CNN contributors: If Rev. Wright is fair game, so is Mormonism’s racial history

posted at 5:39 pm on May 17, 2012 by Allahpundit

Via Mediaite. On the one hand, this probably was a consideration in Team Mitt’s mad dash this morning to distance themselves from the now-kaput Rev. Wright Super PAC ad. On the other hand, does anyone think the media’s going to let Romney’s faith pass unremarked upon if he’s three or four points up on O circa early October? Newsweek was willing to churn out this cover last year; imagine what they’ll do once real panic sets in.

John Ziegler has an interesting theory about today’s trial balloon:

Secondly, a proper attack on the Wright issue could provide a strong defense, or at least a deterrent, on the “Mormon issue” regarding Romney’s religion.

The media has already made it clear that they intend to make Romney’s religion a campaign topic, either overtly or covertly, whenever possible. By making Wright a major campaign subject this puts the media/Obama campaign in a rather tough spot. If they condemn the Wright attacks, then it makes it extremely difficult for them to “go Mormon.” If they don’t, then at least the issue is neutralized as very few undecided voters are going to view Romney’s Mormonism as more of a negative than Obama’s Wright connection. My gut tells me this is a good trade for the Romney forces. At worst, it is a wash.

In other words, Rev. Wright and Mormonism act as nuclear weapons in Romney’s and Obama’s respective arsenals. In theory, a launch would bring about mutually assured destruction. Would it really, though? Obama might sustain some damage but the issue is old news for many voters; if anything, it’d be a handy change of subject for him on the economy, especially with the media in full gasping-indignation mode on behalf of their guy. By contrast, depending upon how nasty and demagogic O’s surrogates are, attacking Mitt’s Mormonism could be a way to define him negatively for swaths of voters who are unfamiliar with him. As BuzzFeed points out, most Americans know next to nothing about LDS, which makes it a blank slate that might be used effectively by a sufficiently vicious/desperate campaign operative. If you’re going to rattle the campaign saber about Rev. Wright, do it because you think that’s an important issue, not because it might deter O’s boosters from dragging religion into this. Because it won’t.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

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: 1 2 3 4

Your standard is that they are infallible when you want them to be or they agree with your doctrine,

There you go again.

Arrogantly telling us what our standard must be.

More “intellectual dishonesty”.

The quotes I gave were not “conversation”, but actual discourses,

written prophecies, statements of facts from a prophet

…you just reject them because they don’t “fit”…well you don’t get “two chances” at a call.

There you go again.

Arrogantly telling us what our material must be.

More “intellectual dishonesty”.

“If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the Lord does not take place or come true, that is a message the Lord has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him” (Deut. 18:22).

When a PROPHET SPEAKS and his words DO NOT come to pass

More “intellectual dishonesty”. What happened to the required part of being “in the name of the Lord”?

We don’t find that ANYWHERE in the quotes you have provided.

The Bible makes it clear that a prophet is someone who speaks on God’s behalf to the people and there is no inaccuracy in his words.

Really? So by this standard you have just rejected the prophet Samuel, because he told Saul he would meet him at a certain time and then didn’t show.

1 Sam 13:7 And some of the Hebrews went over Jordan to the land of Gad and Gilead. As for Saul, he was yet in Gilgal, and all the people followed him trembling.
8 ¶ And he tarried seven days, according to the set time that Samuel had appointed: but Samuel came not to Gilgal; and the people were scattered from him.
9 And Saul said, Bring hither a burnt offering to me, and peace offerings. And he offered the burnt offering.
10 And it came to pass, that as soon as he had made an end of offering the burnt offering, behold, Samuel came; and Saul went out to meet him, that he might salute him.
11 ¶ And Samuel said, What hast thou done? And Saul said, Because I saw that the people were scattered from me, and that thou camest not within the days appointed, and that the Philistines gathered themselves together at Michmash;

So, Samuel lied to Saul as to when he would show up. By your standard Samuel is a false prophet.

When the prophets of old got their message from God, it was perfect, free from any error.

Obviously not.

They spoke confidently knowing that what they said God would bring to pass.

Obviously not.

If one preaches and is in error…they are not a prophet.

right2bright on May 18, 2012 at 4:33 PM

So, Jonah was a false prophet because Ninevah was not destroyed.

WOW!!!

You now reject TWO Biblical prophets. You really are on a roll here.

Gunlock Bill on May 18, 2012 at 5:02 PM

Statements of opinion made by O. Pratt do not doctrine make. Especially since the LDS church repudiated “The Seer” long ago.

If you had been “intellectually honest” you would have found this out and acknowledged it.

Gunlock Bill on May 18, 2012 at 4:39 PM

Here, I will help you out and provide a source.

http://www.fairlds.org/authors/starr-lance/is_the_seer_a_reliable_source

Notice that it was repudiated in August of 1865, and yet you are (intellectually) dishonestly representing it as LDS doctrine in May of 2012.

Gunlock Bill on May 18, 2012 at 5:08 PM

Jonah 3:3 So Jonah arose, and went unto Nineveh, according to the word of the Lord. Now Nineveh was an exceeding great city of three days’ journey.
4 And Jonah began to enter into the city a day’s journey, and he cried, and said, Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown.

And yet Nineveh was NOT overthrown. So, by your standard Jonah was a false prophet.

Gunlock Bill on May 18, 2012 at 5:11 PM

right2bright;

I gotta go and cannot return for at least anoth two days. Sonme quick points.

Jeremiah 34:4-6 speaks the prophecy of Jeremiah saying that king Zedekiah will not “die by the sword”, will “die in peace”, his death will be lamented, and a kingly funerary procedure will result after his death. Jeremiah 52: 10-11 shows King Zedekiah being captured, having his children slaughtered in front of him and having his eyes “put out”. The only prophecy fulfilled according to Jeremiah’s words was that King Zedekiah did not die “by the sword’. Your interpretation of Deuteronomy 18:22 is therefore incorrect, sir. In fact, your interpretation places your faith in the words of the prophecy, not God Himself who may alter the conditions of any prophecy according to his will. Like Jonah, your faith is misplaced. This I mention in addition to what Gunlock Bill has already pointed out to you. That your standard upon LDs prophets is different to the standards you place on ancient prophets. My standard (and Gunlock’s)is consistant to both.

As for my question regarding sacrificing your child, yes if God told you to do so, would you? I do not think you would. I’d have trouble with it myself. Obviously I’m referring to Abraham but my main point is that placing such “would you’ conditions upon the faithful is stupid.

Darren on May 18, 2012 at 5:32 PM

Darren on May 18, 2012 at 5:32 PM

So Jeremiah joins Samuel and Jonah under right2bright’s anti-Mormon bus.

Gunlock Bill on May 18, 2012 at 5:50 PM

More “intellectual dishonesty” by you.

Notice that he is quoting Celsus. And you are representing it as a statement of J.M. Grant.

Gunlock Bill on May 18, 2012 at 4:39 PM

Oh good grief, he went on to state that he fully supported the statement, that is why I quoted it…good grief, I assumed you were learned about your prophets. He quoted him, and confirmed what he stated…now how does that make you feel? Since you dissed what Celsus states, I assume now that you feel J.M. Grant, with his prophecy was also false? Ooops you stepped in it again…

Statements that Brigham Young may or may not have made as recorded in Journal of Discourses do not LDS doctrine make. Also notice that Jesus is not mentioned at all in that statement.

Of course, you pick and choose what you want him to be honest about…and yes he did not say Jesus, just “the Lord” and it was in a sermon about Jesus….ooops again on your part.
See what happens when you delve into details, your “facts” fall apart, unless you ignore the prophets, and just think that his recorded words, sermons, statements are all just parlor talk and prophets only speak through what? Their writings, want to go there, I don’t think so…how about discourses, no you won’t accept those, sermons? No you don’t accept those either…I am not sure how you choose what a “prophet” says is real or just babble.
So far one thing is sure…when they say something you don’t like, it’s babble, when they say something you concur with, it’s a “prophecy”. Kind of a pick and save of beliefs, pretty cool.
Pratt was a prophet

On his return to America in 1841, Pratt found the Church membership in contention over several issues. Rumors and gossip were rife in Nauvoo, Illinois and Pratt found the religious principle of plural marriage difficult to accept. He rebelled against Smith when he found that his wife, Sarah Pratt, accused Smith of attempting to seduce her. Pratt was disciplined and excommunicated August 20, 1842. Some months later, he reconciled with Smith and requested re-baptism. Pratt was reinstated in the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles on January 20, 1843.[4]

In 1886, Orson’s wife Sarah Pratt claimed in an interview that, while in Nauvoo, Illinois, Joseph Smith, Jr. was attracted to her and intended to make her “one of his spiritual wives” while Orson was in England on missionary service.[9] To Smith’s proposal Sarah replied, “Am I called upon to break the marriage covenant … to my lawful husband! I never will. I care not for the blessings of Jacob, and I believe in NO SUCH revelations, neither will I consent under any circumstances. I have one good husband, and that is enough for me.”[10] Pratt issued an ultimatum to Smith: “Joseph, if you ever attempt any thing of the kind with me again, I will tell Mr. Pratt on his return home. Depend upon it, I will certainly do it,”[11] a warning that elicited the threat from Smith, “Sister Pratt, I hope you will not expose me; if I am to suffer, all suffer; so do not expose me. … If you should tell, I will ruin your reputation, remember that.”

Of course from Wiki…so I don’t know, but other Mormon’s have quoted from Wiki, so I did also…but man, what a wild time they were having back in those days…10 wives, a sixteen year old bride, where his wife was upset, great times…Smith making the move on a married women (not the first), hey, just some prophets letting lose, having some fun.

right2bright on May 18, 2012 at 6:21 PM

You now reject TWO Biblical prophets. You really are on a roll here.

Gunlock Bill on May 18, 2012 at 5:02 PM

Hey, how about the original start of this thread, where you accused me of stating something I never stated…you never have got around to apologizing to me for falsely accusing me…you just keep bringing up different stuff to try to hide from your accusation.
Let’s see you come up with an apology…or sit down, and stop whining…you first have to prove to be a man.

right2bright on May 18, 2012 at 6:25 PM

More “intellectual dishonesty”. What happened to the required part of being “in the name of the Lord”?

We don’t find that ANYWHERE in the quotes you have provided.

Because when a man takes the pulpit, and preaches, that is the statement, he doesn’t have to say “I am in this pulpit this day, this hour to speak for the Lord, however the other day when I was preaching to you, at 3:15 to 3:25, I was not speaking for the Lord”…what do you think he is in a pulpit for? Good grief, how embarrassing for you…

right2bright on May 18, 2012 at 6:28 PM

Anyone who was alive to know for sure if Christ was married or not has been dead, and their bones have turned to dust.

There is no way to prove he was, nor is there way to prove he was not.

If anyone runs into the Ancient Apostle who was promised to tarry on the Earth until Christ’s return, please ask him for an authoritative answer. Until that point, there is no answer that is going to accepted by both sides.

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on May 18, 2012 at 4:54 PM

With your reasoning he could have been a child molester, since no one is alive to confirm or deny…I would think, since marriage was well documented, that it is pretty obvious he was not married and that you are reeeeeacccching.
In fact, he could have been a alien creature, no one knows for sure…funny how no apostle ever referred to a wife, and He never referred to his wife, and none of the women ever referred to a wife…gee, maybe he didn’t have a wife, do ya thunk? Duhhhh! this is getting rather foolish, and it goes to show the extremes you have to move to defend a strange religion.
Jews don’t to those gymnastics, they just say, read the old (original) Testament (Torah)…Christians just say, need an answer, just read the bible…Mormons’ have a couple of books, and prophets that say one thing one time, sometimes in the name of their lord, others not, but no one knows when…so you concoct amazing stories to survive…a prophet is wrong? Kick him out…Smith said what about some Egyptian writings, he was just kidding? American Indians, Jews…ooops DNA shows different, well is was never really said but a few times, but never meant…God’s of a world, naw never teach it, except Young believed it, but it isn’t official, but you can build a world when you become a God, but it is never taught…the mental gymnastics are incredible.
And if cornered…call your critics bigots, that always works…

btw, I never said what I am accused of…show some huevos and correct your fellow Mormon that is making false accusations…let’s see how honest you guys really are….

right2bright on May 18, 2012 at 6:39 PM

btw, I never said what I am accused of…show some huevos and correct your fellow Mormon that is making false accusations…let’s see how honest you guys really are….

right2bright on May 18, 2012 at 6:39 PM

Did I accuse you?

Nope… so go pound sand.

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on May 18, 2012 at 6:41 PM

Because when a man takes the pulpit, and preaches, that is the statement,

Maybe to you anti-Mormons but not for us. Thanks for providing another example of Evangelicals misrepresenting our beliefs.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/on-faith/richard-mouw-evangelical-leader-says-engaging-mormonism-isnt-just-about-being-nice/2012/05/14/gIQA6wTMPU_story.html

he doesn’t have to say “I am in this pulpit this day, this hour to speak for the Lord, however the other day when I was preaching to you, at 3:15 to 3:25, I was not speaking for the Lord”…what do you think he is in a pulpit for?

A pulpit is for speaking DUH. Speaking from a pulpit doesn’t automatically mean you are speaking for, or in behalf of the Lord. Saying “thus saith the Lord” leaves no doubt that what is being said is supposed to be a prophecy.

But you must maintain your unreasonable drivel, otherwise you argument falls to pieces.

Good grief, how embarrassing for you…

right2bright on May 18, 2012 at 6:28 PM

And, of course, you aren’t embarrassed for misrepresenting our beliefs and not letting us declare our own doctrine. Because that is just the kind of person you are.

Gunlock Bill on May 21, 2012 at 3:05 PM

right2bright on May 18, 2012 at 6:21 PM

Quoting the “claims” of a self admitted non believer and “apostate” made more than 40 years AFTER the supposed incident occurred doesn’t bolster your argument much.

http://content.lib.utah.edu/cdm4/document.php?CISOROOT=%2Fdialogue&CISOPTR=19553&REC=12&CISOBOX=Sarah+Pratt+Bennett+Goddards+highly+improbable

Gunlock Bill on May 21, 2012 at 3:49 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4