Mitt Romney said No to an Apostle

[Marcus]

An anecdote from Romney which provides further evidence that the Brethren are out of touch with reality, and are maybe in denial about the real issues facing the church.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/White House ... r-AA1iCkuq

I think the anecdote also spotlights how Apostles seek to get others to do their dirty work so that they, the Apostles, can retain plausible deniability.

He’s a wise man. I just ordered his new book hot off the press:

Romney
A Reckoning

I think he shows his smarts by recognizing some of the other concerns the church has to deal with besides the three major ‘thorns’ BKP foresaw years ago.

Regards,
MG

besides the three major 'thorns'??? You are such an obvious troll.

From the link, 'a different take':

In 1993, then-apostle Boyd K. Packer famously — or, to some, infamously — pointed to gays, feminists and intellectuals as the greatest threats to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Three decades later, Mitt Romney, who made history as the first Latter-day Saint to top a major party’s presidential ticket and the first senator to vote to remove a president of his own party, has a different take.

[bolding added.]

Romney says:
“we have met the enemy and it was us.”

[MG 2.0]

He’s a wise man. I just ordered his new book hot off the press:

Romney
A Reckoning

I think he shows his smarts by recognizing some of the other concerns the church has to deal with besides the three major ‘thorns’ BKP foresaw years ago.

Regards,
MG

besides the three major 'thorns'??? You are such an obvious troll.

From the link, 'a different take':

In 1993, then-apostle Boyd K. Packer famously — or, to some, infamously — pointed to gays, feminists and intellectuals as the greatest threats to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Three decades later, Mitt Romney, who made history as the first Latter-day Saint to top a major party’s presidential ticket and the first senator to vote to remove a president of his own party, has a different take.

[bolding added.]

Romney says:
“we have met the enemy and it was us.”

I agree with Romney and BKP.

Any reason you feel that it’s necessary to engage in conversation by prefacing your remarks with a false accusation?

You’re better than that, right?

Regards,
MG

[Doctor Scratch]

Romney’s remark made me think of DCP’s 2005 article (and also his FAIR keynote) “Reflections on Secular Anti-Mormonism.” Looking back, it’s clear now that that was a pivotal article in the history of Mopologetics because it represents the best response that the Mopologists were ever able to drum up in response to secular criticism. The article, for those who haven’t read it, is essentially a smear-piece aimed at RfM, with DCP writing in his characteristically snide way about how dumb/repellent/abhorrent the posters are. It’s noteworthy that he never actually tackles any *criticism*—for example, he had nothing to say about, e.g., the item from Richard Packham that was featured prominently on RfM. Packham’s piece itemized a lot of the primary secular criticisms that are most relevant to Mormonism—it can be seen as a kind of pre-social media version of the CES Letter.

My goodness, though: what a failure that DCP’s article represents. In the years immediately following, they launched “Mormon Scholars Testify,” and then Will Schryver did his cipher thing, and before long, we had arrived at Greg Smith’s Dehlin hit piece and the end of FARMS. It’s interesting to note how little of the Mopologists’ work has been aimed at demonstrating why LDS membership and activity is *desirable.* Given what the Church demands in terms of time, money, and being subjected to public ridicule, there really needs to be a better defense, and at this point, it seems that the Mopologists have largely given up.

[Kishkumen]

At the end of the day, I’m not ready to accept the idea that a very flawed human being bears divine authority that I must unquestioningly obey. Add to that problem the problematic track record of even the founding leaders of Mormonism, and I just can’t bring myself to commit to follow these guys.

I don’t imagine Romney would have much to say in response to that concern. Nothing that would sway me anyway.

[Marcus]

Romney’s remark made me think of DCP’s 2005 article (and also his FAIR keynote) “Reflections on Secular Anti-Mormonism.” Looking back, it’s clear now that that was a pivotal article in the history of Mopologetics because it represents the best response that the Mopologists were ever able to drum up in response to secular criticism. The article, for those who haven’t read it, is essentially a smear-piece aimed at RfM, with DCP writing in his characteristically snide way about how dumb/repellent/abhorrent the posters are. It’s noteworthy that he never actually tackles any *criticism*—for example, he had nothing to say about, e.g., the item from Richard Packham that was featured prominently on RfM. Packham’s piece itemized a lot of the primary secular criticisms that are most relevant to Mormonism—it can be seen as a kind of pre-social media version of the CES Letter.

My goodness, though: what a failure that DCP’s article represents. In the years immediately following, they launched “Mormon Scholars Testify,” and then Will Schryver did his cipher thing, and before long, we had arrived at Greg Smith’s Dehlin hit piece and the end of FARMS. It’s interesting to note how little of the Mopologists’ work has been aimed at demonstrating why LDS membership and activity is *desirable.* Given what the Church demands in terms of time, money, and being subjected to public ridicule, there really needs to be a better defense, and at this point, it seems that the Mopologists have largely given up.

I hadn't read that piece, so I looked it up. Wow. What a profoundly unprofessional and petty piece, filled with the most meaningless, picayune arguments. Seriously, BYU published that? I didn't get past the first paragraph...

...Anti-Mormonism of the evangelical kind has come, with a few
exceptions, to bore me intensely. It is not only that it tends to
be repetitious and uninteresting. (My friend and colleague William
Hamblin and I have laughed about doing an autobiographical film
entitled Bill and Dan’s Excellent Adventure in Anti-Mormon Zombie
Hell.) It is not merely that the same arguments reappear ad nauseam,
no matter how often they have been refuted, and that reviewing essentially the same book for the thirty-second time grows tiresome. (One
definition of insanity is that the insane one keeps doing the same thing
over and over and over again and expects to get different results.) It is
also the deep streak of intellectual dishonesty that runs through much
of the countercult industry, the triumphalism that exaggerates and
even invents problems on the Mormon side while effectively pretending
that no problems remain to be addressed on the so-called “Christian”
side. (This could not possibly be more clearly illustrated than in recent
evangelical and fundamentalist Protestant use of DNA data to cast
doubt on the Book of Mormon...

"protestant use of dna"?? Is that somehow different than if, say, a Catholic uses dna evidence? Peterson is ridiculous.

[Marcus]

I might have to start a new thread.

...One message board that I like to monitor is, in its way, a kind of
wildlife preserve for secular anti-Mormons. Although it is of unquestionable sociological and psychological interest, it offers little if anything of intellectual merit....

The guy who plagiarizes shamelessly sees no merit.

Wow, he has talked about this board for almost TWENTY YEARS, since this article. That's a very long time to talk about people who he thinks aren't saying anything.

[MG 2.0]

Marcus, was it just me or did you post the same long post three times in a row?

Once was enough.

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

https://scholarsarchive.BYU.edu/cgi/vie ... ontext=msr

Wow, I had no idea Peterson has been posting like that for this many years. He really does pay an incredible amount of attention to people who post here.

[MG 2.0]

At the end of the day, I’m not ready to accept the idea that a very flawed human being bears divine authority that I must unquestioningly obey. Add to that problem the problematic track record of even the founding leaders of Mormonism, and I just can’t bring myself to commit to follow these guys.

I don’t imagine Romney would have much to say in response to that concern. Nothing that would sway me anyway.

My guess is that he would say something along the line that he follows Christ.

If that is true then he would not necessarily be obligated to support and/or believe everything that comes out of the mouth of church leaders, past and present, while at same time supporting them in their callings as prophets, seers, and revelators.

I can’t speak for him, but this would be reflective of a thinking member of the church who has their eyes wide open. And I think he does, having I’m sure, having had many long conversations with his brother.

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

...he would not necessarily be obligated to support and/or believe everything that comes out of the mouth of church leaders, past and present, while at same time supporting them in their callings as prophets, seers, and revelators.

I can’t speak for him, but this would be reflective of a thinking member of the church...

How do you support someone as a prophet, seer, revelator, but not support what your prophet, seer, revelator says??

You believe they are a "prophet, seer, revelator," but you are not obligated to believe the words your "prophet, seer, revelator" speaks?

So, they are just figureheads who look the part, but who can't be trusted to actually speak words that you follow?

That's a crazy position to take.