Mitt on Huckabee’s latest: “[A]ttacking someone’s religion is really going too far”
posted at 10:35 am on December 12, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
Mitt’s strategy now is Huck’s strategy in the general, if he gets that far: Deflect questions about any and all idiosyncratic beliefs by declaring them beyond the pale. To wit:
In an article to be published Sunday in The New York Times, Huckabee, an ordained Southern Baptist minister, asks, “Don’t Mormons believe that Jesus and the devil are brothers?”
Romney, vying to become the first Mormon elected president, declined to answer that question during an interview Wednesday, saying church leaders in Salt Lake City had already addressed the topic.
“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.
Asked if he believed Huckabee was speaking in a coded language to evangelicals, Romney praised his rival as a “good man trying to do the best he can,” but he added, “I don’t believe that the people of this country are going to choose a person based on their faith and what church they go to.”
Click the image at the end of the post to watch. The Times piece is out this morning and here’s how the exchange went down. Innocent curiosity or calculated insinuation? You make the call:
Chapter 3 also contains the admonition to ‘‘keep sound wisdom and discretion.’’ Huckabee is, indeed, a discreet fellow, but he has no trouble making his feelings known. He mentioned how much he respected his fellow candidates John McCain and Rudolph W. Giuliani. The name of his principal rival in Iowa, Mitt Romney, went unmentioned. Romney, a Mormon, had promised that he would be addressing the subject of his religion a few days later. I asked Huckabee, who describes himself as the only Republican candidate with a degree in theology, if he considered Mormonism a cult or a religion. ‘‘I think it’s a religion,’’ he said. ‘‘I really don’t know much about it.’’
I was about to jot down this piece of boilerplate when Huckabee surprised me with a question of his own: ‘‘Don’t Mormons,’’ he asked in an innocent voice, ‘‘believe that Jesus and the devil are brothers?’’
Laura Ingraham’s reportedly hammering him over it. I wonder if all this scrutiny of his religious pronouncements — the “Christian leader” ad, the ‘98 statement about wives serving their husbands, now this — won’t spark some backlash among evangelicals who feel their basic beliefs are being treated as a disqualifying factor for the presidency. That would be another ironic parallel with Mormons vis-a-vis Romney. Huck’s sure to try to leverage the sentiment against the Democrats when they come after him over this but it’s harder to sell a “my opponent hates God” message in a Republican primary.
The debate this afternoon? Gonna be sweet.
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
“Can you provide direct quotes….” I can hear the whining ringing in my ears.
You are saying the Mormon faith does not dictate polygamy for the men who become god?
It is the canonized belief of such a thing…to think different makes you an apostate. Do you want the quotes from the D&C, or will you just suffer in silence
right2bright on December 12, 2007 at 1:24 PM
How about the Joe Lieberman/Shabbat concern? Some thought it legitimate to inquire about his orthodoxy as to his ability to perform his duties as VP.
geckomon on December 12, 2007 at 1:26 PM
You seem to think that I just picked that quote out of thin air.
So sad.
MB4 on December 12, 2007 at 1:27 PM
So you live in constant fear in the year 2007? To the point where your seriously believe that Mike Huckabee will let violent criminals out of jail to kill Mormons?
You have got to be kidding me.
nailinmyeye on December 12, 2007 at 1:29 PM
And those people were idiots. Do you really want to live in an America where orthodox Jews can’t be President or Vice President?
Religion only matters as a guide to a person’s values. If the values are solid, religion is irrelevant.
Sydney Carton on December 12, 2007 at 1:32 PM
Nailinmyeye: I don’t live in fear. I’m just saying that this is the first time in a long time where I wonder if anti-mormonism will become the official policy of the US government–again.
And Huckabee seems to have no issues with letting criminals out of jail to kill other people if they say they are now “Christian.”
Okay, I doubt he would explicitly let people out of jail so they could go do something. I don’t believe that. I do believe he’d be more eager to pardon someone who’s anti-mormon than not, though. Is that a fairer statement?
Vanceone on December 12, 2007 at 1:33 PM
In fairness, I think that Vanceone’s fears are somewhat justified. Many politicians have passed laws that specifically target religious groups. Politians have targeted Catholics by requiring certain hospitals to provide abortions. Since many hospitals are owned by Church charities and foundations, the Church would have to shut down its hospitals or divest itself of ownership, because they would not provide abortions. The politicians knew this and did it with the direct result to throw Catholics out of the arena of public health.
Sydney Carton on December 12, 2007 at 1:36 PM
I think you actually don’t understand the irony that was in place when that phrase was uttered so famously. But you are really good at cutting and pasting other peoples thoughts, so, you know, score!
Defense Guy on December 12, 2007 at 1:36 PM
Let me wrap it up in a package and put a bow on top.
“Immigration bill un-Christian, anti-life, governor says Friday, Jan 28, 2005
By Doug Thompson
Arkansas News Bureau
LITTLE ROCK – Gov. Mike [Tysons Foods] Huckabee Thursday denounced a bill by Sen. Jim Holt that would deny state benefits to illegal immigrants as un-Christian, un-American, irresponsible and anti-life.”
Huckabee: ”Don’t Mormons believe that Jesus and the devil are brothers?”
Mike Huckabee, have you no decency, sir? Have you no shame?
As you sow so shall you reap.
What goes around, comes around.
MB4 on December 12, 2007 at 1:37 PM
What values are taught by a religion founded by a con-man that believes in constant revelations and those revelations just happen to coincide with political expediency — polygamy for statehood, black priests for tax exempt status, “white and delightsome” changed to “pure and delightsome”. Are these the values you want in a politician — I guess so if you want a chameleon like Mitt that will adopt any position necessary for political convenience.
tommylotto on December 12, 2007 at 1:37 PM
That’s not what I’m stressing.
First, let me say I agree with your argument, but not your reasoning.
The question of Shabbat was his ability to serve, if needed, on a Friday night/Saturday and which many non-jews, including non-orthodox jews, were unfamiliar with. I’m saying the questions were legitimate.
I agree, which is why we “test” our candidates religion. As a (fellow) Catholic, I test a candidate on which values I share and which values I can with good conscience, sacrifice.
geckomon on December 12, 2007 at 1:40 PM
Dude, I think that mormonism is a joke and was founded by a con man. But it is clear that Mitt Romney is a solid American with well-grounded values. He is not a mysognist or a con man at all. He’s probably got better moral values than 99% of the politicians out there.
Are you saying that all Mormons are liars?
His values are solid. What difference does it make what he believes?
Sydney Carton on December 12, 2007 at 1:41 PM
Understanding evangelicals:
I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off. So I ran over and said “Stop! don’t do it!” “Why shouldn’t I?” he said. I said, “Well, there’s so much to live for!” He said, “Like what?” I said, “Well…are you religious or atheist?” He said, “Religious.” I said, “Me too! Are you christian or buddhist?” He said, “Christian.” I said, “Me too! Are you catholic or protestant?” He said, “Protestant.” I said, “Me too! Are you episcopalian or baptist?” He said, “Baptist!” I said,”Wow! Me too! Are you baptist church of god or baptist church of the lord?” He said, “Baptist church of god!” I said, “Me too! Are you original baptist church of god, or are you reformed baptist church of god?” He said,”Reformed Baptist church of god!” I said, “Me too! Are you reformed baptist church of god, reformation of 1879, or reformed baptist church of god, reformation of 1915?” He said, “Reformed baptist church of god, reformation of 1915!” I said, “Die, heretic scum”, and pushed him off. — Emo Phillips
lan astaslem on December 12, 2007 at 1:41 PM
No. None of it is a fair statement. Because you began by saying that Huck hates LDS churches. No proof, nothing to support that statement. You take that as your presupposition. I think it is idiotic to think that – unless you show some proof. Why? Because he said “doesn’t Mormonism believe Jesus and Satan are brothers”? Is that why he hates LDS?
To blanketly say that Huck hates your church, and will let people out of prison who hate LDS, is to completely smear and demean Mike Huckabee in the same way, or worse, that you are accusing Evangelicals of doing to Mitt. It is hypocritical and ridiculous, and no amount of spinning will make it a fairer statement.
I actually can’t believe that you actually think this. In my mind I hear Kanye West after Katrina saying “George Bush hates black people,” and the implication being that Bush let black people in NO die because of some hatred of them. But what you are insinuating is even worse – that Mike Huckabee, or all people, would have a genocidal campaign as president to release anti-Mormon violent offenders in the hopes that they would then repay him by going out and hurting Mormons – and that the American people would be happy about this. Is there even a bigger play of the victim, and fear cards than that?
Hell, if that’s the case, then I hope Mitt doesn’t make it into office because he might make classes on Mormon doctrine and conversion compulsory for every Evangelical – and if we refuse, it will be repayment in blood for every bad thing that might have been done to Mormons in the past!
nailinmyeye on December 12, 2007 at 1:43 PM
Oh I understand what you are trying so hard to say alright.
I just think that you are severely misapplying your claimed “irony”.
MB4 on December 12, 2007 at 1:43 PM
Is everyone here on crazy pills?
You are going to defend Vanceone’s assertion – and then compare his fear that Huck will pardon violent criminals in the hopes that they will hurt Mormons – with Catholic hospitals and abortions?
Wow. Just wow.
nailinmyeye on December 12, 2007 at 1:46 PM
I really don’t think Huck thinks about the LDS church much at all.
bnelson44 on December 12, 2007 at 1:46 PM
A constant frustration for me as a Protestant and Evangelical.
nailinmyeye on December 12, 2007 at 1:48 PM
I agree.
And from some of his answers to some things recently – I start to wonder what he does think about most of the time.
nailinmyeye on December 12, 2007 at 1:49 PM
So tell me. What is it that you think I am trying to say?
Defense Guy on December 12, 2007 at 1:50 PM
Freud’s narcissism of small differences alright.
MB4 on December 12, 2007 at 1:53 PM
Thank you for nothing.
The Race Card on December 12, 2007 at 1:53 PM
There is only one…just ONE truth in this entire thread….
when we all get to wherever we are going…we all are going to have a big crow stuffed in our mouths.
Limerick on December 12, 2007 at 1:55 PM
You certainly seem to be trying to say that The High Reverend Huckster is the victim here rather than the perpetrator.
Ain’t going to work.
MB4 on December 12, 2007 at 1:56 PM
vanceone, re:
“SOLEY” is your interjection–
A person’s decision is based upon all available information at which point it is not bigoted.
Romney defends his church’s spriritual authority over the world, as the Mormon church proclaims itself the kingdom of god upon the face of the earth. Today, Christian churches generally describe themselves as Paul did, the body of Christ. Romney supports his church’s unscrupulous revisions of its own history. THAT is dishonorable to a scholar, theological or secular. The natural inference in that is covert intrigue. THOSE moral characteristics remind us of Nixon’s paranoia presidency, and how that sense literally destroyed the Republican party’s strength leaving America willing to elect the likes of Jimmy Carter. THOSE moral characteristics could influence America’s future in which everyone destroys records in order to claim victimization, designing innocence of guilt.
No one really buys the “I am offended that you have reason to doubt” offensive defense. No one really buys the “You are a bigot for stating the obvious conclusion because it hurts our feelings.”
Believe as you like.
EVERYONE is emotionally exhausted by ignorance’s claim to intelligence.
Regarding the PRIMARY, an American Republican in Germany asked Limbaugh if she should vote for the candidate of her choice, or should vote for the candidate most likely to win.
THE POINT OF THE PRIMARY is to vote for the candidate of your personal choice. The point of any election is to become educated and vote for the candidate that meets your criteria.
Conservative Republicans, like the lady in Germany, want to vote for Fred Thompson.
maverick muse on December 12, 2007 at 1:57 PM
nailinmyeye: I’m not sure what Huck thinks about the LDS church. He doesn’t think, very much, I agree.
But he’s an ordained pastor in the Southern Baptist Convention, and as such, I assume he has gone through their training. That training includes the Southern Baptist’s view on the LDS church, much of which is equivalent to right2bright and other’s parroting of it here.
So Huck is being disingenuous when he says he doesn’t know much about Mormons. His speech to the SBC in Salt lake in 1998 was at a convention focused on the LDS faith (though his speech didn’t address that topic).
Plus, his slick way of putting anti-mormon statements out there, in innocence, and his consistent pattern of “I was taken out of context” when called on it. The one thing Huck has is an ability to speak. So why is it only on the LDS stuff he is consistently taken out of context?
From what I know of the Southern Baptists, they do indeed preach what I would call anti-mormon stuff. Huck is, if nothing else, faithful.
Maybe I’m being uncharitable to Huck, but judging from history, the LDS church has a right to be at least nervous about a man who is running explicitly on governing by all his faith’s teachings–when those teachings have an extreme prejudice against the LDS church. AND when said candidate is actively campaigning on the anti-mormon platform.
After all, one of my faith’s leaders (Parley P. Pratt) was killed in Arkansas by a howling mob led by a preacher.
Would that happen right away? No, of course not. But why shouldn’t I start to worry about where Huck would take his anti-mormonism? Can you tell me–Is his bias against the LDS church just for electoral convenience, or does he really, truly believe it? And if so, what would he do about it?
Vanceone on December 12, 2007 at 2:00 PM
Cast your stones at The High Reverend Huckster.
It was he who started this religious “war”, not Vanceone and the Mormons.
MB4 on December 12, 2007 at 2:01 PM
A major reason that Mormonism is as harmless as a hamster is because Mormonism does not encourage delusional feeling of persecution, like, say, Islam does. There are, of course, individual Mormons with such complexes. Unlike Christian Science, LDS does not discourage medical cures for such problems.
thuja on December 12, 2007 at 2:05 PM
If so, then he sure had me fooled.
MB4 on December 12, 2007 at 2:08 PM
Maybe he is thinking about how much furniture he can take from the White House if he becomes President.
Maybe he is thinking about all the wedding gifts he will get if he becomes President and “reaffirms” his marriage vows again.
MB4 on December 12, 2007 at 2:12 PM
So you don’t know. That’s fine. I assumed as much. To be fair, I don’t really care. To be even more fair, Huck is not my choice and if he were, I would never try to cast him as a victim.
Want to go in halfsies on a bridge?
Defense Guy on December 12, 2007 at 2:19 PM
It’s laughable that you think that keeping those uppity Mormons in their place is a valid justification for Huckabee’s religion-baiting. As if all 300 million Americans are supposed to care that you’re afraid of a little competition? I thought conservatives were supposed to like competition. If you feel threatened by Mormon missionary work, get out and do some of your own instead of expecting some kind of protected status while you keep the Mormons down. A President has to govern for the best interests of an entire nation, not just your parochial little corner of it.
ReubenJCogburn on December 12, 2007 at 2:25 PM
It’s all yours.
Seems like you bought it already anyway.
MB4 on December 12, 2007 at 2:32 PM
Define what you mean by “anti-Mormon” bias? You said before, he “hates the LDS church.”
Why is it acceptable to question Huck’s faith background as a Southern Baptist, which you are doing in your comment to understand what his views on Mormonism might be, but it is bigotry to look into Romney’s faith background as a Mormon?
I am a Baptist, on my way to a doctorate in theology, and ordination. I think that Mormon doctrine is incompatible with traditional Christian doctrine. I think that the two are separate faith systems – one relying on the other, but not the same as it. Do I hate Mormons? Do I hate the LDS church? Am I “anti-Mormon” because I hold these beliefs?
I guess I just think you are being disingenuous with your term “anti-Mormon.” There is no definition of the term, or boundaries on what it can or cannot mean. If having differences of opinion on doctrine, the nature of God and salvation, means that I am anti-Mormon – fine. But I don’t quite know what that means for the many Mormon friends I have had over the years, or my willingness to vote for Romney.
nailinmyeye on December 12, 2007 at 2:35 PM
No, it’s not too late. I’m sure you could find a quote about money that would cover your end.
Defense Guy on December 12, 2007 at 2:40 PM
A
foolreligion baiting candidate and hismoneyelection chances are soon parted.MB4 on December 12, 2007 at 2:51 PM
Nailinmyeye: it’s like this: The LDS church does not have specific “here is why XXXX sect is wrong and members are going to hell” things. As I understand it, the SBC does. One of their top targets is the LDS church. Many of the street preachers who go out of their way to be offensive to the LDS church specifically are, I believe, from the SBC (though I know lots of the preachers in the SBC are embarrassed by them).
There’s a strain of “Mormons are going to hell, and we should help them there” that sometimes comes out of some evangelical preaching. The SBC is the prototypical Evangelical church. It’s one thing to have disagreements with the LDS church on theology, it’s another thing to encourage derogatory sounding sound bites. What earthly purpose does Huck’s statement have that isn’t meant as a smear?
I’m not attacking the SBC beliefs, but they spend a great deal of time attacking mine. They publish works that have long since been refuted, or attacks. There’s not much of an attempt to have any honest discussion. It’s like Right2bright: You cannot talk with him or her, because a priori the assumption is that the LDS church will, inevitably, be the worst of all possible positions.
There’s very little good said about the LDS church, and certainly nothing by Huck. Nothing like your, “I disagree, but I have many good LDS friends.” Huck hasn’t gone that far, nor pointed out anything good about the LDS church. That’s the definition of anti-mormon to me. Someone who cannot see or admit that we have anything of value. I don’t think you are that way, but I do think Huck is. Or would be.
Vanceone on December 12, 2007 at 3:03 PM
from Vanceone:
To what Southern Baptist Christian doctrine do you refer? To you, vanceone, any fact leading to a difference of opinion from your own is anti-mormon stuff. The specific persecution complex that you display is its own evidence of a typical Mormon’s convoluted logic in action.
Not being Baptist, only having worshipped with them at Ecumenical Christian services, I am simply aware of their emphasis on experiencing God’s saving grace in their individual lives, being “born again” as Christ admonished. Mormons bear their own testimonies at their own meetings, too. At least the Baptists allow for each person to experience God’s epiphany of love and concern without requiring that person to get a man’s permission, requiring a “recommend” before approaching the Almighty in a strange temple ceremony. STRANGE, I say, because that ceremony has everything to do with what has since been purged from current Mormon “doctrine”, though it is still a REQUIREMENT in order to enjoy God’s acceptance.
maverick muse on December 12, 2007 at 3:30 PM
from Vanceone:
!!
If you bring up the persecutions pressed upon the early latter day saints, be prepared within the ENTIRE HISTORICAL CONTEXT to admit circumstances created by Joseph Smith. He sent missionaries to England and Northern Central Europe to convert the lost tribes of Israel to his Zion. His missionaries, like Mormon missionaries since, were to convert Christians into Mormonism. The missionaries succeeded in converting people of devout faith as well as opportunists who, like Brigham Young and the Pratt brothers, saw easy pickings. Joseph Smith called upon the world to gather to him and establish the New Zion, etc.etc.etc. Smith promised poor converts that they would be provided for with him in the land of milk and honey. When hordes of Mormon converts besieged American communities, there was thieving of livestock and food from the residents who rightly resented the likes of Woodstock in their backyard.
As per the Pratt brothers, Parley P. & Orson, “spiritual wivery” was absolutely acceptable to them UNTIL Joseph Smitt forced his attentions on THEIR wives. Then they “fell away” into darkness and oblivion. Late in life, having never amounted to anything outside of the Mormon community, the surviving Pratt returned to be vaulted back into a degree of social prominence for having returned to “the light of the gospel” as revealed to Joseph Smith and revised by Brigham Young.
maverick muse on December 12, 2007 at 3:50 PM
Vanceone:
Again, search your own church’s doctrines, vanceone, as Joseph Smith and all of the Mormon prophets through 1970 (though fading from headline into footnote into oral memory)
–the Catholic church is the mother of all whores!
maverick muse on December 12, 2007 at 3:58 PM
AGAIN with the “If the Mormons were attacked by gunpoint, murdered, and raped–they deserved it!” Please, please maverick muse, provide any rational reasons:
1) that back up your “Mormons were nothing but thieves and drunken hedonists like Woodstock” bit. Last time I checked, people who are nothing but thieves and hedonists usually don’t take too kindly to building civilizations. Or are you going to claim that Mormons stole the Great basin economy that no one knew was there? Or that Nauvoo just built itself out of the goodness of it’s heart, just so those thieving Mormons could live there?
2) that even if that were true (which it’s not), that is a good reason to drive people out by gunpoint and take their lands, goods, and issue orders to kill them.
And you are incredibly wrong about the Pratt brothers (just on the facts)…. though I bet you think that when Parley P. was murdered in Arkansas, he got what he deserved, right?
Vanceone on December 12, 2007 at 3:59 PM
Huckabee is playing word games again and thinking we’re all too stupid to get it. Just an innocent,passing remark—yeah–what a con artist that man is. I think he’s so used to audiences(read that congregations) that buy into his rhetoric that he believes the whole country is gullible enough to swallow his nonsense. He is all talk and no substance worth mentioning.
jeanie on December 12, 2007 at 4:01 PM
Yesterday – Huckabee: ”Don’t Mormons believe that Jesus and the devil are brothers?”
Tomorrow – Huckabee: “Didn’t the Jews kill Jesus?”?
Huckabee is not saying of course, he is just asking.
MB4 on December 12, 2007 at 4:11 PM
Where the mormons persecuted for no reason? Far from it…
And if they go back to Missouri and try to take away other peoples land the next time, they’ll be forced to “move on” again…
http://www.lds-mormon.com/tmpc.shtml
NRA4Freedom on December 12, 2007 at 4:12 PM
Yep, that’s what they believe, CONTRARY to what God says in the Bible.
Which “jesus”, the REAL Jesus Christ of which the Bible speaks or the false one of Mormonism? IF you are talking about the REAL Jesus Christ of the Bible, then no, the Jews didn’t kill Him, HE DIED WILLINGLY ON A CROSS TO PAY A DEBT HE DIDN’T OWE FOR WE WHO OWE A DEBT WE CANNOT EVER PAY. WE killed Jesus because we are filthy sinners, justly deserving of God’s wrath and displeasure. THAT’S what Christianity IS all about.
IF you are talking about the other person who mormons call jesus, you know, Lucifers brother, then I don’t know that person, and whether he ever existed anywhere other than in the wacked out mind of Joseph Smith and his all too deluded followers, I cannot say.
Huckabee is just doing what believers do, casting the light of truth where darkness exists. I just hope he isn’t doing it for purely political reasons, as that would be very poor judgement.
NRA4Freedom on December 12, 2007 at 4:21 PM
Don’t Southern Baptists handle those rattlesnakes during services? Just askin’, cuz I don’t know nuthin’ ’bout Southern Baptists.
Huck – take a hike.
fred5678 on December 12, 2007 at 4:22 PM
NRA4Freedom–if you are a typical Huckabee voter, please say so.
For everyone else, just know that NRA4Freedom advocates violence against LDS church members. As demonstrated above (and in another thread, where he defends the order to exterminate the mormons as right and proper), he is raring to start shooting us again.
Vanceone on December 12, 2007 at 4:25 PM
I completely agree, Vanceone. Without a firm grip on the history of our religion, I don’t think people realize the fact that the Governor of Missouri gave an executive order to exterminate or drive from the State all Mormons. Or that the Governor of Illinois had dinner with Emma Smith, knowing that her husband Joseph was likely going to be murdered by a mob or “Christians.”
Wow, this is quite an insinuation. Care to document it, and see if is withstands scrutiny?
To the one that leads street preachers to think it’s o.k. to take what I consider sacred scripture, on par with the Bible, scripture that I believe adds additional testimony to the World that Jesus is the Christ the savior of the world, scripture that does indeed validate that very basic premise of the Holy bible, and throw that very same scripture on the ground and stomp on it.
To the one that thinks it’s o.k. to mock sacred covenants that I have made with God and the garments that give me a daily reminder of those sacred covenants. Covenants where I have, in humility, promised to my Father in Heaven that I would obey his commandments.
Again, let’s have some documentation on your assertions, please.
Troy Rasmussen on December 12, 2007 at 4:27 PM
Did you just threaten to rape and murder Mormons? Is that what your all about? NRA4Freedom, I’m saddened that someone who comments on this site would make such a statement.
Troy Rasmussen on December 12, 2007 at 4:31 PM
Yeah, Troy Rasmussen, he did basically say that. And from his posts here in this thread and another, he’s looking forward to it, too.
I’m not sure when it becomes bannable, but that seems like some pretty strong language to me.
Vanceone on December 12, 2007 at 4:38 PM
r2b,
Did you or did you not make this comment earlier???:
I ask you again, please provide a direct quote from Mitt Romney on the topic of polygamous “harems” in the after life.
For what it’s worth, Wiki disagrees: Anti-mormonism
Buy Danish on December 12, 2007 at 4:55 PM
This is so depressing. Sadly, these bigots (AND YES YOU ARE BIGOTS TO THINK A SQUEAKY CLEAN RELIGION LIKE MORMONISM THAT DOES NOT NOR EVER WILL THREATEN YOUR LIVELIHOOD OR POLICY SHOULD HAVE RELEVANCY IN ELECTING A PUBLIC OFFICIAL) will never, ever change.
The only question is, how many of them are there?
Well, poll numbers suggest enough of them to drastically influence and decide this campaign…
Patriot33 on December 12, 2007 at 5:10 PM
Now, quoting your leaders is anti-mormon? You mean when I mention Smith and his 14 year old bride. Care to tell us how he obtained that bride? Care to relate the sordid tale? In the dozens of posts, you have never found me mis-quoting your leaders (you despise what they say, but they say it). When I say, most of you want to be a Saviour by baptizing dead people, am I wrong? And do you baptize the dead (without their permission obviously), but why not Jews? To say that you are working to become a God with multiple wives, that is untrue? You are saying that Mormons don’t believe in that?
What I don’t understand is why do you so despise what they say, and embrace what they teach? Young taught and believed in the Adam-God (it was told to him by God)theory, and the other prophets (Kimball in particular) smacked him down. So who is the false prophet…Young or Kimball…if either one is, the house of cards collapse…
That is a tough position to defend. I think it best to call me anti-Mormon and ignore it, can’t let facts shake the faith…those darn facts and quotes, always getting in the way of faith.
right2bright on December 12, 2007 at 5:11 PM
Right2bright: you are an anti-mormon under this definition: Anti-mormons are
From Jeff Lindsay. You may not do this for a living, but the rest of the definition fits you to a T.
You constantly strive to paint the LDS church in a way to scare people, make them recoil with disgust, and always twist quotes, only tell half the story, etc etc etc.
Can you not agree that your point is to make the LDS church look bad? If so, that’s anti-Mormon.
Here’s a question for you: do you agree with NRA4freedom’s call to drive Mormons out again? Or will you condemn that?
Vanceone on December 12, 2007 at 5:19 PM
Like I said in another thread, NO WONDER you people believe “twisted scripture” and other assorted lies that passes for Mormon Church doctrine, you can’t even comprehend what is written by others without twisting it into something else in your minds. Truly pathetic.
NRA4Freedom on December 12, 2007 at 5:44 PM
Read the conversation again. I didn’t say there is no definition in the world, I said there is none for this conversation.
Buy Danish – do you think Mike Huckabee hates the LDS church and wants to pardon anti-Mormon violent criminals so that he can carry out his secret plan of Mormonicide?
I just want to know how far this persecution complex goes.
nailinmyeye on December 12, 2007 at 5:48 PM
Anti-Mormon is the new Islamophobia.
nailinmyeye on December 12, 2007 at 5:49 PM
The Mormon Church ALREADY LOOKS BAD…to ANYONE with sense enough to actually take a gander at what they believe rather than to just take a mormon cult followers word for their supposed “christianity”.
As for your lie about “call to drive mormons out again”, do you REALLY think anyone here would be stupid enough to believe your lie without verifying it was what I actually said? Here, here is what I actually said, in response to YOUR assertion that the poor mormons of old were driven out of Missouri for no good reason, I posted a link
http://www.lds-mormon.com/tmpc.shtml
to the information showing what you claim is false, and added…
“Guess what, you people go back to Missouri with your whacked out religion of lies and try to take land by force that your lying hustler founder says was given to you by your god(which again, is NOT THE God of the Bible), and we’ll all see just how long it takes you to get run out of the Country, again!”
THAT’S why they ran off the original mormons and forced them into the desert, they weren’t being “persecuted”, they were being RUNN OFT for DOING what they did.
NRA4Freedom on December 12, 2007 at 5:56 PM
re: Vanceone on December 12, 2007 at 3:59 PM
You, vanceone, may not speak for me and I defy your gross lies and false usage of quotation marks at my expense.
Get off your bastardization of truth, vanceone, if you wish to convince anyone of your ability to reason.
maverick muse on December 12, 2007 at 6:07 PM
NRA4Freedom: In the process, they massacred a lot of people. It wasn’t “run off” it was “leave or we kill you. What the heck–we’ll kill some of you anyway.”
But even if they were justified–are you claiming that the LDS church STILL deserves to be run off (i.e. driven at gunpoint and murdered)? Because you sure sound like it. What, exactly, is the LDS church guilty of today (besides existing) that makes you make such a threat?
Vanceone on December 12, 2007 at 6:08 PM
Maverick muse–then stop trying to defend the persecutions as “The mormons deserved what they got” kind of attitude. That’s what you are doing–”sure, what happened to them was bad, but here is why it happened–they deserved it because of _____” is what your posts are coming across as.
So let me ask you bluntly: Do you agree or disagree that the early driving of LDS church members out of Illinois, Missouri, plus the sending of the US Army to potentially attack the LDS church, was justified, defensible, and a good thing?
Vanceone on December 12, 2007 at 6:11 PM
WIKIPEDIA is only as accurate as those who edit and revise its entries. Wikipedia is not as viable as hard copy sources such as the Encyclopedia Brittanica. Internet sourcing has its failings.
maverick muse on December 12, 2007 at 6:19 PM
vanceone, YOU stop trying to defend your own personal ineptitude. YOU wrote: “The mormons deserved what they got” and cry WOLF, WOLF at this audience.
As per history, to appreciate it one must approach it from all perspectives, not merely from the familiar vantage point.
maverick muse on December 12, 2007 at 6:24 PM
Yes, that’s true, however some Wiki entries are excellent. If there is something you wish to dispute in the anti-mormonism link that I provided, go ahead and dispute it.
Why are you asking me that question? If you’re looking for people with fanatical opinions there are plenty of them to be found at Hot Air, but I am not one of them.
Buy Danish on December 12, 2007 at 6:27 PM
Answer the question, maverick muse. NRA4Freedom, you should answer it too.
Here it is again:
Do you agree or disagree that the early driving of LDS church members out of Illinois, Missouri, plus the sending of the US Army to potentially attack the LDS church, was justified, defensible, and a good thing?
Vanceone on December 12, 2007 at 6:31 PM
Mormons really do believe that Jesus and Satan are brothers. It just sounds so whacked that they don’t want the general public to know about it. The Jesus of the Bible is the creator of the universe not a created being.
Mojave Mark on December 12, 2007 at 7:31 PM
what if He is…both?
*cue organ music*
sulla on December 12, 2007 at 8:22 PM
…still, I’d like to go where you’re going to be :)
Entelechy on December 12, 2007 at 8:28 PM
Bullshit. Fuck you for making such an appalling and obscene comparison.
Patriot33 on December 12, 2007 at 8:31 PM
Troy Rasmussen,
As Jesus said, your faith makes you whole. Be content, then.
Regarding your query, though, worshipping an idol makes it a god to the spiritual detriment of those who in such worship REQUIRE all others to comply or be damned. Perhaps you would agree with God on that.
It is already written that what kind of underwear a person wears is of no consequence to God. Your affront, however, could provide you with compassion for the Free Masons’ sense of indignation as their most sacred ceremonies were so utterly bastardized by Mormon authorities. But then, Mormons who become Masons are censured, as are Mormons who become members of other churches. Having your eyes opened is no piece of cake, and making immediate sense of shock is like asking a new born the purpose of that initial swat.
As per scholarly repudiations of Mormon claims, begin with the immediate links provided by NRA4Freedom. Jerald and Sandra Tanner have compiled a most scholarly and thorough body of research for those willing to face documentation in all of its historical verification.
To answer buy danish, an example of anti-Mormon is the likes of Vanceone screeching to high heaven all kinds of profanities in the name of righteousness sake. Vanceone would that Christ himself come to prove vance’s integrity by damning Christianity (notice, vanceone would not include Mormons with the likes of Christians whose doctrines are bigotry). Jesus said not to tempt God, though, and when Satan told Christ to prove himself by committing suicide and then calling on the angels to save him, Jesus replied what reason would tell Vanceone. “GET THEE BEHIND ME, SATAN.”
A typical Mormon’s blanket repudiation of historically documented sources as anti-mormon is in itself the very ignorance that reasonable Americans recognize as intolerance. To merely reject out of ones own insecure prejudice is not worthy. You need not provide me with your references, as they have been mine for a lifetime. I condemn neither you nor buy danish, merely faithful Mormons living a good life.
Peace be with you, and have a Merry Christmas.
maverick muse on December 12, 2007 at 8:48 PM
You condemn faithful Mormons living a good life?
Nice.
sulla on December 12, 2007 at 9:03 PM
sulla, there is no need to condemn merely faithful and peaceful disciples of any religion. Authorities who produce and dispense the snake oil are not blameless, however.
maverick muse on December 12, 2007 at 9:51 PM
You think I’m a Mormon?
Buy Danish on December 12, 2007 at 10:01 PM
Read the whole conversation before coming in here and being an idiot.
nailinmyeye on December 12, 2007 at 11:43 PM
I have read everything, and I’m sick of bigots trying to claim they’re not. Islam is an entirely different monster, and to bring that up as to justify their bigotry against a tame religion in which their only criticism against it is strictly theological will and should be called out.
Patriot33 on December 13, 2007 at 12:10 AM
Okay, you finally caught me. When you defend your Mormon faith, I admit that I quote your leaders, prophets, covenants accurately. I can see where that would cause you an uneasiness. To be publicly exposed is uncomfortable.
Now, which of my quotes were wrong? If you are ashamed of the men who created your faith, or your prophets,…don’t follow them. If you do follow them, then expect to be confronted with the truth. If I am not stating the truth, then call me on it. Otherwise you are just whining, all you do is bash the conduit…try bashing the people who have stated these things, done these things, or taught you these things.
Stand up, correct the record, tell the world that it was abhorrent for a man to have multiple wives, some as young as 14. Instead you defend him and think it is alright to bargain for a 14 year old bride…live with it or deny it, but don’t get angry for it coming to light. Stand up and say it is wrong to baptize dead people, and if you think it is right then defend that and explain why Mormons do not baptize dead Jews.
right2bright on December 13, 2007 at 12:49 AM
So now Troy, what part of that which I posted is inaccurate?
right2bright on December 13, 2007 at 12:54 AM
I missed your question at the end about that other poster.
I have answered your accusations a few times. Before I answer that one, how about finally answering one that I ask of you. (I give you two choices, choose one)
*
How many Book of Mormon civilizations (the ones unique to the BoM) have been identified by National Geographic or the Smithsonian?
And along those same lines, do you believe that Joseph Smith was given permission to look at the papyri scrolls in an exhibit (1835) and to everyone’s shock, revealed that “one of the rolls contained the writings of Abraham (and Smith interpreted them). In October of 1880 The Pearl of Great Price, a collection of writings, which contained the book of Abraham, was recognized as scripture by the Mormon Church. Now that we have been able to decipher them (as of 1966), what did those scrolls really say?
right2bright on December 13, 2007 at 1:39 AM
Sigh…. Right2bright: tell me, what purpose do you have? Why, why why do you insist on throwing every bit of mud you can (or what you call mud) at a faith you don’t even belong to, and which is no threat to you?
I am quite curious. You’ll never convert to the LDS church, most likely, and you’ve said you have no financial interest in bashing it, so I don’t get why you care so much.
To your answers:
1) No one knows, do they? Unlike in the old world, very little writing remains from the new world (as the Spanish destroyed most of it). And there aren’t any road signs. That said, if the Smithsonian DID identify one, wouldn’t you be screaming bloody murder about “endorsing a religion?”
But I’ll tell you where they were, most likely. In Central America, the proto_mayan cultures and thereabouts–Guatemala, the Yucatan peninsula. Plus, a place name found in the Book of Mormon has been identified: NHM, in the arabian peninsula. In addition, the Book of Mormon has a ton of things right that were completely ludicrous when first published but have been vindicated throughout time, such as the use of cement. There’s no road signs saying “welcome to Jerusalem” either. I do recall hearing recently about potentially finding the name of one of the kings mentioned in the Book of Mormon on a stela as well.
2) First of all, what you claim are the documents of the Book of Abraham do not match the descriptions of the parchments Joseph Smith had, so I would disagree that they’ve been found. Second, if you think Joseph Smith made it all up, then please explain how he managed to tap directly into the pre-existing traditions of Abraham that have long since vindicated the writings of the Book of Abraham–traditions that were not available to him when he wrote it.
You may not be aware, but some of your evangelical scholarly buddies have admitted in the last few years that they are losing their battle to declare Mormonism a false religion because the LDS church’s apologetics people has answered their charges consistently and conclusively in many cases. For instance, they don’t have many answers for Chiasmus; for other forms of Hebraic poetry in the Book of Mormon, for the incredible bulls-eye of the Book of Mormon journey across the Arabian peninsula; for the intricate details of Jewish ceremonial life that are taken for granted in the BoM, for numerous other things. The Book of Mormon has a lot of evidence in it’s favor that you, naturally, refuse to address. I don’t provide it, because I’m not here to preach. But it exists. And you anti’s have been curiously silent about much of it.
Vanceone on December 13, 2007 at 1:57 AM
Seems, like every great civilization recorded by man, that some form of remains (usually coins or trade materials) show up. Just wanted to be sure that my sources were accurate.
*
The papyri were embalming information. Joseph made an error. The back of the papri had his writings and notes on the back. They were the book, or so he thought.
Well the DNA of the American Indians don’t look so good. And you must get out and read more. I think your apologists are the ones backtracking. I believe now that the Laminites are no longer the principle part of the Indian race, but now just a part of, courtesy of a little rewriting your Book of Mormon.
I think when you are forced to change a “perfect” book, to fit new evidence, that would be cause for alarm.
Thanks for answering…and no I do not want, nor ever want any physical harm to any one. I attack the doctrine, not the people who have fallen prey.
I never knew much about the “Mormon Trail” and what experiences caused it. I ordered a couple of books. Here is a pretty good review; Persecution. And yes, the author suggests books written by Mormon scholars for added reading. All of my sites I use for research, link back to authentic Mormon sites for confirmation, or single dating. I have never found a Mormon site that links to a Christian site.
Please think seriously about your prophets, I know Smith & Young must have been a brilliant man, but look at their lives, the children they married (average age for marriage in the mid 1800’s was 19.5 yrs old), even your most ardent scholars and believers are starting to understand how wrong they were…http://www.juvenileinstructor.org/is a good starting point to see the direction Mormons are moving towards (this is an LDS site, mostly grad and phd from BYU)
Once again, you don’t like it, but I am defending my faith from people who are vandalizing the bible, and hi-jacking our most sacred element of faith…Jesus Christ (and the biblical trinity). I really wished other religions, besides Christians, would just not attack us from so many different directions. And when we lash back, try to put us down or shut us up. We have lost millions of missionary’s to death from people who want to steal our religion.
But, the one think I have found, the LDS is to arrogant to understand their attacks on the Christian faith. You want to own it, and it isn’t yours to steal.
But, as DNA is more revealed, civilizations are never found, great battles that were fought will be finally proved not to have taken place. As the accurate interpretation of the bible filters down to the LDS (as evidence of the changes in the book of mormon over the years), the LDS church will evolve, it is only 150 years old. When honesty prevails, and the realization that Smith, Young and others were false prophets (as shown now by fact..Adam-God is an example), then the LDS will be able to regroup and reform itself to traditional Christian faith. That will be a great day for you and your brothers and sisters. And a great day for the Christian nation, we can then all celebrate the truth.
right2bright on December 13, 2007 at 2:51 AM
r2b,
Why don’t you write a freaking book? Seriously, you might make a buck or two and it could be a cathartic experience for you. You know, kinda like facing your personal demons and confronting them.
Not that I would buy it, but it would keep you busy and you’d have another avenue to drone on and on with your personal obsession with Mormonism, and Mitt Romney in particular.
The bottom line is that Mitt Romney’s character and intellect is off the charts superior to your own, and every time you type a word that truth becomes more and more undeniable.
Buy Danish on December 13, 2007 at 8:48 AM
Buy Danish, bitter and stale @ 8:48 a.m.
maverick muse on December 13, 2007 at 11:11 AM
As per the official LDS dogma relating Jesus and Lucifer born via sexual intercourse by God with spriritual wives in the Mormon “pre-existence”, they answer with the Book of Moses. Christians will not find that in the Bible. “Old” doctrines are cast aside for new audiences. I ridicule the current “modern” concept of “old” as well as the ease with which so many would ignore history.
Those relying upon official LDS website entries must realize that EVERY authorized document displayed has been processed through countless edits and revisions. For instance, compare the original “Manifesto” with their online version. The official LDS records have been changed incessantly, and what you read from them online is not what you would read from the original document. The official LDS image is merely a portrait of Dorian Gray.
Today’s youth eschew the past as irrelevant. Young Mormons eschew their pioneering ancestors as irrelevant. In doing so, they also lose their own relevance. Through WWII, Mormons absolutely revered their pioneers’ absolute obedience to Joseph Smith and Brigham Young. But children of Mormon baby-boomers have been reared with a totally “improved” revision and have absolutely lost reference with the original reality, having sold out long ago. So which Mormon generation will be right about any Mormon doctrine at their grand reunion in the resurrection? The old Mormon pioneers gave up EVERYTHING to obey God’s command of polygamy, the everlasting covenant, in order to attain glory with/as God and prove to all, including themselves, their obedience to those in authority. Their progeny now deny that it ever happened in their family. What was should not be denied if to be appreciated for what it was. Relative relevance.
The LDS church sells itself to converts as having the monopoly on ETERNAL TRUTH. That LDS eternal nature of truth is concrete during the sell, but plastic after the deal is struck.
Read original documents before denying their content or existence. The truth shall set you free.
MATTHEW 7
7Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:
8For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.
21Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
22Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
24Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:
25And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.
26And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand:
27And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.
28And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at his doctrine:
29For he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes.
maverick muse on December 13, 2007 at 10:59 AM
maverick muse on December 13, 2007 at 11:17 AM
No dear, I am fed up (and bored). Maybe you and r2b could collaborate on a book!
BTW, did you get the part about me not being a Mormon?
Buy Danish on December 13, 2007 at 1:03 PM
Um, right2bright: I second Buy Danish’s motion. Since you care so much about the LDS church, why not write a book? Then you too can have the pleasure of watching everything you cite crumble (just like all other Anti-Mormon attacks) once reviewed by people who are much better trained than I am.
As for “evidence” I note you didn’t say a word about the evidence I proffered. You just completely ignored it (per usual anti-mormon tactics: “Hey, if we ignore the defense completely, we can say they don’t have an answer!”). I said that the Book of Mormon was most likely set in the early Mayan periods. Are you arguing those civilizations didn’t exist?
As for the papyri, perhaps you should listen a bit closer: existing, eyewitness accounts describe scrolls that do not currently exist. Sure, the ones found were part of the collection: but they were not the complete collection.
And the “DNA” thing. *snort* That one has been answered so conclusively that I am surprised people still bring it up–well, no, I’m not. As usual, this attack depends on people not knowing the reply to it.
And no, probably most LDS sites don’t link to many Christian ones (though you’ve haven’t looked very hard: I’ve seen several links to CCER or whichever site it is that has the Early Christian writings). No, LDS authors tend to cite published works by other Christians, not link to websites for the most part.
As for your accusation that the LDS church is trying to move away from Joseph Smith and early leaders, I have one word: nonsense. Yes, there is more scholarly examination of them, but no one has ever claimed they were perfect, and no one has claimed they had all the truth (including them). The church has the principle of “line upon line, precept upon precept”– things only partially understood before become clearer in time.
And no thank you, we have no desire to become a “traditional Christian faith” that claims a God that cannot speak, doesn’t care, and is incomprehensible.
Vanceone on December 13, 2007 at 1:40 PM
Fine then rather than making personal attacks, show me where I mis-quoted or my facts were wrong.
So far you have failed…but you are good at name calling, so I give you credit.
I already spanked you once for stepping out of line, don’t make me do it again…you naughty little girl.
right2bright on December 13, 2007 at 1:51 PM
I know you don’t want to, but many of your academia’s are. As you look at your founder, and realize who he was (if polygamy was so God driven, why hide it from his first wife Emma?), and this will take decades for the realization to set in, the leaders will have to distance themselves from Smith. Simple question, if your Prophet, Kimball, came to you and said that God had told him that he must marry your daughter, you would consent? You would give up your daughter to a man who said God told him to take her as one of his wives? That is the kind of man who you are basing your religion on. That is the kind of man Mitt is putting his faith in….that may seem okay to you, that is scary to me.
right2bright on December 13, 2007 at 1:59 PM
Freaking weirdo!
You have not quoted anyone, least of all Mitt Romney. The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that Mitt Romney’s faith has ever impeded his ability to function honorably and wisely as a public servant, or conflict with the founding principles of this great Representative Republic.
Buy Danish on December 13, 2007 at 3:37 PM
According at least to Hitchens (not known for being well inclined to the LDS), Mormons did in fact baptize Jews in the temple and that Jewish groups got angry.
Jonah Goldberg (a yet-to-be-perfected Jew) in an article about Mormons recently said:
I seem to remember something similar during Jesus’ trial. Surely the same principle applies to Mormonism, eh? If it’s right, accept it; if it’s not, it’ll fail by itself.
Tzetzes on December 13, 2007 at 7:57 PM
Dude, the Jews could totally say that about Christianity. Rabbi Joshua of the North (”can anything good come out of Nazareth?”) quotes Isaiah (the most popular book of the intertestamental period, as shown by remaining papyri) and claims that he’s the Anointed One. His followers are so bold as to quote the holy Psalms and say that they predict Jesus’ Messiahship (that the great King David is prophecying that a provincial carpenter will become his “Son of David”).
That’s what your Christianity and my Christianity (which are probably rather different) does/do to the Hebrew Bible, and Jews think we’re reading it all wrong. So why are you so upset with the Mormon reading of the Hebrew Bible and New Testament?
Tzetzes on December 13, 2007 at 7:59 PM
Right2bright: I advise you to quit now. The current prophet of the LDS church is not Kimball, who you referred to. Kimball died in 1985 or so. We’ve had three since then. Since you are incapable of getting even basic facts about the LDS church, please refrain from acting like a know-it-all.
Vanceone on December 14, 2007 at 1:21 PM
In addition, if your heart tears up at those evil Mormons hijacking the Bible, I have news for you: Try reading the Islamic version sometime. Yes, they deny Christ’s divinity, smear most of the old testament after Exodus, and generally speaking go around killing Christians and Jews.
But I rarely see you talk about them with much vehemence. Instead, you would rather go after Mormons, who DO believe in the divinity of Christ. But that, apparently, is much more dangerous to you.
Vanceone on December 14, 2007 at 1:26 PM
Rather than devoting all of his might, mind, and heart to the well being of the least of the human race, an immature youth presuming the rights of adulthood before age, spends his greatest energies wildly surfing the internet performing his Mormon “mission” work ranting on blogs.
maverick muse on December 14, 2007 at 2:18 PM
Jesus admonished to know the old testament prophets in order to appreciate His fulfillment of God’s entire purpose. Christians accept Jesus as the fulfillment of God’s law. Christians unite in faith and love. To completely condemn all of Christianity in order to exist elitely with God is its own disclaimer.
In the unity of God’s spirit, Christians of all ages, not merely those alive at the moment, rejoice. Reading Ephesians 4, every one can search their own personal heart and require ALL admonitions of themselves rather than of another. Any proselyte requiring more from another than of themselves knows futility, not hope in Christ.
Merry Christmas!
maverick muse on December 14, 2007 at 2:53 PM
Who would this be pray tell? No pun intended. Does anyone have a clue who mm is talking about here? As far as this blog goes I don’t see much Mormon “mission” work, and for the most part those who are Mormons, like Vanceone for instance, do not “rant”.
There are a lot of tiresome people who have made anti-Mormonism a mission, and they rant, and rant, and rant.
Buy Danish on December 14, 2007 at 4:07 PM
Dear Maverick Muse:
I don’t think that was in answer to what I said just above, but it does demonstrate the point I make. When Peter & Paul (or Philip, whose work somehow didn’t make the canon, when talking with the Ethiopian) were trying to convince their fellow Jews that Rabbi Joshua was actually the High Priest, Great Prophet and Annointed One who’d been foretold, they used the Jews’ own scriptures and reasoned with them. Some accepted and some didn’t, and those who don’t accept it object that the Christians are misusing Jewish scripture (or are at least misguided in their reading of it).
Mormons use the Old & New Testaments in trying to convince their fellow Christians (and the Mormons consider themselves Christians, so that should be enough of that silly question) that Joseph Smith is a prophet foretold to usher in a new phase of Christianity. Some believe it and some don’t, and those who don’t either object that Mormons are misusing these books or at least interpreting them amiss.
But in the above, you don’t reason at all: you ask the person you’re talking to to start a priori with your conclusion as a premiss. That’s what the Mahometans do, not Aquinas.
Tzetzes on December 14, 2007 at 10:21 PM
Thank you for consideration. My last comments were directed, however, toward another. From my initial religious premise in this long string of such headings, I noted that a certain mind-set thrives on a conception of god’s truth as ever changing, each day something different than ever before or after, the moment at hand being all that matters eternally. This rationality uses a convoluted tunnel vision. On the other hand, there are those who recognize God’s truth as an element upon which one can rely no matter when as unchanging. Never the twain shall meet.
maverick muse on December 15, 2007 at 9:08 AM
…never the twain shall meet…
without change
compromise
maverick muse on December 15, 2007 at 9:13 AM
I see that maverick muse has still not identified who/she refers to here:
Rather than devoting all of his might, mind, and heart to the well being of the least of the human race, an immature youth presuming the rights of adulthood before age, spends his greatest energies wildly surfing the internet performing his Mormon “mission” work ranting on blogs.
As for “never the twain shall meet” that is Kipling and has everything to do with Islam and nothing to do with Mormons.
Buy Danish on December 15, 2007 at 4:13 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2