his nom de guerre. It’s expected to perturb people.
Esthier on November 26, 2007 at 5:01 PM
If you have no argument on the facts, attack the presentation. I don’t fault you, it’s all you got.
JayHaw Phrenzie on November 26, 2007 at 5:03 PM
Well certainly some of the founders and your prophets who speak for God.
Just to set the record straight: These are the words of the Mormon prophets:
There are more, and worse, but if that ain’t racism, then racism doesn’t exist.
And just to set the record straight…Jesus had no problem attending to the gentiles, he first ate at the table of a gentile (forbidden by most Jews), and stated first that get rid of the dietary laws. He then made reference to the dogs that eat food that Jews caste aside. Thus Jews dogs ate “unclean food” and so did gentiles, and so did Jesus.
Misquoting the scripture is what gets some religions into trouble…
right2bright on November 26, 2007 at 5:03 PM
nom de querre?
You did what to whom?
MB4 on November 26, 2007 at 5:03 PM
It’s another Hot Air rumble!
The Jets are commin’ ooouuut tonight!
But the gym’s neutral territory.
ronsfi on November 26, 2007 at 5:05 PM
You’ve certainly presented nothing so far for me to attack anyway. You stated your opinion while pretending you have the authority to speak on behalf of all atheists.
You gave me a laugh, not an argument. I may not be an atheists, but even I can tell the difference.
Are you joking? I can’t tell.
I didn’t misspell that time. It really is the nom de guerre. Instead of calling Mark Twain his nom de plume (pen name), he called it his nom de guerre, his war name.
Esthier on November 26, 2007 at 5:10 PM
Over 150 years out of 200 is temporarily?
right2bright on November 26, 2007 at 5:12 PM
The Mormons were not alone in their racism but they were racist. It cannot be credibly claimed they were not racist.
Anyone who tries to excuse it has their head in the sand and should be advised that it’s a short hop from head in the sand to head up your…
ronsfi on November 26, 2007 at 5:15 PM
I thought “nom de querre” was that Idaho guy’s opening line in the boy’s room.
My mistake.
MB4 on November 26, 2007 at 5:23 PM
right2bright,
Can we look forward to one of your religious manifestos on Huckabee, the Baptist Minister? Perhaps an irrelevant in-depth examination of his prophets, which will tell us absolutely nothing about the man himself?
Well-said, Esthier. I enjoy reading your comments.
What you infer is not what implied. If there is no suggestion that Mitt is a racist, what is this thread all about?
Buy Danish on November 26, 2007 at 5:31 PM
oops. What you infer is not what [is] implied.
Buy Danish on November 26, 2007 at 5:35 PM
The quote I provided was from the divine word of God (as babbled into a hat). It was not merely the statement of a church elder, but the word of God. Apologist might argue that society was racist. So, it goes without saying that there would be racists in the LDS church as well. That is a good point, but the actual scripture is racist too. White is good, Black is accursed. Race mixing is bad. Dark skinned peoples who convert to LDS will turn white. The question is, is it racist to believe in the word of God? As Hugh Hewitt might argue, am I a bigot to claim that these words of God are racist?
P.S. it is my understanding that the word of God was changed by the LDS in 1981 to replace “white and delightsome” with “pure and delightsome (2 Nephi 30:6).”
tommylotto on November 26, 2007 at 5:48 PM
What book is this from?
baldilocks on November 26, 2007 at 5:48 PM
Sorry. I see that we posted at the same time.
baldilocks on November 26, 2007 at 5:49 PM
Thanks, but clearly you should be reading JayHaw’s instead since as a believer my IQ is sub par, and apparently your odds of finding someone who isn’t mentally challenged are increased when you converse with people who insult the vast majority of the population of the planet.
I couldn’t answer that. It may very well have been, though I doubt his wide stance required any words. But I was referring to a word that begins with a “G” not a “Q”.
Esthier on November 26, 2007 at 5:54 PM
Is it essential that Huckabee be asked about his Baptist ties?:
Didn’t r2b tell us he was Lutheran? Say it ain’t so!
“The (Lutheran church) is 96 percent white, and there’s a reason for that,” she said. “There’s a history of segregation and slavery.”
See where these slippery slope arguments lead us?
Buy Danish on November 26, 2007 at 5:54 PM
And if you remember, I stated that certain parts of my faith were not perfect, and I was not happy with that. Especially where Luther was such a fool about Jews. Of course you jumped on that and made a big deal, now you embrace it. Read my posts honestly (which you won’t do, but try) and you will see that I have a firm belief that man is fallible, that no man walking speaks with perfection…not my minister, a Catholic priest, a Bishop, a so-called Mormon prophet, a so called Muslim Prophet.
And where there is a history, the blacks (rightly so) have a memory. And the Lutherans, in particular, the Missouri Synod and Wisconsin Synod (by the way what is the percentage of blacks in Wisconsin), have been very closed. And some even still have services in German. I have no problem looking at the past, and correcting for the future. The church is built on Gods word (a real church, not a church of false prophets, those are “perfect”), but it is still built by man, one of my constant themes. And with that is imperfection. There are only two religions that profess perfection; that all others are to be removed are that are false…one is the Islamic, and the other is Mormon. Both based on false prophets…yet, they have to be false, they were just men who created them.
Now tell me (seeing as you are such an expert in Lutheran theology), which Lutheran Church do I belong too? Or do you just throw stones without any knowledge of the church I actually represent?
You have a personal interest in stalking me, I have proved you a liar in the past and you resent that. But keep your anger going, it seems to feed you.
Now your final test, name me the churches who do not have racial bias in there past…
right2bright on November 26, 2007 at 6:35 PM
doriangray–you learned what was convenient with others of the same mind. Unless you served in the temple and researched the church history and 19th-century writings, you did not study Mormonism. Their dark secrets are hidden from view, taken out of circulation until all memory fades and a new generation comes along full of sincere denial.
right2bright on November 26, 2007 at 2:36 PM–Blacks could join the church, but were denied the priesthood until the policy change in 1978 that was not announced as a bona fide revelation by the Mormon general authorities. They decided in a meeting in the SLC temple to make the policy change, just as their forebearers had decided in a meeting to no longer condone polygamy. The weird thing about the Manifesto against polygamy was that it blamed the US government for not allowing the Mormons to continue practicing plural marriage, A REQUIREMENT FROM GOD VIA REVELATION, a requirement from a god married/sealed to many, many, many wives who continue to bear that god spirit children to be born here on earth as mortals. In order to please that god, in order to return to that god, men and women MUST still obey the law of plural marriage, if not in this life, then in the next. The Manifesto did not deny that polygamy was a law of God, but TEMPORARILY excused Mormons from practicing polygamy because of persecution from the US government. One may ask, what happened to all of those plural wives with children out colonizing the desert when their husband decided to no longer practice polygamy with them, as many men abandoned their extra wives and excess baggage progeny. Do NOT presume to say that the Mormon church took care of those people! Accepting Mormon welfare is a scourge and public humiliation in that self sufficient population.
As per Presidential candidates expressing their views that will influence our lives, a link to Kennedy’s campaign speach re: Catholicism would be great to reference.
Many Americans point to JFK’s example as what American voters expect from anyone these days. I would imagine that JFK’s Catholic explanation would suit Guilliani. Though she is a Marxist, Hillary conveniently wears her Methodist hat. Obama certainly has some explaining to do with his association with anti-white racists. As per Mitt, I would not give him my trust. As per Huckabee, I would beware his smooth, comforting tone of voice and look hard at his political record. Fred certainly puts his thoughts in writing, a tradition from our founding fathers.
maverick muse on November 26, 2007 at 6:36 PM
Could there be a distinction between the history of a church and the actual scriptures of a religion? For example maybe its unfair to criticize a Muslin for the sack of Constantinople, but legitimate to question him on Koran 08.067 ”It is not fitting for a prophet that he should have prisoners of war until he hath thoroughly subdued the land.”
tommylotto on November 26, 2007 at 6:43 PM
r2b,
It does not surprise me in the least that you missed the point entirely. I don’t care what church you belong to, and I certainly don’t think that there is any point in dwelling endlessly in the past.
I have already shown that the Romneys have a fine personal history vis a vis civil rights. That’s what matter to me, and that’s what should matter to you,
Buy Danish on November 26, 2007 at 6:52 PM
Un diabolito…
Entelechy on November 26, 2007 at 6:52 PM
I care about whether or not our candidates will uphold our Constitution, and believe in the essential concepts formulated in the Declaration of Independence.
Islam does not meet that test, as it is fundamentally opposed to democratic concepts of individual liberty.
Vive la difference.
Buy Danish on November 26, 2007 at 6:55 PM
Are you a bigot against Islam? Or could a non-bigot research Mormonism and come to the reasonable conclusion that an adherent of that religion (as some say was founded by a con-man) does not demonstrate good judgement and would not make a good POTUS?
Vive la difference.
tommylotto on November 26, 2007 at 7:11 PM
Wow, the anti-mormons, as usual are out in force.
I’m not going to respond to right2bright, other than to note that he or she has been proven time and time again to have an irrational bias against the LDS church, and also that no explanation would satisfy him or her (it is literally impossible for the LDS church to get anything right in right2bright’s mind). I also see Tommylotto and maverick Muse on the thread, to which the same thing can be said.
But as a general response: if you anti-mormons can try to excuse God limiting the Priesthood in the Old and new testament times, then you have no leg to stand on now.
Once again, HotAir is not a place to have a long, theological discussion of the theology of race relations. But rest assured, the implications that the LDS church as a whole is institutionally racist is false, and always has been.
I do love to see how modern day anti-mormons jump so quickly to attack, without realizing they are tossing their own belief in the Old and New Testaments out at the same time (or else being massively hypocritical, also a strong possibility).
Vanceone on November 26, 2007 at 7:21 PM
I am fundamentally opposed to any candidate or religion who does not believe in the principles of our Representative Republic.
That could include some Atheists – not the benign sort like AP who are content not to believe in God and leave it at that – but the malignant Atheists who want to remove all traces of our Judeo-Christian history.
As for Mitt, it would be impossible for you to demonstrate that he was not qualified to be POTUS since he has already demonstrated that he is immensely qualified. Many Mormons may not be qualified, not because of their beliefs but – because of their experience. The same can be said of Giuliani the Catholic.
It may be a good time to mention this while we’re at it:
“The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has a longstanding policy of political neutrality,” Farah said via e-mail. “The Church does not endorse political parties, candidates or platforms.”
Buy Danish on November 26, 2007 at 7:43 PM
Rombot says, “Must be offended at mention of problems with Mormonism. Must play indignation card. Defend Mitt! Defend Mitt!”
I believe the Catholic church as well as the mainline, evangelical, and fundamentalist branches of the protestant churches all reconciled past support for slavery long before 1978. The issue is how did Mitt handle belonging to a church with a racist policy.
Bill C on November 26, 2007 at 7:44 PM
By Bill C.
The answer is, it wasn’t racist. Just like we aren’t sexist because we don’t give the Priesthood to women (or is that another argument you want to make?); nor are we homophobic because gays cannot receive the Priesthood.
By the standards the anti-mormons in this thread appear to hold, they would have condemned Moses and almost all the prophets of the Old Testament, as well as Christ in the New Testament.
Vanceone on November 26, 2007 at 7:52 PM
Does this guy ever smile?? He always looks so depressed.
JellyToast on November 26, 2007 at 7:53 PM
Christopher Hitchens is a professional atheist. His self-imposed job is literally to defy, assault, and attack the only thing that could possibly give him complete fulfillment and happiness in life.
It appears to have caught up to him. He looks HAMMERED in that pic.
BKennedy on November 26, 2007 at 8:29 PM
Absolutley, you’re beginning ti see the light.
ronsfi on November 26, 2007 at 8:32 PM
Here let me spell it out for you…seeing as you like to play dumb.
You said Voodoo is not a religion, in all most all aspects it is called a religion, maybe a cult religion, but still an organized religion.
Are you denying that? Or are you just playin the “dumb card”.
right2bright on November 26, 2007 at 8:36 PM
Ignorance is bliss, Hitchens is not ignorant. DO the math.
JayHaw Phrenzie on November 26, 2007 at 8:41 PM
I’m sorry, please respond and tell me that those quotes of those prophets were not accurate. Funny, you say you have proven me wrong, but I have basically quoted your prophets. So they are wrong, or just me for quoting them? You see, I back my arguments up with scripture, your scripture and writings, and you resent it.
If you say I am wrong on this thread, show me where I misquoted your prophets.
Every time I quote a prophet, you say I am wrong. Here they are again, tell me which one or if both are wrong.
Are you saying the Journal of Discourses are wrong?
Or do you want more (think I am cherry picking?), there are dozens of quotes from prophets and bishops, presidents (redundant), if these are not enough. The LDS, was bias against blacks, your prophets thought they were inferior. LDS, I am sure is not institutionally bias now (revelation came just in time, Mitt was what 31 years old?), but up to 1978, not 1878 but 1978, it was. Oh, you allowed blacks to be a member, but they could never be a God, like the rest of you are working for. So they joined to what? Pick up after the Gods, do their laundry?
Now, tell me which ones are wrong? As you so state time and time again. This is your chance to set the record straight.
The difference between you and I; I admit my church did wrong, and we are going about to correct it. You can’t say yours is wrong, it would undermine the “prophets”, make them just men. So you have to deny (or maybe I am misinterpreting), if you do admit to what they wrote, and believed, then they are no longer prophets and the Church tumbles.
So we are faced with a choice, honesty, or faith…which one do you choose? Which one would Jesus have you choose?…being honest, or faithful…they should be the same.
You have a tough decision, my friend. Easy if you blow it off, but tough if you face the facts.
right2bright on November 26, 2007 at 9:05 PM
If your church changed heir doctorine in 1978 to better conform to contemporary American culture, how sacred can your golden plates be?
Either your Religion is the unalterable word of god or it isn’t. It can’t be the perfect word of the creator, until it is inconvenient.
Now, since Mormonism is the invention of a 19th Century Con Man, it isn’t that hard to update the con to match more current social standards, but it does shoot the whole “word of god” theory to hell and back, eh.
And for all the smug Christians out there, the same argument can be applied to ANY denomination of Christianity. Are there any left that still take the bible as the literal word of god? I can’t think of any.
Esthier, please email me a list of my misspellings, thanks.
JayHaw Phrenzie on November 26, 2007 at 9:37 PM
Do you know what the word “infer” means? Obviously not. Moving right along, you say:
Um, the 1978 date had nothing to do with renouncing slavery, so you are off to a very bad start here. Go back and read what Allah posted, and try starting over.
As for how the Romney’s handled “dealing with a church that had racist policies”, I addressed that this earlier:
By the way, calling people “Rombots” and accusing them of expressing “indignation” is just ever so slightly hypocritical coming from Sanctimonious Bill C. who bemoans the level of discourse and name-calling.
But maybe you can come up with a creative description of someone like myself who supports Rudy and Romney! Rumittbot?
Buy Danish on November 26, 2007 at 9:38 PM
I take offense to your dismissal of my points. I do not attribute positions taken by prior Mormons to Mitt merely because he is Mormon too. However, as a Mormon, I expect him to answer for his scripture — the Word of God in his eyes. Either he can say that the Word of God need not be taken literally or he can argue why his version of the Word of God is right. He will not get a pass. JFK didn’t get a pass. No one on this thread would give a Muslim candidate a pass. Mitt doesn’t deserve a pass just because it would be convenient for him.
I cited a portion of the Book of Mormon that stated that white people were good and God cursed non-whites by making them like flint. Mixing with non-white races was also cursed, and if non-white people converted they would eventually turn white. That scripute (Word of God from a babbling hat) is disgustingly racist. Romney was a priest in this Religion at the age of 31 when it barred blacks from the priesthood, but he is still to this day a member of a religion that thinks those words are the inspired word of God. It is a legitimate issue. How does he correlate these Words of God with his position on civil rights? It’s fair territory. He wants to be POTUS
tommylotto on November 26, 2007 at 10:05 PM
Prophets ARE just men. There is no Infallibility doctrine concerning LDS prophets or apostles.
My personal opinion is that the church and its leadership wasn’t ready to deal with the question until the 1970s. The president of the LDS church in the 1950s and 1960s, David O. McKay, was old enough to remember when Utah wasn’t a state, polygamy was still practiced, and the church was under siege by the US government. Prior to the presidency of Spencer W. Kimball, the Mormon church still had a largely Utah focus, and wasn’t THAT far removed from its persecution-fleeing pioneer roots.
It was Kimball who presented a vision for a more global missionary effort. He was prepared to ask the questions that led to the changes. (That’s how revelations tend to come in the LDS church – in answer to prayer.) From my studies, McKay wasn’t prepared to ask those questions. God will judge whether he should have been, but it doesn’t take away from the good he did.
Were previous presidents wrong? Did some earlier church leaders say things that sound painful by today’s standards? Yes. But they should be judged by the times in which they lived, just as we cut Washington and Jefferson some slack for being slaveholders in the 18th century. Heck, Walt Disney and Warner Brothers created entertainment in the early-mid 20th century that at the time was wildly popular, and even in my childhood in the 1960s were not that controversial…but we today look askance at “Song of the South” and “Dumbo”, and those classic WB cartoons now come with warning labels.
When the announcement came in 1978, I remember, my mother wept with joy. I was in my early teens, and was happy to hear it, because it made sense to me. My (non-LDS) grandmother thought our church was nuts to open that can-o-worms. Generational differences, perhaps. But the time had come.
sulla on November 26, 2007 at 10:12 PM
Right, the tortured genius.
Just misspellings, or other grammatical errors like run-ons?
I find it perfectly fitting that you’re still making these snide remarks after pretending that you’ve proven all believers wrong and ignorant.
Esthier on November 26, 2007 at 10:36 PM
Again, kettle and pot here.
Can Christians of any type really be any more smug than you’ve been here?
Esthier on November 26, 2007 at 10:41 PM
I’ll never understand religious people. Ever. Here we have a man running for President of The United States that believes something so outlandish that any thinking person MUST shake in their boots at the thought of said man having his finger so close to the trigger.
But, yet, no Christian has the balls to call him on what he believes.
Why? The man thinks he’s going to be a god in charge of his own planet someday. What part of that insanity makes Christians stop and think “oh, we can’t criticize anyone else’s religion”.
Nuts.
Jaynie59 on November 26, 2007 at 10:47 PM
Answer:
The insecurity of gnawing doubt.
ronsfi on November 27, 2007 at 12:14 AM
Can you name a modern day Baptist prophet? Say one in the last 200 years?
I didn’t think so, you might want to try another argument.
right2bright on November 27, 2007 at 12:17 AM
That has to be the most insipid thing I have ever heard a human being with the education to operate a computer – utter
EricPWJohnson on November 27, 2007 at 12:30 AM
Oh no, Hitchens is an ignoramus of the worst kind: intentional.
He apparently finds his bliss in drinking away his problems.
It isn’t really bliss, just a grandiose delusion.
Hitchens knows all about delusions. He wrote a book about it. It reads like fiction but it’s an autobiography.
BKennedy on November 27, 2007 at 12:57 AM
Hitchens seems to be mining in the same vein of an earlier curmudgeon:
“I am one of the few Goyim who has ever actually tackled the Talmud. I suppose you now expect me to add that it is a profound and noble work, worthy of hard study by all other Goyim. Unhappily, my report must differ from this expectation.
“It seems to me, save for a few bright spots, to be quite indistinguishable from rubbish. If, at its highest, it is genuinely worth reading, then, at its lowest, it is on all fours with the Koran, “Science and Health”, and The Book of Mormon.”- H.L. Mencken.
profitsbeard on November 27, 2007 at 1:09 AM
Stop projecting your ignorance on my rhetorical question. If you bothered to read my other posts in this thread I fleshed out what I driving at.
The “racist” policies of the LDS church is one thing (other churches were racist as well at one point or another). My point was that the actual scriptures of the Mormons contain racist passages. I quoted one where whites were equated with wholesomeness and blacks were accursed. Race mixing was equally accursed, and if people of color would convert to LDS they will eventually turn white. This is not a racist position held by a former church elder but the supposed Word of God.
My rhetorical question was to call to the reader’s attention the problems where the racism is not just by church members but directly from the mouth of God — if you accept the Book of Mormon as scripture.
tommylotto on November 27, 2007 at 1:17 AM
TommyLotto: Do you even have a clue what the book of Mormon says? You cherrypick quotes, but in context, and what the entire book states, totally refutes any racist interpretation you put on it. Numerous times in the Book of Mormon it states how the Lamanites (the ones accursed with the dark skin) were better, more righteous, and more blessed than the “white” group. In fact, seeing as the book ends with the wickedness of the so-called “white” people destroying them, and tons of promised blessings to those allegedly cursed, I’d make a strong case that the Book of Mormon is totally contrary to your reading.
In fact, some of the strongest, most powerful examples of good in the Book of Mormon are from the so-called “black, cursed people.”
But then, you just cherry picked a few quotes, didn’t you?
Besides, nowhere, nohow, does it say “all black people”, does it? Nope! Of course, that mitigates against your “Mormons are racist” attitude, so you wouldn’t want to acknowledge that.
If you had actually read the Book of Mormon, you would see that any charges that it preaches racism is laughable. But then, it IS easier to sling mud, isn’t it?
Vanceone on November 27, 2007 at 2:10 AM
In your heart, you know I speak the truth. You have dedicated your life to fiction. I don’t blame you for arguing so much. No one wants to admit that their life is meaningless. But, all of our lives are. We just exist. there is no divine plan. there are no dieties. We just exist.
I know you prefer your illusion. I do not blame you. Truth is hard to accept. I do not hate you for preferring your illusion, but you know I am right. You just will never admit it.
I understand.
JayHaw Phrenzie on November 27, 2007 at 2:29 AM
I’m sorry Tommylotto
Now this is the most ignorant, insipid thing I have ever heard someone who can own a computer – utter
thanks for the correction
EricPWJohnson on November 27, 2007 at 2:36 AM
If V-o-o-d-o-o is a r-e-l-i-g-i-o-n, then so is The Church of Elvis and Frisbetarism.
MB4 on November 27, 2007 at 2:44 AM
I am not an expert, nor do I purport to be, on LDS theology. I have more questions than answers. If you can enlighten me, great. However, I must confess, I am bother by what I am reading in the Book of Mormon, similar to my discovery of the actual language of the Koran.
As I understand it, there is or will be a transformation of the people of color (the Lamanites). According to the original language of 2 Nephi 30:6, “…their scales of darkness shall begin to fall from their eyes; and many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a white and a delightsome people.” Meaning that over generations people of color will become more white (blessed). But in 1981, LDS changed the word of God in this quote from “white” to “pure” to combat the rumor that Mormons believed that people of color will actual turn white as they become more righteous. However, there are numerous other references to dark skin being cursed and light skin being blessed, see 3 Nephi 2:15, 2 Nephi 5:21. So, my questions are:
1) Did or did not God show that the Lamanites were accursed by turning their skin from white to black so that they would be less attractive to “his” people?
2) As the Lamanites become more enlightened, will their skin get lighter?
3) How can LDS change the actual word of God in 1981 to appear more PC and maintain any credibility? (Was this not a flip flop? — like polygamy for statehood, like black priests for tax exemption, like becoming pro-life for Rep. primary)
tommylotto on November 27, 2007 at 2:45 AM
Whatever…
Do you have any substantive to add to the discussion? If not, please bow out.
tommylotto on November 27, 2007 at 2:48 AM
From The Boston Globe, June 2007:
“A letter that George Romney received in 1964 (when Romney was Governor of Michigan) from a Mormon apostle named Delbert L. Stapley. The letter encouraged Romney to reconsider his pro-civil rights position. In the months after receiving this letter, George Romney stepped up his support for civil rights.”
http://www.boston.com/news/daily/24/delbert_stapley.pdf
WasatchMan on November 27, 2007 at 2:49 AM
Bush thinks he talks to some big invisible guy called God and he got elected – TWICE!
I rest my case.
All religions make fun of other religions and all are right.
MB4 on November 27, 2007 at 2:49 AM
TommyLotto
Obviously you do
EricPWJohnson on November 27, 2007 at 2:53 AM
All religions are idiotic, yet they all think they are right and the rest are wrong.
The truly enlightened know that there are no dieties and life has no meaning except that which we provide for ourselves.
This doesn’t man that there is no point in life, it just means that you shouldn’t look to fiction to find meaning, create your own meaning.
JayHaw Phrenzie on November 27, 2007 at 2:57 AM
So I’m not misunderstood in posting the link to the Stapley letter, let me just say this:
(1) Good men like this apostle can be flawed and subject to the prejudices of their time.
(2) What is important is George Romney’s response to the letter, which was not to back down, but to continue to push for justice in spite of disagreements with other members of his church about civil rights.
(3) It took the LDS church about a decade to adjust to the new push for civil rights (from approximately the mid-1960’s to 1978.) How long did it take for Hitchens to admit that Stalin was a butcher?
WasatchMan on November 27, 2007 at 3:00 AM
Mormons have a lower crime rate than Catholics or Evangelicals, just for one example.
If there actually is a big invisible benevolent guy in the sky, I’ll bet that he puts that pretty high on his list as to what is actually important.
I would certainly hope so anyway.
MB4 on November 27, 2007 at 3:03 AM
No. The truly enlightened know the limits of human knowledge, and they recognize that which cannot be known and that which must be believed as an article of faith — like the faithful’s belief in God, as well as your faith / belief that there is no deity. Try agnosticism. It’s less satisfying but more enlightened.
tommylotto on November 27, 2007 at 3:10 AM
Why not be an agnostic on little green men from the Moon or on if Elvis is still alive or on if Karl Rove and Dick Cheney destroyed the WTC towers in a Klingon warbird?
Agnosticism is just a way station between blindness and enlightenment.
MB4 on November 27, 2007 at 3:17 AM
TommyLotto: Okay, let me try to explain some. First of all, the Lamanites are a specific group, and as far as I know, have no connection with any African American groups today (they would be, if anything, related to the American Indians).
Second: As the history of the Book of Mormon clearly states, the term “Lamanite” rather quickly became a designation of a political position, not a racial group. Same with “Nephite.” In fact, most of the troublesome Lamanites were apostate Nephites, as is usually the case–traitors from your own group give you the most trouble. The Book of Mormon several times explicitly defines Lamanites as anyone not a Nephite; i.e. outsiders. Racial characteristics have very little to do with this distinction as the time goes on.
Now, God DID set a curse on the original lamanites, in an attempt to, yes, prevent intermingling. Yet, that very same generation (i.e. the original group), the prophet Jacob also states that the Lamanites are more righteous in some ways than the Nephites. And the Book of Mormon is filled with similar examples. So while the curse was to prevent intermingling, it didn’t have any real moral judgment value very, very quickly. Later references to dark skin are usually understood as a metaphorical reference–i.e. your own sins make your skin black, while the Gospel of Christ can make you white and clean. Just like Isaiah states about though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be white as wool.
As for will the Lamanites actually become physically lighter–I don’t think anyone expects that, nor believes that will happen (though, I suppose, it could–God can do anything, after all). It doesn’t really matter, though–as the Book of Mormon shows time after time, what matters is how you believe and act, not what political group or tribe you belong to. Samuel the Lamanite; the people of Ammon–these are among the many examples of straight Lamanites that were far, far better than the “hero’s” of the book, the Nephites. Their skin, as far as I know, was never changed. Wouldn’t matter if it was, or wasn’t–people are people.
Now, the change in the actual language of the Book of Mormon: Yes, indeed, that word WAS changed. So were many other changes made in the 1981 edition–when scholarship showed that some errors had crept in from the original manuscripts, and thus many of those were corrected; to bring it back closer to the original translation. This was one of the variants from some of the original editions (the 1840 one), and thus is quite old. I see nothing wrong with the church restoring to this particular version of that verse. You are right, if this was a “coverup” they would have changed all the references. But this was an isolated change, not something premeditated.
Hope that helps!
Vanceone on November 27, 2007 at 4:23 AM
Christopher Hitchens is not running to be President of the United States, C-in-C of the U.S. armed forces, head of state of America and political leader of the Republican party.
For someone with a strong faith Mitt is awfully closed-mouth about it. At least Carter talked about his beliefs, warts and all. Give that to him. This is getting to be some crazy type of identity politics where we are attacked as un-American if we dare question someone’s core beliefs, someone who wants to be leader of us all.
Neil Cavuto said to Hitchens: But Mitt said he is a Christian. I’m sorry but most Christians consider Mormons to be heretics. So for Mitt to say “I am a Christian” is a bit disingenuous.
It’s a fact: Mormonism is considered heresy by every traditional Christian church. Dispute of that is just ignorant. Yet it is a tribute to American tolerance that Mitt (and his dad) have gone so far in political life. Now Mitt acts brittle if you dare ask him a question about a core part of his life, like it’s rude or something. And some of you excitable ones here think we are bigots if we don’t make your guy ruler of us all without asking these questions.
Plus, for someone who wants the top political job in the Republican party, PotUS, Mitt is awfully dense about not recognizing that the racial problem of the Mormon church was going to be brought up, if not in the primaries, definitely in the general. Deal with that, because it’s true.
silverfox on November 27, 2007 at 5:00 AM
Like I said before,
the fact
that Mitt and his team
have not dealt with this racial thing
by “heading it off at the pass”
becomes an open question
about Mitt Romney’s political perception and acumen.
Mitt is not the right man for the job.
And you girls who get excited
when confronted with the truth of that
are just silly.
silverfox on November 27, 2007 at 5:08 AM
Dude, is that meant to be poetry?
Buy Danish on November 27, 2007 at 8:01 AM
You, like Hitchens, know absolutely nothing and worse still, you want to spread your idiocy to others.
Atheists like you and Hitch have an Oedipus complex with God. Every day you say “I hate you God! I’m going to punish you by saying you don’t exist! I’m going to try and get everyone to hate you!”
If you really didn’t believe in God you wouldn’t spend your time trying to “enlighten” others with your marvelous revelations about the emptiness of existence.
You and I both know “life is meaningless” is a crock. You have dedicated your life to attacking a being that by your own admission you do not believe exists. You spit on the beliefs of others because you have none of your own. You, like Hitchens, fancy yourself the enlightened over the unwashed idiotic masses because you don’t have faith.
You’re like the bum who think’s he smarter than a lawyer because he doesn’t have a degree.
You’re like the drug dealer who think’s he’s smarter than a pharmacist because he always makes his addicts happy.
You’re like the monkey who thinks himself more evolved than man because man does not use his fecal material as a projectile.
You, like every other nihilist scum, think the belief in nothing is superior to the belief in something. Believing in nothing is “enlightened,” despite the fact it is easy, shallow, and requires no thought whatsoever. Anybody can believe in nothing, it takes courage to put your faith in something.
BKennedy on November 27, 2007 at 9:07 AM
.
Now, you can come up with a international Anthropologist to counter? You have someone with more authority than National Geographic…ain’t the internet grand (not for you).
right2bright on November 27, 2007 at 9:10 AM
Sulla, can you tell me what this means?
Sulla, you do know that there is hardly anything worse than a false prophet. Any church built on the visions of a false prophet is what?…
That is why it is important for you to understand, many good things are done by false prophets (Deut. 13.2,3)(Mark, 13.22)
God specifically says not to cut them any “slack”. Your prophets are speaking for God, they must be 100% accurate or they are false. Not my words, but God’s.
You say your prophets were wrong, were does that leave you? Like I said to Vanceone, it is a tough decision to make when faced with the truth.
Here, maybe this verse will help (maybe hurt, but God has to tell the truth)
You can still maintain the great attitudes about family and church conviction, and not follow false prophets. The core of the Mormon church is strong and dynamic, but God commands you, warns you, not to follow false prophets.
I am glad you are a realist, and realize the errors of your prophets.
right2bright on November 27, 2007 at 9:31 AM
And again, you do nothing but insult me. Where are these proofs and arguments against religion that I’m supposed to attack instead of your poor grammar? You said they were there, but every time I ask for them you change the subject.
Do you even recognize your blatant hypocrisy? Nearly every time you’ve made a negative statement about religious people, you turn around and do the exact same thing yourself.
And seriously, if you’re not going to present an argument here while persisting to ignore spelling and grammar check, you only prove to everyone here just how “enlightened” you really are.
Esthier on November 27, 2007 at 9:34 AM
Vanceone, I still would like a comment. Is my quoting the words of your Presidents and Prophets accurate? Is that what they said.
You challenged me that what I stated was not accurate, or at least bias.
Maybe Smith and Felding have quotes that support the “negroes” that I have missed. Do you have some quotes from them praising blacks, or at representing them as being welcome into the Mormon church?
Were my quotes accurate? Do you need more confirmation?
right2bright on November 27, 2007 at 9:37 AM
Weeeelll at least you’re not bitter and that’s what really counts. Right?
ronsfi on November 27, 2007 at 9:41 AM
And Jews and the Amish have even lower rates.
I want to hear my church, my ears itch for good news, but God commands us to follow Him, not what we want to follow.
Sorry, but what’s that quote about “paved with good intentions”?
right2bright on November 27, 2007 at 9:45 AM
Here is the text of John F. Kennedy’s speech on the issue of his Catholicism. It should be read by everyone of you who would deny Mitt Romney the Presidency on religious grounds.
Here are some excerpts:
Buy Danish on November 27, 2007 at 9:46 AM
It can’t change, it was the perfect translation from God. Joseph Smith made that clear, there were no errors…God does not make mistakes.
His original words must stand, his prophesies must stand on their own. They are the words of God, and if they are wrong then the foundation is wrong.
There cannot be a change from what was taken out of that hat on that fateful day.
The translation was perfect…or?
right2bright on November 27, 2007 at 9:50 AM
Still waiting for that list of Baptist prophets you want me to write about.
If you throw down a challenge, at least make sure you know what you are talking about.
List please?
right2bright on November 27, 2007 at 9:58 AM
There are no Baptist prophets, but that doesn’t mean we don’t have prophets. The Old Testament is full of them, and unless I’m mistaken, that’s one of our religious texts too.
Esthier on November 27, 2007 at 10:11 AM
Let me help you out here. This isn’t a particularly difficult exercise. Behold Wiki!
And…
Buy Danish on November 27, 2007 at 10:17 AM
Who’s advocating denying him the presidency? The point of the post is whether it’s appropriate to ask questions relating to the aspects of his faith that make some voters uncomfortable. If he is the nominee I will vote for him and I don’t think he is a racist. Others may need to hear it said aloud by the candidate himself. Not unreasonable I think. Nor an offense against God.
ronsfi on November 27, 2007 at 10:18 AM
Plenty of people.
Esthier on November 27, 2007 at 10:43 AM
Meh just Rudy, Fred, Huck, Hillary, Borak, and Ru Paul.
ronsfi on November 27, 2007 at 10:54 AM
Erm Ron Paul…
ronsfi on November 27, 2007 at 10:55 AM
Thanks, those were good quotes.
Is the book History of the Church, have more authority than the Journal of Discourses or Mormon Doctrine?
Then was Smith wrong on his pronouncement? He seems (I don’t want to drag out all of his racists quotes, but there are many) to be confused. When he is thinking of running for President (when he made those quotes) they are certainly tempered.
But still, the prophets were wrong on defining the role of the “negroes”, or as some called the “ni**ers).
The early church was conflicted, by their statements, of whether the black race was acceptable. Remember, the church premise is on the belief that if people of color became Mormon, they would turn white and “delightsome”.
At least they see improvement in the “darkies”.
right2bright on November 27, 2007 at 11:12 AM
Of course, but Baptists were not an organization during the Old Testament. The Prophets of the Old Testaments are Prophets for all Christians. There are no “new” prophets.
Buy Danish was specifically stating Baptists prophets. She has a list, I am waiting for it.
right2bright on November 27, 2007 at 11:16 AM
Other than Christopher Hitchens? Shall we hold Hitchens the Atheist responsible for the millions who died under the Godless tyranny of Communism? Malignant Atheists like Richard Dawkins crusade to get Christians to renounce the Holy Spirit. Do we want to go there? Will a day come when this is demanded of our candidates?
Many Hot Air commentators have stated flat out that they will not vote for Mitt Romney because he is a Mormon. Period. It’s clear that some people would not be satisfied until Romney denounced the Mormon Church and renounced all claims to Christianity.
To insist that Romney speak for the church’s position prior to 1978 means that we must also insist that all Christians explain historically pro-slavery views which it can be argued go back to the Old Testament – a demand which is of course impossible to satisfy.
But really, this is an absurd question. If Mitt Romney were not pursuing higher office, would he be asked to explain not only his faith, but asked to explain the history of the Mormon Church?
Other than J.F.K. who was asked to explain his Catholicism from anti-Catholic bigots, can you think of another candidate for the Presidency whose personal religious beliefs have undergone such scrutiny?
Did J.F.K. go into detail about Catholic dogma or its history? The answer is NO.
And I don’t know how many times this needs to be repeated, but the Romney’s were at the vanguard of the Civil Rights movement and his father, George, defied elders of the Mormon Church in that regard.
To follow the logic of these ridiculous demands, why is Huckabee, a Baptist Minister (who is explicitly running as a Christian) not being asked to explain his faith by Hot Air readers? Is the history of the Baptist Church free of racism, particularly Southern Baptists? Do we need to be reminded of why the Southern Baptist Convention was founded? After all, it took them until 1995 to formally renounce slavery!
Buy Danish on November 27, 2007 at 11:23 AM
I never got the impression that Buy Danish was referring to prophets that only Baptists have.
Esthier on November 27, 2007 at 11:40 AM
If Hitch were running for President then yes it would be appropriate the ask him about his associations with organizations whose positions may be antithetical to voters.
ronsfi on November 27, 2007 at 11:43 AM
Huckabee is at the moment somewhere in the front of local polls. He probably will not be a viable candidate.
But if he becomes one, he will have to answer questions of faith.
The dogma of faith is brought upon by the Mormon church. They believe in living modern day prophets. And they abide by those teachings of the prophet, they are the word of God. No other church has that, none. So if Mitt is bound to follow, not only the church tenants, but also the teachings of a living prophet, we have every right to investigate who he is following…and the history of those previous “prophets”. And we have seen they have made some terrible mistakes and comments. If the church comes up with a doctrine counter to the U.S., we have every right to not only ask Mitt what he would do, but look historically at what he has done. i.e. at 31 he still held true to the Mormon belief that blacks were less than whites. Doesn’t make him a racist, it makes him blindly following.
We should question Huckabee who he is following, can you name any prophet or church leader that he adheres too? That if he does not follow he will become an apostate (besides Jesus)?
And we have every right to ask Rudy about his relationship with the Pope. Would he go against an edict of the Pope (the answer is yes, with abortion)?
Everything is fair game to investigate the potential President…can’t play the “victim” card, can’t afford it.
right2bright on November 27, 2007 at 11:49 AM
Maybe she meant this prophet:
KJV Daniel 11:35 And some of them of understanding shall fall, to try them, and to purge, and to make them white, even to the time of the end: because it is yet for a time appointed.
KJV Daniel 12:10 Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried; but the wicked shall do wickedly: and none of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand.
Who’s being made white?
Sebastian on November 27, 2007 at 11:50 AM
I’m thinking that’s got to be a metaphor. The Jews were Middle Eastern. Joseph, the one with the colorful coat, was even confused for an Egyptian by his own brothers.
Try a different version.
Daniel 11:35:
Some of the wise will stumble, so that they may be refined, purified and made spotless until the time of the end, for it will still come at the appointed time.
Daniel 12:10:
Many will be purified, made spotless and refined, but the wicked will continue to be wicked. None of the wicked will understand, but those who are wise will understand.
Maybe the authors of the King James Version of the Bible believed white equaled purity, but that’s not a reflection on the original author.
Esthier on November 27, 2007 at 11:54 AM
Huckabee the Baptist’s prophets are indeed the prophets of the Old Testament, which was used by many Christians to justify slavery.
That was, and is, my point. You seem to forget that when you publish your anti-Mormon manifestos.
For every example of “racism” within the Mormon Church, I can point to episodes of historical intolerance in Christian Churches, not to mention the complicity of some Atheists who used “belief systems” such as Eugenics to guide them.
This would be a very boring and fruitless exercise, which I have no intention of participating in, beyond what I have already stated and offered as a means to combat some of this lunacy.
Hitch has written a book entitled, God is Not Great, so it would be fair to ask him about that, especially if he ran to preside over a nation whose roots are in Judeo-Christian values. Of course as a Brit, he cannot run, so it is a moot question.
Romney is not running as a Mormon and the Mormon Church explicitly refuses to insinuate itself in politics. There is no question as to where he stands when it comes to supporting and defending our Constitution, or in revering the principles of our Republic as first set forth in the Declaration of Independence.
The same reverence cannot be attributed to avowed Atheists – who deny the impact of our religious heritage on our established institutions, and attempt to rewrite history and the First Amendment.
Buy Danish on November 27, 2007 at 12:02 PM
To clarify – by “avowed” Atheists, I refer to malignant Atheists like Dawkins and Hitchens who take their contempt for religious belief to another level, and beyond ridiculing and scorning faith, wish to remove it from the public square, and often purposefully align themselves with those who would take steps to do so.
All Athiests are not what I would call “avowed” Atheists, and many Atheists have respect for the contributions Christians made to our institutions and culture. I,in turn, respect the right of those Atheists to hold their beliefs, or lack thereof.
You’re right, clearly “white” is being used as a metaphor there.
What this has to do with Mitt Romney is beyond me.
Gotta run…
Buy Danish on November 27, 2007 at 12:13 PM
Better look up the Hebrew for spotless, it meant clean of spirit, not white. As in the “spotless Lamb of God”.
That is the problem with the KJV of the bible. It was interpreted the best it could at the time. Since then scholars have better resources to more accuratly take the Hebrew and translate it.
White, is purity (in this instance). Used in form of the Old Testament Hebrew.
Once again purified, spotless referring to the “spotless Lamb of God”.
That is why you have to go back to the original texts. And where some religions have gotten into trouble.
If you want I can give you the actual Hebrew text or links.
right2bright on November 27, 2007 at 12:14 PM
Thats the problem Buy Danish. We think you are wrong. You think we are Evil.
ronsfi on November 27, 2007 at 12:21 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »