Buffalo wrote:I agree - I've heard some of his comments on scripture. He's definitely no literalist, and probably an agnostic.
His mom was a progressive with a Ph.D in anthropology. Had to be a bit of skepticism and intellectual inquiry around the dinner table. (Unlike the Romney dinner table where after prayers five robots disguised as man-boys in matching sweater vests fight over the battery charger and lithium ion batteries while Ann and Mitt lolcat that they only paid a 13.9% tax rate on their millions the past few years).
Whatever appears to be against the Book of Mormon is going to be overturned at some time in the future. So we can be pretty open minded.-charity 3/7/07
MASH quotes I peeked in the back [of the Bible] Frank, the Devil did it. I avoid church religiously. This isn't one of my sermons, I expect you to listen.
So the Lord's prophet didn't know the difference between revelation and his own opinion?
Apparently he did when he said it wasn't good until he had a change to review it.
Romney gave the right answers. If you want to know what the doctrine of the Church is, ask the Church, instead of making it a religious test by hoping to trip him up. The questioner was not wrong to ask the question either, or to have his own personal religious test. He merely got the answer he deserved and that was warranted.
The constitutional ban on religious tests applies to law and civil regulations, not personal opinion. And Romney is also within his rights to deflect them.
bcspace wrote:The constitutional ban on religious tests applies to law and civil regulations, not personal opinion. And Romney is also within his rights to deflect them.
And voters are within their rights to consider a candidate's past advocacy for a racist organization and current dissembling about it. In this case, Mitt Romney was actively seeking to convert people to the LDS Church from 1966 to 1968. During that time, the LDS Church banned Negroes from being ordained to priesthood offices, based solely on their ethnicity.
P.S. I'm not interested in a ludicrous explanation of how discrimination against people based on their racial heritage is not racism.
Themis wrote:I guess you are not very consistent with published works of the church.
There is an asterisk next to Published Works*.
* = published works that are not embarassing.
"We have taken up arms in defense of our liberty, our property, our wives, and our children; we are determined to preserve them, or die." - Captain Moroni - 'Address to the Inhabitants of Canada' 1775
Buffalo wrote: I agree - I've heard some of his comments on scripture. He's definitely no literalist, and probably an agnostic.
Exactly. I assume people would have reacted differently if Obama was at one time a minister of that church, and taught the church's doctrines to the members. It is harder for Romney to deflect the religous questions because he was a bishop. I assume he was called to other leadership positions during his life, not to mention he spent 2 years converting people as a missionary during a time when the curse of cain doctrine was actively preached. There is really no comparison to Obama's religious issues.
"We have taken up arms in defense of our liberty, our property, our wives, and our children; we are determined to preserve them, or die." - Captain Moroni - 'Address to the Inhabitants of Canada' 1775
Apparently he did when he said it wasn't good until he had a change to review it.
Romney gave the right answers. If you want to know what the doctrine of the Church is, ask the Church, instead of making it a religious test by hoping to trip him up. The questioner was not wrong to ask the question either, or to have his own personal religious test. He merely got the answer he deserved and that was warranted.
The constitutional ban on religious tests applies to law and civil regulations, not personal opinion. And Romney is also within his rights to deflect them.
So Young abandoned his views on "the Negro"? That's good to know.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
liz3564 wrote:If folks are willing to give President Obama a pass on what his preacher said regarding "death to the white man", etc., then why shouldn't Romney be given the same treatment?
I don't know why you would even bring that up, it's so different. One person sat and listened to a guy blustering (some of whose comments were critical of some people of his mother's and grandparents' race). The other was actively working full time to convert people to a religion with official racist doctrines and practices.
Obama's situation is more akin to making me answer for some of the racist things my eccentric (but lovable) bishop used to say from the pulpit back in the 70s, because I didn't walk out, and I even let him lay his hands on my head several times.
"The DNA of fictional populations appears to be the most susceptible to extinction." - Simon Southerton
liz3564 wrote:If folks are willing to give President Obama a pass on what his preacher said regarding "death to the white man", etc., then why shouldn't Romney be given the same treatment?
Obama distanced himself publicly from his preacher when the statements came to light.
It would have been wise for Romney to have said that he did not subscribe to that curse of Cain nonsense, then called for the next question. Church headquarters would not call for any Church discipline because of such a comment, so it would be a win-win situation.