More LDS Racism on MAD

[_Mister Scratch]

I think I can clarify what (I believe) the MA&Dites meant on the Obama vs. Romney faith issue:

In Obama's case, if he truly disagreed with what his pastor was teaching, he could've easily driven across town to another Protestant congregation and listened to a different preacher.

In Romney's case, if he truly disagreed with what LDS Inc. was teaching, could not have driven across town to another Ward, since LDS teachings were and are strictly homogenized from one congregation to the next.

IN OTHER WORDS, to be exposed to different teachings, Obama needed only to drive to a different building, whereas Romney would've had to switch religions entirely--a much greater and perhaps unreasonable sacrifice. Hence Obama's political liability is greater.

Does that make any sense?

I suppose it "makes sense," though logically, I don't think it holds up. Essentially, the MADites are arguing that Obama should have ditched his church over these few wacko things. Thus, for the logic to work, they would have to simultaneously reason that Romney should have ditched Mormonism over BY's racism, or ETB's John Birch-ism, or the SCMC, or the priesthood ban, or polygamy, etc., etc.

Their (apparent) argument that you don't get to "pick and choose" within Mormonism is complete bunk, since, as we are told so often, sometimes "doctrine" isn't Doctrine, and moreover, that the Church is frequently plagued with "rogue" SPs and bishops who do their own thing.

Bottom line: the MADites are hypocrites.

FEW WACKO THINGS? LOL those FEW things are HUGE!

Yuk it up, Rockheaded. Meanwhile, I'd love to hear your explanation as to how they are more "HUGE" than blood atonement, MMM, Adam-God, Helen Mar Kimball, elimination of the temple ceremony penalties, the priesthood ban, Kolob, etc., etc., etc.

[_Coggins7]

Obama has a very, very serious political problem as the election years draws to a close. That problem is not so much Jeremiah Wright as it is his 20 year relationship with Wright as his pastor and mentor. If Obama really didn't agree in substance with much of what Wright preaches in his Chicago church (essentially theologized black cultural nationalism), he would have repudiated the good reverend and left that congregation 20 years ago, not long after Wright's ideology became apparent to him. He would not have waited until his bid for the Presidency to divest himself of an irrational racist demagogue who's beliefs teeter on the far fringes of respectable discourse.

Obama adds fuel to the fire of suspicions regarding his true ideological leanings through his now infamous substanceless speeches and sound bites. I find the mainstream media's unconcern with Wright, until the conservative blogasphere and talk radio forced them to sit up and pay attention, quite telling.

Obama's ignorance, or unconcern, with his friend Bill Ayers history, as well as present activities, is also yet another torpedo aimed right at this own engine room.

http://article.nationalreview.com/print ... Y0ZGI0NDA=

I would prefer, given the fish Obama has regularly shared the tank with for most of his adult life, to find out who and what he really is before he becomes President of the United States.

[_Mister Scratch]

Obama has a very, very serious political problem as the election years draws to a close. That problem is not so much Jeremiah Wright as it is his 20 year relationship with Wright as his pastor and mentor. If Obama really didn't agree in substance with much of what Wright preaches in his Chicago church (essentially theologized black cultural nationalism), he would have repudiated the good reverend and left that congregation 20 years ago, not long after Wright's ideology became apparent to him. He would not have waited until his bid for the Presidency to divest himself of an irrational racist demagogue who's beliefs teeter on the far fringes of respectable discourse.

Obama adds fuel to the fire of suspicions regarding his true ideological leanings through his now infamous substanceless speeches and sound bites. I find the mainstream media's unconcern with Wright, until the conservative blogasphere and talk radio forced them to sit up and pay attention, quite telling.

More stereotypical TBM hypocrisy. Should Romney have "repudiated" BY, and ETB, and all the other questionable leaders within the LDS Church? Should the "leftist media" have been more rigorous in their questioning of Romney's feelings on MMM, or polygamy, or blood atonement, or the Danites, or Kolob?

[_Trevor]

FEW WACKO THINGS? LOL those FEW things are HUGE!

Wow! So easy to see how someone else is wacky, so hard to see yourself there.

[Guest]

Okay, you malignant obsessive

Yet another example of his clownishness. What Professor does this on the Internet? Well. Apparently one does. Jeeeeeesus.

Bullsh** Bullsh** Bullsh** Bullsh** Blah blah blah... *get to the point please* Blah blah...
My comment... Here was the thinking behind it: Some... of the Jewish responses to the controversy surrounding Mormon proxy baptisms for Holocaust victims have occasionally taken a stridently anti-Mormon tone. I worry that some Mormons might begin to respond in kind.... I pointed out that Latter-day Saints have a long tradition of philo-Semitism [sic]... I believe that it would be very sad if extremists on the Jewish side came to dominate the conversation between Mormons and Jews on the potentially explosive question of proxy baptisms in such a way as to alienate a community of people, the Latter-day Saints, who are among the most enthusiastic non-Jewish supporters of Israel in the world.

Ok. So essentially some normal Jews were offended at the notion of Mormons baptizing their dead ancestors. Mr. Peterson considers them extremists. What a buffoon.

My point is precisely the same as that made by the Jewish commentator Dennis Prager... when he exhorts his fellow Jews not to be frightened of or hostile to the rise of evangelicalism in the United States because evangelicals are, on the whole, lovers and supporters of Israel. He worries that occasionally extreme Jewish hostility to evangelicals risks dampening the ardor that evangelicals feel for Israel and the sympathy that they tend to feel for Jews.

So, if the Jews don't sit down and take it, they risk losing Mormon support. Wow. What a veiled little threat.

Blah blah blah... I've said my say, and I trust that some here... will be fair-minded enough to see my point. Blah blah blah...

Yeah, I see your point very clearly. Any Jew who doesn't agree with you is an extremist, and if they don't shut up you're going to ensure they lose Mormon support.

You, Sir, are an anti-Semite. Bastard.

[_Mister Scratch]

So, if the Jews don't sit down and take it, they risk losing Mormon support. Wow. What a veiled little threat.

Yes, precisely. DCP is correct about there being a good deal of anti-Jewish feeling around the world. My question is: Why add to it by threatening to take away support if Jews don't capitulate to proxy baptisms?

[_Coggins7]

More stereotypical TBM hypocrisy. Should Romney have "repudiated" BY, and ETB, and all the other questionable leaders within the LDS Church? Should the "leftist media" have been more rigorous in their questioning of Romney's feelings on MMM, or polygamy, or blood atonement, or the Danites, or Kolob?

1. BY and ETB (??) were not questionable leaders unless one makes other assumptions that may very well be questionable from another frame of reference.

2. The Church had nothing to do with MMM. This is closed as a historical matter involving Church authorities. Unless of course, you have some serious, documentary historical (verifiable and falsifiable, of course) evidence otherwise. Why should Romney be questioned on that actions of a small band of fanatics who committed an isolated crime, thoroughly out of harmony with Church teachings and attitudes?

3. Blood Atonement was the Church's teaching on capital punishment. The fevered slanders of the Church's most ethically vacuous nineteenth century critics notwithstanding. Nothing to see here...

4. Danites ditto. They existed to a limited extent, but were not a part of the Church or supported by its leadership (and could not possibly be reconciled with Church teachings).

5. Polygamy ended in the late nineteenth century. Why should Romney have been questioned upon that subject?

Kolob is a doctrinal subject. Why should Romney be questioned on that as a Presidential candidate? Was Huckabee questioned on the doctrine of the Trinity?

Calm down Scratch, and a few extra momma's little helpers before bedtime. Your overextending yourself here.

[_Coggins7]

More stereotypical TBM hypocrisy. Should Romney have "repudiated" BY, and ETB, and all the other questionable leaders within the LDS Church? Should the "leftist media" have been more rigorous in their questioning of Romney's feelings on MMM, or polygamy, or blood atonement, or the Danites, or Kolob?

Romney, by the way, is not running for President. Obama is, and if his views on white people, Jews, South East Asians, Europeans (especially those rich white Italians who persecuted that poor black guy, Jesus), economics, and national security are anything approximating his Pastor's, buckle up, because we're in for a very bumpy ride (assuming this fox ever becomes President)

[_skippy the dead]

My point is precisely the same as that made by the Jewish commentator Dennis Prager... when he exhorts his fellow Jews not to be frightened of or hostile to the rise of evangelicalism in the United States because evangelicals are, on the whole, lovers and supporters of Israel. He worries that occasionally extreme Jewish hostility to evangelicals risks dampening the ardor that evangelicals feel for Israel and the sympathy that they tend to feel for Jews.

Just as a quibble, for the most part evangelicals are interested in Israel mainly for the part it is supposed to play in preceding the Rapture. Its destruction is expected by the EVs to be the last event before the Rapture. So it's not like the feelings come from the goodness of their hearts - they need to nurture the state of Israel so that it survives long enough for Jesus to descend from the heavens and subdue its enemies (and then take the faithful up to heaven with him). Purely self interest.

[_Daniel Peterson]

This was almost certainly a mistake. It will probably energize you for several hours, if not for several days. You'll be in bliss, slandering and maligning and distorting and misrepresenting. Doing what you love to do.

Ok. So essentially some normal Jews were offended at the notion of Mormons baptizing their dead ancestors. Mr. Peterson considers them extremists. What a buffoon. . . . So, if the Jews don't sit down and take it, they risk losing Mormon support. Wow. What a veiled little threat.

Yes, precisely. DCP is correct about there being a good deal of anti-Jewish feeling around the world. My question is: Why add to it by threatening to take away support if Jews don't capitulate to proxy baptisms?

Yeah, I see your point very clearly. Any Jew who doesn't agree with you is an extremist, and if they don't shut up you're going to ensure they lose Mormon support. You, Sir, are an anti-Semite. Bastard.

QED.

I rest my case.