Uh-oh: LDS theology disputed by…Mitt Romney; Update: Romney camp responds
posted at 1:18 pm on December 29, 2007 by Bryan
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
I’ll have to defer to any LDSers in the readership here, since my Mormon theology is, to say the very least, weak. I will say that it’s not exactly a shock to hear that a prominent member of a church or sect either doesn’t know or may not subscribe to all the tenets of the church or sect to which he belongs. My own Southern Baptists had a knock-down drag out back in the 1980s over basic theology and doctrine, my conservative side more or less won, but most of the more liberal folks who were disputing some basic tenets stayed put in the SBC. Some, like Jimmy Carter, eventually left. He hasn’t been missed.
And then there’s the head of the Anglican church, Rowan Williams, disputing pretty much the entire Christmas birth story.
So there’s all that to consider here. Still, if the founding head of your church claims to have spoken directly with God, and you say that he didn’t, you have at the very least a problem to work out with your own church and you’ll probably hear from the elders. As a non-Mormon, I really don’t care all that much, though I’d be a little more careful than Mitt is here to claim that God hasn’t spoken to anyone directly since Moses. The Gospels themselves sort of militate against that, if you accept the divinity of Jesus.
Update (AP): Team Romney sends this quote:
Pre-Eminent Mormon Scholar Says Governor Romney’s Comment Doesn’t Contradict LDS Church. “Jan Shipps, one of the pre-eminent Mormon scholars, says Romney’s comment doesn’t contradict LDS Church beliefs because he mentions that God spoke to ’some others,’ and he didn’t just leave it at Moses.” (Thomas Burr, “Comment Appears At Odds With LDS Faith,” Salt Lake Tribune, 12/22/07)
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 »
Didn’t Hill’s cabal say we already had one?
Beto Ochoa on December 29, 2007 at 6:06 PM
Some say the first real world war was the Thirty Year’s war that was fought between Catholicism and Protestanism. That one was resolved by saying that a country adopted the religion of its ruler. The USA was founded so that the federal government was separated from questions of theology, and the states adopted that view gradually.
Natalie Jacobson and a few others seem to want to revisit those decisions.
pedestrian on December 29, 2007 at 6:07 PM
Go wash your fingers with soap.
broker1 on December 29, 2007 at 6:15 PM
This was the “particular question”:
Should God speak to you or should he speak to your prophets?
What “one word affirmative answer” do you have in mind exactly?
Short responses are not exactly your specialty, so this should be a fun challenge for you!
Buy Danish on December 29, 2007 at 6:20 PM
Muslim, Catholic, Mormon, Baptist, etc. It’d be a lot more interesting to hear Mitt talk about his interpretation of the Constitution than who hears divine voices and when.
dedalus on December 29, 2007 at 6:22 PM
That’s why I’d rather none of them talk about it. I’m sick of the topic, whatever their beliefs are. I don’t care and they are the ones who need to shut the media/questioners up about it. Nor should they, like Huckabee, have a whole platform on topic. Every time they speak, something like this ensues.
Entelechy on December 29, 2007 at 6:23 PM
Kettle…pot…
Entelechy on December 29, 2007 at 6:25 PM
Buy Danish, I can’t resist – look up the meaning of “blather”. You could write a mini-novel just on this.
Entelechy on December 29, 2007 at 6:25 PM
And the media licks their chops.
Now you know why I want the Giants to win tonight.(s/off)
Limerick on December 29, 2007 at 6:29 PM
Well, there you have it. Mormons hate Professors. Dang this has been a great thread.
RushBaby on December 29, 2007 at 6:31 PM
which is why I have added ‘or preachers’ below my ‘no solicitors’ sign.
Limerick on December 29, 2007 at 6:32 PM
Hard to tell sometimes, though Bush’s comment about consulting a “higher father” before the Iraq invasion brings some of the questions into play. In Bush’s case it would be hard to believe that even the “higher father” knew much more than his “actual father” about fighting Saddam and taking Baghdad–”Hi Ma? Dad around? Got a couple of ideas wanna run by him.”
dedalus on December 29, 2007 at 6:34 PM
Arguing about who or “when” the Messiah is or aint is as inane as arguing over which team is going to win the super bowl except the later at least is real.
The POTUS needs to be a man of one book,
The Constitution of the United States of America.
imho
A SECOND LOOK AT THOR?
TheSitRep on December 29, 2007 at 6:37 PM
Being a fellow Texan, I’m guessing your sign also features graphics of a big gun barrel…or at least a bullet-hole or six.
RushBaby on December 29, 2007 at 6:39 PM
Sorry the Fabio hair just doesn’t fly.
Limerick on December 29, 2007 at 6:40 PM
But he has some saa-weet motorcycles.
TheSitRep on December 29, 2007 at 6:46 PM
Ha Ha, not this Texan, I wouldn’t want to dissuade them and blow my chances at rehabilitating them.. [Men of the cloth excluded of course]
TheSitRep on December 29, 2007 at 6:49 PM
professor blather & blackrepublican
Given the inevitable show down, the Islamists would run through Mitt’s plastic fingers like mercury. Romney lacks what it takes to face off with Islam. Whatever his preparation, it’s primping that leaves him/US vulnerable to their direct blow. They have their own mindset; they see so through him, salivating at such an easy dish to consume.
maverick muse on December 29, 2007 at 6:57 PM
I don’t need to look up the definition of blather. Hopefully no one else does either.
Buy Danish on December 29, 2007 at 6:58 PM
maverick muse on December 29, 2007 at 6:57 PM
That and “consulting with attorneys”
blackrepublican on December 29, 2007 at 7:02 PM
i’m just gonna take a moment to repeat myself- IT’S NOT ABOUT MITT’S FAITH.
There was nothin’ wrong in the question. It was the same question JFK got about the Pope interferring in the business of state.
It is WELL known that Mormon folks believe that Folks in their church have heard the voice of God. That is not a BAD THING.
The problem comes when Mitt effectively answers with “Pope?? what Pope?? don’t know no POPE!” If JFK had given THAT answer- he NEVER would’ve been elected.
Ex-tex on December 29, 2007 at 7:04 PM
I could not agree more.
When it comes to electing a POTUS the only book I look at is the Constitution. (even if some of my comments suggest otherwise).
That is why I will be voting for Mickey Mouse next election.
There is no canidate that will take their oath of office seriously enough that they will actually adhere to that oath (how sad is that BTW).
Words mean things to me.
I hope someone can prove me wrong but from what I have seen no one is able to.
F15Mech on December 29, 2007 at 7:11 PM
Ex-tex on December 29, 2007 at 7:04 PM
from the mouths of babes
maverick muse on December 29, 2007 at 7:16 PM
Balderdash!
Buy Danish on December 29, 2007 at 7:16 PM
I refer to the part of History of The World Part 1 where Mel Brooks (Moses) brings fifteen, oops..er, ten commandments to the children of God.
People aren’t perfect now, they weren’t then and they weren’t way back when and the tenets of every faith aren’t either.
Holding Mitt to a faith standard is unfair and counter productive.
Speakup on December 29, 2007 at 7:17 PM
It’s not a Faith standard it’s a TRUTH standard.
Ex-tex on December 29, 2007 at 7:26 PM
F15Mech @7:11
Ja, bestimmt; words mean things.
Asking Romney to make his case for the Constitution, dedalus and thesitrep? Waiting for someone to remember that Mitt has hold of it’s saving thread? That seems to satisfy his supporters. Ask Mitt to speak for himself. He does so well against pressure /sarc.
Darn, being POTUS isn’t limited to managing your selective business clientelle, dropping those who make you feel uncomfortable or dropping those who beg to differ.
maverick muse on December 29, 2007 at 7:29 PM
I regret that you misunderstood, or that I wasn’t clear enough. I know that you and others know the meaning of “blather”. I wanted you to explain to us the different meanings, the “it depends”, though. Too bad…it w/b funny, given how extensive the meanings of “see/saw” were.
Entelechy on December 29, 2007 at 7:34 PM
Okay, so Mitt says that God hasen’t spoken to anyone since Moses, ‘and perhaps some others’. PERHAPS???!
The Mormon church is FOUNDED on the appearance of God to Joseph Smith! If God DIDN’t speak to Joseph Smith than Mormonism would be a fraud would it not? THAT is a pretty big mistake.
Mitt is intentionally MISREPRESENTING his church so voter will like him better.
I find that disgusting.
Ex-tex on December 29, 2007 at 7:35 PM
Could’a fooled me this looked like a faith discussion when I read through it.
Speakup on December 29, 2007 at 7:38 PM
Gee….I guess we should hold Rudy accountable for the Borgia Popes.
Limerick on December 29, 2007 at 7:45 PM
I could not have said it any better.
F15Mech on December 29, 2007 at 7:48 PM
What do you Mitt-en hold dear?? anything?? honor, truth, principle, faith? Dear God, stop your spinnin’ for this guy it makes the whole lot of you look like power hungry hustlers.
I pray that this man, Mitt Romney, is NEVER the leader of my beloved country. He has no honor.
Ex-tex on December 29, 2007 at 7:52 PM
I’m not a Mitt man. I’m a Fredhead.
Limerick on December 29, 2007 at 7:58 PM
BTW I never said I as running for POTUS did I?
I also gave a disclaimer when needed.
Last I checked as a private citizen I can agree/disagree with you with full impunity, if you want to slam me or disagree with me then you are free to do so.
Do not take my words out of context however.
F15Mech on December 29, 2007 at 8:00 PM
That’s a valid criticism, even though I don’t agree with it, I personally worry more about his ideology and how it might change once in office.
Rudy bothers me much worse than Mitt on that score.
So far as honor is concerned what I get from him is far from dishonorable.
Speakup on December 29, 2007 at 8:01 PM
I have read this accusation many times but mostly it is supported by a misunderstanding of the facts.
This careful comment by Mitt is a perfect example of it.
1) There is no religious test for office.
2) The reporters question was inappropriate and bigoted
3) His religious dogma isn’t relevant to the campaign
4) The question was asked in a way that any response, even a refusal to respond would have been criticized
Now, we have reporters complaining that Mitt didn’t answer a loaded question. As if any candidate should answer a loaded question in the worse way possible. That is the definition of intellectual dishonesty because they would never do the same to themselves.
csdeven on December 29, 2007 at 8:14 PM
The various denominations at the time of the revelation to JS were very hostile towards each other. They employed various despicable tactics to attract members that their modern day counterparts have eschewed.
It’s entirely possible that God viewed the churches of that day as being close to him in word, but far from him in their hearts.
It is patently unfair to equate what God told JS was the state of the churches then to what the state of the churches are today. In my view, the only people who even come close to abominable behavior today are the bigots who hide behind Gods words to justify their bigotry (the Westboro Baptist church). Now there are some sects that are more active than others, but the majority of folks are willing to allow the LDS to worship as they please.
csdeven on December 29, 2007 at 8:24 PM
Romney has this reputation for being so slick, but one again he has stumbled in explaining the subtleties of LDS theology to non-members. For Mormons, revelation (communication of God and humans) exists on a continuum. It ranges from face-to-face encounters, as when Old Testament prophets spoke with God “as one man speaks to another”, to individual human intuition when God speaks to you through your thoughts and feelings. The face-to-face kind is actually pretty rare. The intuition kind is much more common, which is what I think Mitt was getting at. I don’t believe he was intentionally misrepresenting Mormon doctrine or trying to “spin” anything. He was just trying to express Mormon concepts in non-LDS terms and not doing a very good job.
WasatchMan on December 29, 2007 at 9:13 PM
Why do I feel that Allah will make us endure another Hitch rant soon on this?
As for Romney, this is going to be an ongoing challenge for him. From what I know about the Mormans (which is little I admit) there are some little quirks about the faith that will be troublesome for Mitt in the future. And you can bet that the media will play it up and get as much mileage as they can out of it, especially if he becomes the front runner.
conservnut on December 29, 2007 at 9:23 PM
Well here we go again,bashing religion,you know what,
if Romney was any other denomination,they or should I say the very helpful media wouldn’t change their strategy one
bit.Seems to me I don’t see the Liberals being put under an
electron microscope on their religious beliefs.
I’ve been to a baptism at a Mormon Church. One of my cousins
was baptized,they were taken to a small pool which I thought
was different (as I am not of the same faith) however, found it was cool.
The media is making a big deal over nothing,again every time
it’s near election time,its the same freggin story,bash
the Republican’s for their beliefs,and give a free ride
on Liberal beliefs.
Media get a life,and may the most qualified candidate win
as we all know,there’s a war to be RUN.and WON.
canopfor on December 29, 2007 at 9:30 PM
I think Romney included “some others” because he knew he was speaking to a diverse audience and if he went into specifics of who he personally believed saw God face to face then, 1) the list would be rather long and probably full of names unfamiliar to non-LDS and 2) the minute he listed Joseph Smith the evangelicals would go ballistic.
So he’s just trying to be brief and non-controversial so he can move on to more relevant topics. No doubt he’s probably sick of having to defend the particular tenets of his faith to everyone and their dog–especially to those that just want to start a fight. I get sick of it, too.
drflykilla on December 29, 2007 at 9:57 PM
Paul, you know the guy who wrote a bunch of the New Testament, thought that someone bringing a different gospel was a very big deal. He cursed to eternal hell anybody who changed his original gospel message. A lot of Christians get that.
We Republicans have a much better choice than Flip Romney anyway.
Mojave Mark on December 29, 2007 at 10:03 PM
BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH ….
Nobody gives a f*ck.
thareb on December 29, 2007 at 10:13 PM
I’ve seen and listened to Mitt in dozens of interviews, all the debates, and roughly a third of his YouTube clips on his personal channel. (There’s a metric ton of the suckers.) My impressions are based on months of watching the guy campaign, and conversations with family and friends who have done the same.
Mitt is still the candidate I’m leaning toward, and the only one who’s received my campaign cash. So I don’t say this as an antagonist, but as someone who wishes he would campaign as well as I believe he’d govern. I wish he’d follow the Ace of Spades lead and toss off a “FY,NQ” or two in response to inappropriate or hostile questions. Or glare daggers through them, as Dubya does so well at times.
Romney is brilliant, methodical, pragmatic…but his off-the-cuff responses are often cringeworthy. Mitt is a problem solver, not a trial lawyer, and certainly not an orator.
sulla on December 29, 2007 at 10:15 PM
I agree. It is a political non-answer.
bnelson44 on December 29, 2007 at 10:17 PM
HEY GUYS I DIDN’T KNOW ROMNEY WAS A MORMON DID YOU?
Will this nonsense die already?
I’m Catholic. I find Romney’s beliefs to be heretical. Huckabee’s beliefs are also heretical. As are Guiliani’s, despite his supposed Catholicism.
I don’t care, I’m not electing any of them pastor.
BKennedy on December 29, 2007 at 11:06 PM
it’s a supposed flip-flop thing?
I’m getting that feeling, too.
jjjen on December 30, 2007 at 12:53 AM
I’d agree. That’s a pretty good assessment.
One cringe worthy response…..
“My sons serve this nation by getting me elected.”
Aie caramba!!!
csdeven on December 30, 2007 at 1:11 AM
I’ll just leave this thread alone, except to note that we have people here who, by reason of dodging the question, believe that Mormons deserve to be driven at gunpoint. So I’d be careful listening to much of the anti stuff (and I’m grateful there isn’t much of it).
Vanceone on December 30, 2007 at 4:09 AM
Agree, but is he a commander-in-chief?
I think AQ will try to attack big time after the election if a Rep. (or Obama) wins and I don’t see Mitt as the merciless son-of-a-bitch we’ll need when that happens. Does he have it in him to kill?
I don’t give a crap about his religion, unless it prevents him from massive retaliation against enemies.
JiangxiDad on December 30, 2007 at 9:08 AM
What happened to freedom of religion? Obviously, we have millions of morons in our midst who have rejected this crucial element of the Bill of Rights. People have a right to believe or not believe, practice or not practice as they like. (Unless, of course, their belief system includes plowing jumboliners into skyscapers. Then they must be prosecuted for killing, injuring, and destroying.)
I am getting very tired of Hucklebillies and their brand of “God is on our side” politics. As a born-again Christian, I find use of religion in this election sickening.
saved on December 30, 2007 at 9:23 AM
YEAH??? WHERE??? PROVE IT.
Ex-tex on December 30, 2007 at 10:04 AM
What HAPPENED to candidates telling the truth?
Mitt is UNABLE to tell the truth about ANYTHING. Including that which is SUPPOSED to be at the core of his life.
Ex-tex on December 30, 2007 at 10:07 AM
THIS is what this thread is REALLY about:
http://www.townhall.com/news/politics-elections/2007/12/30/analysis_romney_and_the_candor_gap?page=full&comments=true&submitted=true1f3a7f94-7ef4-4eb2-85f1-c0c45fb74aaf
Romney is incapable of telling the truth.
And I’m gettin’ REAL SICK of havin’ accusations of Religious bigotry thrown at me.
All you Mitt-en come out of the woodwork to post about how we’re usin’ ‘religious tests’. BULLSH*T- there is no ‘test’ and you KNOW IT. You just figure that if you can CHANGE THE SUBJECT TO MORMON BASHIN’ people WON’T NOTICE that your guy is a LYIN’ FLIP-FLOPPER.
You all act just like the Lib PC police- if anbody challenges Mitt- why they are bashin’ Mormons. If you’re gonna throw around accusations of religious bigotry you NEED TO BACK IT UP.
Ex-tex on December 30, 2007 at 10:33 AM
There is no religious test for president and any question regarding a candidates religion is inappropriate.
That is what this thread is really about. And you can challenge Mitt on the various so-called flip-flops and contradictions all day long. The fact that this so-called trait of Mitt’s has been pinned on him in the past and NOT for his religion seems to suggest that this religious issue is just a way to slam Mormons.
Your comment:
OK, fair enough. Then why not stick to the lies he tells that center on his political life? Those will be much more damaging and you wont open yourself to be called a gibot.
csdeven on December 30, 2007 at 10:46 AM
Someone sent out christmas cards in SC to people on behalf of Mitt with some controversial LDS messages and the Mitt campaign is not happy.
Here it is
broker1 on December 30, 2007 at 10:54 AM
csdeven is IN THE BUSINESS of hijacking Fred threads. Just ignore ALL of what he/she writes. IT’S ONLY WRITTEN TO GET YOU TO RESPOND AND CHANGE THE SUBJECT.
Ignore it.
Ex-tex on December 30, 2007 at 10:55 AM
Based on past performance- I believe the Mitt-en did it.
Ex-tex on December 30, 2007 at 10:56 AM
As the song says:
“I was talkin’ to God the other day,
Only one thing left to say-
‘Said: ‘Stop talkin’ ’bout God until you are
Human, -if you can get that far.’ ”
(Still trying to figure out why the hell a talking “Burning Bush”:
A) would impress anyone as anything but a weirdly trivial contrivance; B) perhaps meant something that the translation of the words “burning bush” has completely screwed up over time; C) wasn’t laughed at as a ludicrous methodology, even in 1000 B.C.)
Maybe Hillary or Obama should be asked?
profitsbeard on December 30, 2007 at 10:57 AM
You’re right, of course. This thread has nothing to do with religion; the only reason religion is mentioned here is that its just another thing Romney is willing to lie or quibble or weasel or flip-flop about.
Pay close attention, those Smitten with Mittens: the threads about Mitt’s flip-flops on abortion aren’t about abortion. They’re about his flip-flops.
The threads about Mitt’s flip-flops on gay rights or stem cell research aren’t about either gay rights or stem cell research: again, they’re about his flip-flops.
The threads about MLK and the “see-saw” embarrassment have nothing to do with Romney’s civil rights record. They’re about his painfully transparent lies – and the willingness of his supporters to spin desperately.
The threads about the “I’m a lifelong hunter” debacle have nothing to do with hunting. They’re about Mitt’s pattern of dishonesty.
Why do you folks pretend not to understand this?
This thread has nothing to do with religion. It is about Romney once again either lying or fumbling or flip-flopping, and about his people once again having to clarify and spin his comments.
That’s not actually a bad point. There are plenty of lies to discuss without going near Romney’s religion. Google: “Romney flip-flops.” What you’ll find is stunning. And his Mormonism never needs to be mentioned.
The only reason its relevant at all is because for most people, no matter how dishonest, their religion might be the one area in which they wouldn’t flip-flop or quibble or spin. And Romney even fails that test.
Professor Blather on December 30, 2007 at 11:02 AM
Now THAT is about his religion – and assuming it was done by opponents to intentionally use his religion to smear him, it should be condemned by everyone.
That kind of crap serves no useful purpose and I hope they string the bastards who did it up by their thumbs. THAT is what bigotry looks like. I’d hope we all agree on that.
Professor Blather on December 30, 2007 at 11:06 AM
Professor- the next time I’m gonna say “YEAH, What he said”
Thank you for jumpin’ in on this. Like Marcus Aurelius said “The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.”
Ex-tex on December 30, 2007 at 11:11 AM
Uhh… not a mormon… but from what I remember and from a quick internet search…
YOU”RE WRONG!
J. Smith was visited by various “Prophets” including Moses… and Angels… and was “given” old pieces of the Bible that had been destroyed by the Church…
And I remember Jesus talking TO God… and being visited by Angels and such… but don’t remember God showing up like a Burning Bush…
If I remember, even Mohamed was visited by an Angel… not Allah himself…
So… Mitt was actualy pretty darn right in his first statement… and covered himself well by the second part for those who “believe” they are told things by GOD himself…
Romeo13 on December 30, 2007 at 11:13 AM
SOOO the information in the clip is wrong????
Ex-tex on December 30, 2007 at 11:15 AM
Here’s what this thread is really about. Read it and weep. You can weep literally or figuratively. You choose.
Personally, when it comes to Romney, I can’t decide whether to laugh or cry. Probably both.
Okay. I’ve decided. I’m going to just keep laughing for now.
If he gets the nomination … THEN I’ll start weeping.
Professor Blather on December 30, 2007 at 11:15 AM
Sigh.
So … the spin was wrong? The clarification was wrong?
Maybe his camp should spin the spin and clarify the clarification. Bryan, we need an update to the update, stat.
I think I’m back to weeping now. Madness? Madness!? This is Romney!
Professor Blather on December 30, 2007 at 11:17 AM
Okay, how is quoting Mormon doctrine, verbatim, smearing him?
lowandslow on December 30, 2007 at 11:18 AM
Double sigh.
Son, if you can’t understand why cherry-picking a few verses from your opponents religion, highlighting the juicy bits in big font, and then sending them out in a fake mailing that supposedly came from the candidate – is the worst sort of ugly, bigoted, smear … I can’t even begin to help you.
If you’re opposed to Mitt, do me a favor and keep your mouth shut. You ain’t helping. At all.
Have it, those of you Smitten with Mittens. Sic ‘em, boys.
You’re right – I’m wrong. There is a religious component to this. This I can’t even try to defend.
Professor Blather on December 30, 2007 at 11:26 AM
All the candidates in both parties are pretty seriously flawed. So I’m looking for the motivation behind their flipflops/lies, and/or a reason to grudingly accept the flaw. If it hides an agenda like socialism (for Hillary) I rule them out. If it hides a desire to get the job, I keep them in.
So which flipflopping lying son-of-a-bitc* has both the ability and intention to defend the country by vigorously fighting back and securing the borders, retain capitalism, try to keep the economy humming along, keep my personal rights secure, and not sell us out to the libs?
So far, nobody has made a convincing case. But Mitt’s case is hardly worse than others.
JiangxiDad on December 30, 2007 at 11:32 AM
Professor- I’m curious, do you really think that another candidate would bother to do this? at Christmas? When there is already SO much to REALLY attack Mitt on?
I just can’t see it. It looks to me more like an attempt to gin up ‘anti-religon bashing sympathy’ FOR Mitt. But maybe I’m just too cynical.
Ex-tex on December 30, 2007 at 11:33 AM
Well, at least that’s honest. No spin there. If you can convince me that Mitt’s that guy, I guess I don’t care if he’s a lying, pandering sack of shit, either.
Professor Blather on December 30, 2007 at 11:34 AM
Fred Dalton Thompson, son.
Ex-tex on December 30, 2007 at 11:38 AM
Let me clarify: my above comments assume the mailing was done by a supporter of Mitt’s opponents.
If it turns out that a Mitt supporter – or the Romney campaign itself – was responsible, I’m just going to die laughing and start drinking heavily. Or start laughing heavily and die drinking. One of those. Or maybe just go blimp shopping.
And no – I wouldn’t exactly be stunned to find out it was a Romney supporter. But until I see evidence of that, I’m assuming it was from an opponent and condemning it as it so richly deserves.
I’m starting to wish for nothing but atheist candidates. Religion + Politics = Me laughing/weeping/drinking/puking.
Take care, folks. I’m going for a blimp ride with Jessica Alba.
Professor Blather on December 30, 2007 at 11:38 AM
It’s true that Romney didn’t exactly rule out his belief that God spoke to Joseph Smith, but good Lord, what a freaking weasel!
packsoldier on December 30, 2007 at 11:39 AM
Romeo13 on December 30, 2007 at 11:45 AM
His motivation was to keep people off the issue of his religion. If he were to asked that same question in private, without cameras, he’d name off everyone he believes has spoken to God. His answer was a political one to an inappropriate asinine question that was designed to make him look like a crackpot. Since his religion has no bearing on his candidacy, the answer has no bearing on his worthiness for the office.
csdeven on December 30, 2007 at 11:47 AM
Dude- go to the top of the thread and WATCH (listen,too) the video that BRYAN posted.
Then come’on back.
Ex-tex on December 30, 2007 at 11:47 AM
Professor Blather
Bullshit, Romney spent 2 years of his life peddling this same message, now when someone uses the exact same words to highlight what he believes he cries like a little girl that the bigots are out to get him. These aren’t random passages, this is the core of their religion, he’s just knows how damaging it can be that’s why he manipulates it to cover his ass. The problem is now the Mormons are getting upset with him for distorting their beliefs.
And spare me your holier than thou attitude that religion shouldn’t be a part of his campaign. You must have fell for csdeven nonsense of what he believes Article 6 is all about.
If someones religious beliefs make you question his judgment and abilities to be President you absolutely should consider it. Something you already know but you’re to gutless to admit. So you act the part of the all enlightened one so you can bash and ridicule Romney without dipping your toes in all that ugly religious stuff. You’re as phony as he is.
lowandslow on December 30, 2007 at 11:55 AM
Book of Mormon… first visitation…
Your taking the Word of MEDIA about a belief system.
Not gonna search the whole book for you… not a Mormon meself… but I do remember discussing this with a Mormon freind of mine years ago.
Romeo13 on December 30, 2007 at 11:59 AM
The official account of the first visitation written by Joseph Smith in 1838 recounts the visitation of God and Jesus to Smith. God speaks directly to Smith, as shown in the video.
Ex-tex on December 30, 2007 at 12:07 PM
That is perhaps the wackiest statement ever on HA.
Beto Ochoa on December 30, 2007 at 12:17 PM
Amen.
Ex-tex on December 30, 2007 at 12:24 PM
vanceone
Why don’t you put on your big boy pants and stop snivelling? That was a prime example of the ridiculous Mormon persecution complex. I have to listen to this kind of moronic whining all the time…even here in Mormon-dominated Utah.
packsoldier on December 30, 2007 at 1:05 PM
Rather than Romney simply state what he believes and let the chips fall where they may, he feels the need to try and finesse Mormonism so that is sounds more orthodox than it is. When your founding “prophet” taught the existence of many Gods, polygamy, black people are black because they’re cursed by one of the aforementioned Gods, Amerindians are actually Jewish, and people who dress like Quakers live on the moon, that’s going to be a tall order.
Lotsa luck Mitt. You’re gonna need it.
Mojave Mark on December 30, 2007 at 1:09 PM
The Mormon faith is way off my path for sure. I once skimmed through the Book or the Mormon left bedside at a Mariott hotel and pretty much could not figure it out.
Yet it doesn’t seem to create citizens who offend my Christian faith. They are very well behaved as a group.
Mitt’s dad did not exhibit bizarre behaviour as governor of Michigan. Geo Romney was a moderate Republican who got in trouble speaking his mind.
Mitt is a blurter like his (I’ve been brainwashed) dad.
In the current scandalous climate that may not be as much of a negative.
I am on hold right now absorbing the free falls. Someone will bounce back when they hit the pavements. Just hope the RNC isn’t there to help patch them up
entagor on December 30, 2007 at 1:27 PM
Candidate Romney would be better served to tell folks his walk with God is his alone and that if they are curious about LDS dogma to consult the twelve high priests in Salt Lake City that have authority over him.
That’s one aspect JFK didn’t have to explain about catholicism. JFK wasn’t an ordained priest of the, allegedly, only faith recognized, authorized and currently constituted by The Almighty God.
Beto Ochoa on December 30, 2007 at 1:27 PM
Damaging to who? We’ve already established that a candidates religion is not a valid consideration for his worthiness in office. Mitt isn’t damaged by people who understand that because they don’t care. So, he is only damaged by those who consider his religion an issue. And those people already wont vote for him. His goal is to avoid saying things that would push current supporters and undecideds away. This comment could only be questioned by LDS persons and they know exactly why he said it and they have no problem with it. They understand the mentality of that reporter. They’ve been dealing with it since the founding of their church.
csdeven on December 30, 2007 at 2:22 PM
I haven’t been privy to all of the conversations that vancone has had, but his concern is based in fact AND I have seen some pretty vile comments made towards the LDS.
In 1838, Governor Boggs issued an extermination order that made it legal to murder Mormons on sight.
csdeven on December 30, 2007 at 2:45 PM
I believe Gov Boggs died a long time back and I don’t see any armed mobs clamoring for blood on HA.
vanceone said “we have people here who… believe that Mormons deserve to be driven at gunpoint.”
That’s wacky.
Beto Ochoa on December 30, 2007 at 3:01 PM
Just because you and I haven’t seen it doesn’t mean Vancone hasn’t seen it. That is my point. And it isn’t like it hasn’t happened before, ergo my comment about governor Boggs.
And I doubt it’s “whacky”. It is more likely an example of using hyperbole, which everyone uses on occasion.
csdeven on December 30, 2007 at 5:37 PM
Now it is clear to me why you have no credibility on HA.
Beto Ochoa on December 30, 2007 at 5:54 PM
This looks like something you rabid anti-Mormon commenters would approve of.
WasatchMan on December 30, 2007 at 7:11 PM
This could be what Vanceone is referring to. Use Control F and search for NRA4Freedom.
This dude is the type who could have written the phony Christmas cards that were sent out in South Carolina. He’s motivated!
Buy Danish on December 30, 2007 at 7:13 PM
Yeah, I like that article too. I’ll never look at Battlestar Galactica the same way again.
As a Boy Scout commissioner, I deal with Mormons all the time. They’re about 20-25 percent of the BSA membership, so it’s hard not to. In fact, every LDS male ages 11 to 15 is automatically in the Scouts, as it’s apparently part of their priesthood formation, or whatever.
On one hand, they are the most civil of people with whom to ever do volunteer work. That can be a real plus when you want to cut down on the petty bickering. On the other hand, their ready source of youth membership makes them a bit naive when it comes to matters of recruitment. It’s as if they’re saying, hey, we don’t have a problem getting new members, why should you?
Try explaining any differently, it’s like they’re from another planet. Which might explain why they believe in eventually ruling their own.
But seriously, folks…
As a practicing Catholic, I can’t defend Mormonism, but I have nothing against them as people. Still, I wish the campaign would focus more on the issues. Where this comes in, it seems to me, is in the area of character. What does a man’s private belief say about his public conduct, including his prudential judgement while in office? If a candidate is going to “spin” his convictions to favor the moment, it says more about him than it does his belief system. Such is the extent of my interest in a candidate’s religion. Beyond that…. (shrug!)
manwithblackhat on December 30, 2007 at 7:18 PM
Wow.
I really love how all these Mormon threads devolve into reflexive name calling and unjust accusations of bigotry.
Really.
Not to mention that Adam himself was God.
Heck, even if you go beyond Young, you find a whole lot of weird stuff in Mormon doctrine. Like that “Eternal Progression” deal and the bit about Jesus’ death not providing full payment for sin.
Personally, I don’t pretend to confuse Mormonism with Christianity, but I’m not going to use the whole “fair and white” thing as an excuse to play the racist card either.
Ryan Gandy on December 30, 2007 at 7:28 PM
Its too cheap of an attack for my tastes.
Ryan Gandy on December 30, 2007 at 7:29 PM
Mormons raise the best most awesome young leaders of future that any of you can imagine! I am not religious but Mormons are raising the future leaders of America. Baptists are raising the future welfare cases. Mormons don’t believe that a gift to the church will make them wealthy. It is just a duty, and a hard one, to their fellow man. Evangelicals seem to think that a tithe is an investment. Which is extra warped.
As a godless heathen I would prefer a Mo as president over any of you other religions.
ronsfi on December 30, 2007 at 7:38 PM
Mitt and Mormonism theology are like grabbing a greased watermelon. The more to try to grasp it, the faster it slips away. Was impeached President Clinton trained by Mormons?
The only choice you have is to to decide if you can vote for him without pressing the faith issue, or get a theological brain freeze trying.
Hening on December 30, 2007 at 7:48 PM
And the Mormon gospel is one of obedience … if you don’t tithe, you expose yourself to God’s wrath at the Second Coming of Christ. How “extra warped” is that?
Ryan Gandy on December 30, 2007 at 8:07 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »