The Mormon Time Bomb for Mitt

[_Shulem]

The doctrine of God once being a man will certainly always be a thorn in the side of the church. BUT, if you know me, I wan't the Explanations of Facsimile No. 3 to become the defining public issue that shows how Mormon revelations are totally screwed up. The Facsimile No. 3 is the quickest and easiest way to take down the Mormon church with one punch.

Facsimile No. 3 was Hugh Nibley's worst nighmare and it haunts the leadership of the church to this day. There are no revelations in Mormonism that can save the Facsimile No. 3.

Boo!

Paul O

[_Quasimodo]

This just came up:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/27/mitt-romney-remembers-golden-jubilee_n_1305110.html

An interesting example of what we were just discussing. Not a great foux pas in the grand scheme, but very a good example of a "faith promoting" story. To Romney, it's not important whether or not it's true. It only matters if others believe it.

This is why he is not trusted by the public.

[_zeezrom]

I just can’t bring myself to believe that Republicans would be so fool-hardy as to nominate Santorum (who wants to throw up at the idea of the separation of church and state).

OK, here is an idea from a guy who stopped following politics a year ago.

Maybe Santorum has a strategy with this kick against JFK and the separation of church thing.

1. Santorum makes a risky assumption: JFK being Catholic is like Mitt being Mormon

2. Santorum makes the conservatives think JFK was trying to destroy religion (a fear-based hot button)

3. Santorum publicly implies a correlation between JFK and Mitt

Maybe he will hit step 3 someday.

[_The Dude]

"As man is God once was. As God is man may become."

Why is it so shocking?

Baptism for the dead is pretty strange.

So is Catholics believing they are literally eating Christ when they have magic communion. Like a bunch of walking dead. And look at their bloody icons. This is at least as shocking for a major religion. The only reason to look down on the couplet, specifically, is because of cultural bias. You could call it something else, but a bias is basically what it is.

[_Themis]

The doctrine of God once being a man will certainly always be a thorn in the side of the church. BUT, if you know me, I wan't the Explanations of Facsimile No. 3 to become the defining public issue that shows how Mormon revelations are totally screwed up. The Facsimile No. 3 is the quickest and easiest way to take down the Mormon church with one punch.

Facsimile No. 3 was Hugh Nibley's worst nighmare and it haunts the leadership of the church to this day. There are no revelations in Mormonism that can save the Facsimile No. 3.

Boo!

Paul O

I think it may be hard to tell what the public media will be interested in, and I am sure the church is trying to prepare for these potential problems. Even if the Book of Abraham subject comes up I am not sure how many members will take it seriously. Most people have little trust in what the media says when they say things that one finds uncomfortable to their world view, and will most likely not believe it and then just ignore it. There are plenty of examples of this.

[_beastie]

"As man is God once was. As God is man may become."

Why is it so shocking?

Baptism for the dead is pretty strange.

So is Catholics believing they are literally eating Christ when they have magic communion. Like a bunch of walking dead. And look at their bloody icons. This is at least as shocking for a major religion. The only reason to look down on the couplet, specifically, is because of cultural bias. You could call it something else, but a bias is basically what it is.

Yes, of course it is bias, but that doesn't alter the fact of its existence. All religious claims are nonsensical once viewed outside the bubble, but the bubbles are still there.

Becoming a god is sacrilegious to mainstream Christians. Implying that god was once a normal human being (not the Jesus manifestation of God) is blasphemous. And it's tainted by polytheism. That's why it's shocking.

Understand, I'm not saying that this sort of bias is justified. I'm saying it exists, and it will impact Romney.

[_beastie]

I just can’t bring myself to believe that Republicans would be so fool-hardy as to nominate Santorum (who wants to throw up at the idea of the separation of church and state).

OK, here is an idea from a guy who stopped following politics a year ago.

Maybe Santorum has a strategy with this kick against JFK and the separation of church thing.

1. Santorum makes a risky assumption: JFK being Catholic is like Mitt being Mormon

2. Santorum makes the conservatives think JFK was trying to destroy religion (a fear-based hot button)

3. Santorum publicly implies a correlation between JFK and Mitt

Maybe he will hit step 3 someday.

I'm skeptical. I think he was just genuinely expressing his actual beliefs.

[_Chap]

Becoming a god is sacrilegious to mainstream Christians. Implying that god was once a normal human being (not the Jesus manifestation of God) is blasphemous. And it's tainted by polytheism. That's why it's shocking.

True.

I have never been a Mormon, but have been a believing and theologically literate member of a 'mainstream' church. I can honestly say that the information that a group calling itself 'Christian' professed such a belief would have seemed bizarre to me.

Gordon Hinckley knew that very well, which is why he did his best to defuse and dodge the issue when it came up in that famous interview.

The headline "Today Romney hopes for the Presidency; after that, godhood" is very tempting. It is also simply and literally true, if Romney believes in the faith of his fathers as he claims to do.

[_TAK]

Mormon theology is pretty wacky to most christians but the oaths Mitt made in the temple would / should garner the most attention..

[_krose]

I still say candidates' religious beliefs are almost entirely off limits for major news outlets, unless it's positive.

There is no religion stranger (to most people) than Scientology, and the big stars who embrace it slide by with no more than a polite mention of their adherence to it. Exposing "shocking" doctrine and history is left to partisan web sites, little-read books, and edgy shows like South Park.