Mitt Romney 2008 - Can a Mormon be president?
- Thread starter Jim Colyer
- Start date
sleaterkinney said:
Why not?
Is it worse than the idea of the "Virgin Mary" or some guy named Muhammed that happened to be a prophet from God.
It all sounds crazy.
But we are all entitled to our opinions.
One can be secular and not have an outright hostility towards religion. Now thats something secular Europeans need to learn.
Fez909
toilet expert
mears said:
That depends on whether you see religion as a benign force in the world. I don't, as it happens.
Ironically, it's events from America that have led me to hold this position with respect to the teaching - or not in this case - of science.
When religion becomes a personal choice and doesn't encroach on the teaching of accepted scientific theories, then that will be the day I'll be curbing my hostility towards it.
sleaterkinney
Well-Known Member
Would you elect a scientologist towards public office mears?.mears said:
What do you think of this article of faith from the Mormons:
Is that something you would vote for?
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
I always find mears use of the term 'need to' intriguing.
It seems terribly arrogant.
I may decide that I need to learn to speak Italian if I'd like to take a job in Italy or read certain texts, but how does the 'need' part work when what we're really talking about is differing viewpoints on either side of the Atlantic?
Just why do Europeans 'need' to learn to think like Americans.
It's not at all obvious to me why this would be in any way a good thing or a pressing 'need'.
It seems terribly arrogant.
I may decide that I need to learn to speak Italian if I'd like to take a job in Italy or read certain texts, but how does the 'need' part work when what we're really talking about is differing viewpoints on either side of the Atlantic?
Just why do Europeans 'need' to learn to think like Americans.
It's not at all obvious to me why this would be in any way a good thing or a pressing 'need'.
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
Jim Colyer said:
Let's hope to christ that the american people have the sense to reject this joker.
I suppose it's every person's right to believe what they want to believe, but Mr. Romney believes that Joseph Smith found some special goggles that let him read stone tablets from God, located in Missouri, or some such state.
He believes that all people are descended from Laman and Lemuel, two of God's angels. One of them, I can never remember which, but I think it's Laman, broke away from God, and some of the children of God sided with him. As a mark of their shame, God turned them black: that's where black people come from today.
Yes, Mr. Romney can believe whatever he wants, but do you really want someone in the Oval Office who believes such things?
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
mears said:
That's not exactly correct. All mormons believed and did what the so called 'freaks' are doing today.
What happened is that Utah had to outlaw polygamy etc, when it wanted to join the Union.
So what actually happened, is that the 'freaks' stuck with the original teachings of the religion.
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
Although blacks could join the church, they couldn't, until very recently, become bishops in that church.
Why?
Well, here is an answer written by a Mormon. See if you can understand it.
Why were blacks denied the priesthood for so long?
by Joseph Fielding McConkie
A meaningful response to this question rests on an understanding of what the priesthood is. That understanding is generally not had by those asking the question. A typical dictionary definition is "the office and vocation of a priest." For a Latter-day Saint, the priesthood is appreciably more than that. The priesthood embraces the power and authority to act in the name of God. It is the authority to represent Deity in teaching the gospel and in performing the ordinances of salvation. Independent of the Spirit of revelation there can be no priesthood. One can hardly profess to speak for a God who will not speak to him. In legal terms, priesthood can be likened to the power of attorney, which is the legal authority by which one person acts in the name of another.
If one accepts the Latter-day Saint claim to priesthood--that is, that only within The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints can the authority be found to speak for God--one must at the same time accept what God has said through that priesthood. This was the principle that Christ taught when he told the meridian Twelve, "Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you" (John 15:16). Thus if one believes that Peter, James, and John did in fact confer the authority they received from the Savior upon Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery, one must also believe that the priesthood is to function as those to whom the apostles entrusted it direct. On the other hand, if a person does not believe that Latter-day Saints have this authority, then he cannot be asking the question out of concern for those denied this priesthood. Such a person should be relieved rather than offended that the Latter-day Saints have not given to others a priesthood in which he does not believe.
Answers to questions about why the Lord, in his wisdom, chooses to withhold certain privileges or blessings from certain people for a period of time are generally not known to us. At the time of Moses, the Melchizedek Priesthood was taken from the children of Israel. In its stead they were given the Aaronic, or Lesser, Priesthood. This priesthood was restricted to worthy males of the tribe of Levi. We are told in a revelation on the priesthood that the higher priesthood was taken because the children of Israel failed to sanctify themselves that they might stand in the presence of God (see D&C 84:19-25). This statement, however, leaves unanswered the question about why unborn generations were denied the priesthood because of the failure of their progenitors. Many similar situations exist. Why, for instance, are some nations required to wait so much longer than others to receive the blessings of the gospel? Or why are some couples who want children so badly unable to have them? Or why are some who desire to find a companion to whom they can be sealed in the temple unable to do so?
Our response to such questions must be one of faith. We simply trust the wisdom of God and accept his timetable. We know that he loves all his children and that the withholding of certain blessings for a time and season will not go unrewarded.
http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/response/general/Blacks_Priesthood_Pyle.htm
Why?
Well, here is an answer written by a Mormon. See if you can understand it.
Why were blacks denied the priesthood for so long?
by Joseph Fielding McConkie
A meaningful response to this question rests on an understanding of what the priesthood is. That understanding is generally not had by those asking the question. A typical dictionary definition is "the office and vocation of a priest." For a Latter-day Saint, the priesthood is appreciably more than that. The priesthood embraces the power and authority to act in the name of God. It is the authority to represent Deity in teaching the gospel and in performing the ordinances of salvation. Independent of the Spirit of revelation there can be no priesthood. One can hardly profess to speak for a God who will not speak to him. In legal terms, priesthood can be likened to the power of attorney, which is the legal authority by which one person acts in the name of another.
If one accepts the Latter-day Saint claim to priesthood--that is, that only within The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints can the authority be found to speak for God--one must at the same time accept what God has said through that priesthood. This was the principle that Christ taught when he told the meridian Twelve, "Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you" (John 15:16). Thus if one believes that Peter, James, and John did in fact confer the authority they received from the Savior upon Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery, one must also believe that the priesthood is to function as those to whom the apostles entrusted it direct. On the other hand, if a person does not believe that Latter-day Saints have this authority, then he cannot be asking the question out of concern for those denied this priesthood. Such a person should be relieved rather than offended that the Latter-day Saints have not given to others a priesthood in which he does not believe.
Answers to questions about why the Lord, in his wisdom, chooses to withhold certain privileges or blessings from certain people for a period of time are generally not known to us. At the time of Moses, the Melchizedek Priesthood was taken from the children of Israel. In its stead they were given the Aaronic, or Lesser, Priesthood. This priesthood was restricted to worthy males of the tribe of Levi. We are told in a revelation on the priesthood that the higher priesthood was taken because the children of Israel failed to sanctify themselves that they might stand in the presence of God (see D&C 84:19-25). This statement, however, leaves unanswered the question about why unborn generations were denied the priesthood because of the failure of their progenitors. Many similar situations exist. Why, for instance, are some nations required to wait so much longer than others to receive the blessings of the gospel? Or why are some couples who want children so badly unable to have them? Or why are some who desire to find a companion to whom they can be sealed in the temple unable to do so?
Our response to such questions must be one of faith. We simply trust the wisdom of God and accept his timetable. We know that he loves all his children and that the withholding of certain blessings for a time and season will not go unrewarded.
http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/response/general/Blacks_Priesthood_Pyle.htm
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
All I remember of my US History lessons on the Mormons was the whole class pissing themselves when Brigham Young and his early followers were tarred and feathered following the collapse of the first Mormon bank...probably the first true 'American' church insofar as BY set the bank up when he founded the religion...
And people have a go at the Hubbardistas for doing essentially the same thing...
And people have a go at the Hubbardistas for doing essentially the same thing...
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
Johnny Canuck2 said:
What? Mormons don't like cigarettes? Tell us something we don't already know.
KeyboardJockey
Clowns to the Left of me
mears said:
IMO part of the reason that Europeans do seem to be intolerant of faith is because we spent about 400+ years killing each other in various amounts over issues of religion. Don't forget UK citizens were up until very recently killing each other in North of Ireland / Ulster over issues inspired by politico-religious issues.
A body count like that accrued over such a long period does teach people to be suspicious of faith and that is why christian 'god botherers' viewed with suspicion.
It does help Mears, to look beyond the USA and try to think yourself into others shoes and what influences them.
I personally think that Britain is better because of the fact that a lot of our Puritan religious loonspuds fucked off to the USA - justa shame for you that landed on Plymouth Rock rather than sank without a trace mid atlantic.
Shippou-Sensei
4:1:2.5
TAE said:Not half as charming as you:
Mother never did send me to finishing school
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
It's an interesting point actually. If you consider perhaps the most appalling of all the European wars of religion, the 30 years war. In effect what the neo-cons are trying to do could be described as undoing the Treaty of Westphalia, which ended that war, in part by overturning the whole idea of sovereign nation states which they seem to find inconvenient.KeyboardJockey said:IMO part of the reason that Europeans do seem to be intolerant of faith is because we spent about 400+ years killing each other in various amounts over issues of religion. Don't forget UK citizens were up until very recently killing each other in North of Ireland / Ulster over issues inspired by politico-religious issues.
A body count like that accrued over such a long period does teach people to be suspicious of faith and that is why christian 'god botherers' viewed with suspicion.
It does help Mears, to look beyond the USA and try to think yourself into others shoes and what influences them.
I personally think that Britain is better because of the fact that a lot of our Puritan religious loonspuds fucked off to the USA - justa shame for you that landed on Plymouth Rock rather than sank without a trace mid atlantic.
Now nation states have their disadvantages as any anarchist would probably explain, but if the alternative is what happened in the 30 years war, or the sort of thing that happens when the neo-cons are let loose with the US military machine, then they do look a whole lot better as an alternative.
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
KeyboardJockey said:I personally think that Britain is better because of the fact that a lot of our Puritan religious loonspuds fucked off to the USA - justa shame for you that landed on Plymouth Rock rather than sank without a trace mid atlantic.
What happened is that the religious establishment was successful at expunging the non conformist groups.
So what you were left with, were people who were not only religiously zealous, but also doctrinaire and conformist.
Which is why we North Americans are glad that your ancestors stayed where they were.
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
You think the Arch-Druid of Canterbury is religiously zealous, compared to say Pat Robertson?
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
Bernie Gunther said:
No, not at all. But religious conformity etc played a part in the shaping of the fabric of your society.
Here in NA, people were religious, but individualism and the frontier mentality were at least if not more important.
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
Johnny Canuck2 said:
Two words came to mind while reading this post: cheap and shot.
You evidently left out some salient information...such as the religious loons that dominate political and cultural life in the US.
You don't have any kind of grasp on history do you Johnny? Or maybe this is just a little joke you are having.Johnny Canuck2 said:
The actual numbers of non-conformists who left the UK was tiny and there were plenty more who didn't lave the country. The "religious establishment" was not "successful at expunging the non conformist groups" - either from UK as a whole or even from the church of england itself for that matter.
You also seem confused about the term 'zealous' and 'doctrinaire' - this doesn't apply any more to 'conforming' anglicans than it does to non-conformists.
In short Johnny, you are talking shit, but then you probably know that already don't you?
david dissadent
New Member
Come again? Can you explain that a little clearer for me please.Bernie Gunther said:
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
nino_savatte said:
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
Did you read the post I was replying to?TeeJay said:
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
Johnny Canuck2 said:
You don't read people's posts...or, rather, you read things into to them that aren't there. In fact, all you can muster is a cheap shot.
Are Mormon beliefs really that crazy compared to beliefs held dear by say Christians? Here we have a people who believe a women was magically impregnated by an all powerful force. This virgin produced a son who walked on water and created fish out of nothing. Or to believe in the Hindu ideas on reincarnation. Will I become a fly in the next life?
Don't all religions force their believers to swallow a bunch of nonsense?
Don't all religions force their believers to swallow a bunch of nonsense?
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
mears said:
Political parties too. Ideology is the new religion.
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
nino_savatte said:
British bread. Yum.
beep beep
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
nino_savatte said:
beep
Similar threads
