Originally Posted By tiggertoo <<Bear in mind, this was before the internet. In some cases, I was told that I was wrong to seek these answers; that merely asking questions was somehow rude and provocative.>> I understand. To some, questions are perceived as attacks. Generally these people aren’t secure in there own beliefs to or their own understanding in order to feel confident enough to handle critical analysis. But there are also many who do. I admit, sometime fishing for answers is difficult. <<I am familiar with the Mormon position on the contradictions in Plural Marriage. I disagree.>> First of all, I never implicated you in the comment. It was generic for all who do ignore the responses to these doctrinal questions. You can answer that question of whether you fall into that category for yourself. Second, whether someone agrees or disagrees with the interpretation of the LDS scholar is a mute point; it isn’t their belief being questioned. <<Disregarding evidence is not faith.>> It doesn’t matter as evidence isn’t required in order to obtain faith. <<And yet, most of Christ's miracles were accomplished with little fanfare. Anyway, the point I was making was about "religion," not miracles.>> I’d say there has been plenty of fanfare in the past 2000 years. Christianity is the most popular religion on the planet after all. <<The statement I cited did not say that the LDS would attempt to form the US into a theocracy. Go back and read what I said in post 20 again, then explain where I got it wrong.>> Here is what you said: “What is largely unknown within the general population is the Mormon historical and theological belief that America is destined to become a theocracy, with the Prophet, Seer and Revelator of the LDS Church as both secular and spiritual leader. This is based on statements made by Brigham Young in 1854 and 1855. In a nutshell, he claimed, "...when the Constitution of the United States hangs, as it were, upon a single thread, they will have to call for the Mormon Elders to save it from utter destruction; and they will step forth and do it." (Journal of Discourses, vol. 2, pge. 182)†I would say the implication is pretty clear. You said that according to LDS theology that America will become a theocracy and that the Mormon leader will be at the head of that theocracy. Am I incorrect thus far? Then you present a quotation that states that that Mormon Elder will step forward and save the Constitution from destruction as evidence to support the claim above. Do you see the connection: the Mormons step forward to save the Constitution and that the America will become a theocracy with a Mormon Prophet as its leader? If you weren’t trying to imply that Mormons would attempt to install a theocracy, I’m not sure what you were saying. Furthermore, the quotation you used doesn’t even support the conclusion you postulated. For example, the military swears an oath to defend and protect the Constitution of the United States, yet that is not coup per se. As I’ve stated before and as several passages from LDS leaders indicate, LDS people (particularly Americans) have great affinity for the Constitution and the government founded by it. Yet again, that Constitution they extol is founded upon democracy and principles of secular government. <<Not at all. How can you say that in light of Christ's own words, "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets; I am come not to destroy, but to fulfil." (Matthew 5:17) According to Christian belief, the Law was not abolished, it was fulfilled in Christ.>> I know that verse very well; and actually had it in mind when I made my comment. I wasn’t saying that “the Law†was abolished. I’m saying that the individual Levitical laws were done away with. That’s a completely separate issue. While “the Law†stayed the same, the ordinance in practice of the law changed. And change was the central point. **** Anyway, I think the main point is that Mormons and evangelical Christians are quite alike in that both have some views that might seem very strange to a secular individual. Mormons believe in temple ordinances; many evangelicals believe in the rapture. Both can be considered kooky for the lack of a better term. But one would have to be a hypocrite to claim that one is strange and fully accept the other.
Originally Posted By ecdc "Anyway, I think the main point is that Mormons and evangelical Christians are quite alike in that both have some views that might seem very strange to a secular individual. Mormons believe in temple ordinances; many evangelicals believe in the rapture. Both can be considered kooky for the lack of a better term. But one would have to be a hypocrite to claim that one is strange and fully accept the other." Bingo.
Originally Posted By ecdc <<The statement I cited did not say that the LDS would attempt to form the US into a theocracy. Go back and read what I said in post 20 again, then explain where I got it wrong.>> The implication, as tiggertoo notes, is pretty clear. And it's the equivalent of quoting from the Bible passages that call for capital punishment for homosexuality and then saying maybe we shouldn't vote for a believer in the Bible because they'll advocate for the execution of gays. So you got it wrong in that most Mormons aren't even familiar with Brigham Young's quote and it has exactly zero impact in their beliefs today. So unless Evangelicals want to bring up the quote and make a fuss of it, it won't be a campaign issue anymore than saying Bush wants to kill all the gays would be a campaign issue.
Originally Posted By ecdc "He's gone to bed, gang...take the rest of the night off. " Aw man. I just got off work and finally got to a real computer, too
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>Mormonism is pretty lousy at allowing for questions of its theology and difficult historical questions.<< While I would tend to agree, I wouldn't use the word "lousy." And again, this side discussion is beside the topic at hand. >>But again, every faith (and I mean EVERY faith) does it. They disregard evidence in favor of what makes their religious beliefs look best.<< Could we agree that this is not necessarilly true of every faith, but certainly is true of the faithful? >>A great majority of Mormon theology was reconstructed during the Reed Smoot hearings...<< And here I was avoiding any mention of Redd Smoot. But his case is certainly relevant to the topic at hand. In spades! >>If you're going to fault Mormonism for it, then fault all Christianity, Islam, etc.<< There was no intention on my part to go into a general criticism of Mormonism. Since the topic at hand was Mitt Romney's religion, I brought up a fairly arcane bit of Mormon theology in post 20. And that's where the sorrow began...
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder I'm really just lurking here, but it seems to me the topic has evolved. If something bears discussion and it isn't about Romney, who cares? Go for it.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>I understand. To some, questions are perceived as attacks.<< Even general comments on historical sidelights may be perceived as attacks. >>If you weren’t trying to imply that Mormons would attempt to install a theocracy, I’m not sure what you were saying.<< I wasn't trying to imply anything. I was succinctly relating an objection that conceivably could be leveled at a Mormon President. And by my reading of the language, there is nothing that says that Mormons will "make the attempt." I said that the prophecy claims that "America is destined to become a theocracy." The Brigham Young quote says that America "will have to call for the Mormon Elders to save it from utter destruction." I purposely chose the blandest possible language to describe this unusual statement. >>I wasn’t saying that “the Law†was abolished. I’m saying that the individual Levitical laws were done away with. That’s a completely separate issue. While “the Law†stayed the same, the ordinance in practice of the law changed. And change was the central point.<< But what you said was: >>However, by the New Testament and the coming of Jesus Christ those law were done away with.<< If you are saying that it was the practice of the Law that was changed, then we have no disagreement. >>Anyway, I think the main point is that Mormons and evangelical Christians are quite alike in that both have some views that might seem very strange to a secular individual.<< And if this thread had been devoted to comparative religion, or the beliefs of Evangelical Christian candidates, all of this would have been an appropriate response. But since the topic at hand was public response to a Mormon Presidential run, the response came off, to me at least, as defensive in the extreme, to the point of provocation.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>So you got it wrong in that most Mormons aren't even familiar with Brigham Young's quote and it has exactly zero impact in their beliefs today. So unless Evangelicals want to bring up the quote and make a fuss of it, it won't be a campaign issue...<< Sadly, that is almost exactly what I said 120+ posts ago: >>Do all Mormons believe this? It is doubtful. Like many devotees of specific religions, there are many who are probably unaware that this belief has never been repudiated, and is held as an article of faith by many. Does Mitt Romney believe this? Who knows. And it seems unlikely to me that at this late date, anyone will bring it up. But, if it does become an issue, it could well provide fodder for those who oppose Romney.<< I stand by this assessment.
Originally Posted By fkurucz <<"Anyway, I think the main point is that Mormons and evangelical Christians are quite alike in that both have some views that might seem very strange to a secular individual. Mormons believe in temple ordinances; many evangelicals believe in the rapture. Both can be considered kooky for the lack of a better term. But one would have to be a hypocrite to claim that one is strange and fully accept the other." Bingo.>> The problem that Evangelicals and Fundamentals have with LDS lie not in its "strangeness", but rather in its extra-biblical sources (Book of Mormon, etc.). I have heard many evangelical preachers say: "The Jesus of the LDS church isn't the Jesus of the Bible". The "strangeness" issues (the Temple, etc.) are secondary in their eyes. This is why no matter how much the LDS church might change to become more "mainstream", as long as it has extra-biblical scriptures it will be shunned by Evangelical and Fundamental Protestants.
Originally Posted By jonvn "Perhaps we should stick to the topic before Mr. Admin does his magic." But I'm enjoying this. I love this sort of argument that, at its base, can have absolutely no proof, validity or value. Literally, arguing over which imaginary friend in the sky is better, or how to best make useless gestures towards that imaginary friend. This is how wars over religion evolve. Each side arguing over something they can't possibly know, and about something that doesn't even exist. Next stop: suicide bombers.
Originally Posted By alexbook >>Does it help if I tell you that his full name is Willard Mitt Romney?<< That does it. I was prepared to consider a Mitt, but there's no way I'm voting for a Willard. ;-P
Originally Posted By ecdc "Is historicity really a word?" Well, it really is in Mormon studies - in fact it's a pretty common one. Since the Book of Mormon was introduced in 1830, detractors, and then various scholars have disputed its veracity. Since that time, Mormon apologists have argued for its veracity. Most recently, scholars at a group called "FARMS" (Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies) have been the most aggressive in defending the literalism of the Book of Mormon. In Mormon studies, this dispute has evolved into "Book of Mormon historicity" - is the Book of Mormon historical or is it just a book Joseph Smith wrote, possibly with divine inspiriation, possibly without. A more liberal Mormon like myself would argue that the evidence simply doesn't exist to support the book as a historical artifact, therefore, Mormons need to get past whether it's a literal history and view the book as perhaps divinely inspired, but still scripture with metaphors that can guide one's life. Evangelicals and other groups criticize Mormonism for this lack of historical evidence. But one only need look at the flood of Noah in the Bible for a similar example of a story that is in entirely untenable and has no historical evidence, but might still have metaphorical value. (Noah really had polar bears, prarie dogs, asian elephants, and kangaroos on the same ship? We can't even accurately reproduce some animals habitats *today* let alone on a 300 yard long ark. There's 100,000 species of insect alone, and people are really going to give Mormonism a hard time for its historical inaccuracies?) Evangelicals have twisted themeselves into pretzels in some cases to make the Bible literal in every single case (the flood took place on a limited, local scale and was written as a global event, etc). Mormons have done the same thing with some of their beliefs. The mental gymnastics are something I'm not remotely interested in.
Originally Posted By ecdc "Literally, arguing over which imaginary friend in the sky is better, or how to best make useless gestures towards that imaginary friend. This is how wars over religion evolve. Each side arguing over something they can't possibly know, and about something that doesn't even exist." See, I have my own feelings and beliefs but I tend to agree with Jon. I've always wondered, even as a kid raised in a traditional Mormon home, how we could possibly say we have the truth. It's a common theme in Mormonism - it refers to itself as the "one true church." Pretty convenient if you ask me - I just happened to belong to the one true church. It's everyone else that needed to change. The metaphor I like to use it to say all the different religions are like a group of people playing a game. They all make up their own rules, and when they're the only ones who play by those rules, they each declare themselves the winner. Mormonism relies on its own very particular interpretation of the Bible as evidence of its truthfulness; Evangelicals, Jehovah's Witnesses - all faiths do the same to one degree or another. It's pointless and it's the height of arrogance - "My interpretation is correct, yours isn't. Of course, I have no evidence of that whatsoever, but mine is just right."
