I don't think this is accurate. He was quite clearly passing judgment.
I don't see that in the transcript, so I guess you're reading body language. In any event, I think most Americans would agree wholeheartedly with him. The practice of BFTD is pretty stupid in the eyes of non-Mormons. And it is hardly surprising that the media would jump on this when the Church has included Jewish names in their unique religious ordinance, in which they also included the name of Adolf Hitler.
I disagree.
Why? He presented the LDS side. If he wanted to make sure his audience accepted his unspoken judgment - inferred from body language? - then why include their side at all?
Concern with the mistake is legit, but the mistake was intentionally misrepresented. Wiesel could not have been on any list as "ready to baptize." That his name was there is just obviously a mistake. As the rep from the church stated, had the form gone through the whole process with the mistake, the name would have been rejected.
So now you're complaining because the Jew got it all wrong, which is something entirely different. Look, O'Donnel is just letting him have his say the same as he let the Church have its say. Maybe if the Church would stop with these silly press releases and let an official Church representative actually speak to the media about these issues, there'd be less room for speculation about who is right or wrong. As it is, the Church comes across like any other typical corporation that is trying to hide or obfuscate an act of wrongdoing. That's the perception sure, but the media isn't to blame for that.
I agree with the final sentence, but the notion that the occasional slipping through of a name indicates there were "no efforts" is another misrepresentation. The church has made clear that steps have been taken.
If this were made clear in the statement, then you shouldn't really have anything to complain about since the Church had its moment of defense. The fact that this guy was willing to be interviewed about it is hardly O'Donnell's fault. As I said, if this becomes more of an issue in the media then the Church needs to counter with a spokesperson who is going to challenge this guy and his claims. That isn't O'Donnel's job.
All the signs of anti-Mormonism were there. He got belligerent about the rote and inaccurate gripes (blacks not allowed in the church until 1978? This is stuff you find on bad anti-Mormon websites) and when mitigating facts were pointed out he just abandoned it to move on to another. I don't understand why you feel it necessary to try to deny that this guy is an anti-Mormon.
I just hate the way Mormons keep using this descriptor as if it serves some kind of purpose. It is as if they just want to create a black list of names for well-poisoning. O'Donell is responding to the data the same way any other American would. Most Americans do not know about the priesthood ban, otherwise they'd be throwing their hands up in dishgust just the same. The thing is, we as apologists and critics have been over this issue so many times that I think we've become numb to the sensitive nature of it all. Apologists think it isn't racist because it was a revelation by God, whereas everyone else on the planet sees it for what it really was; a necessary Church response to Church growth and an expanding Civil Rights movement.
I disagree entirely.
Why? To non-LDS it doesn't make a bit of difference with respect to racism. If you deny blacks the priesthood, this is really no better than rejecting them from Church altogether, as this is racism in both instances. Until you operate from the perspective of a non-LDS looking at this from teh outside, you can't really appreciate how people feel about this. But you don't have to. The point is, this is how non-LDS feel. I can't think of a single non-LDS who is indifferent to this doctrine.
And Mormons know it. Which is why they'd prefer it never be mentioned.
Because it's a presidential campaign, not a fast and testi*-ony meeting.
Come on. Where do you find that qualification in LDS teaching, scripture, etc? Whatever happened to "every member a missionary"? When did that become, "every member a missionary except when he or she is running for office"? Mormons are commanded to bear their testimony frequently, especially when the opportunity arises and the audience is wide. Romney didn't only have the opportunity, but he was asked specifically to comment on his religion, and all he gives us is the usual platitudes you'd expect to hear from any Catholic or Jew. It seems he's a presidential candidate first, a Mormon second. That's one reason why he loses my respect.
Not really, but the shape of the testimony is nowhere legislated.
Don't make me call up Darth J. I'm sure he has a dozen conference talks at his fingertips, commanding members everywhere to bear their testimony with conviction and frequency. This is from D&C 84, I'm sure you're familiar with it:
For I will forgive you of your sins with this commandment—that you remain steadfast in your minds in solemnity and the spirit of prayer, in bearing dtestimony to all the world of those things which are communicated unto you. Therefore, ago ye into all the world; and unto whatsoever place ye cannot go ye shall send, that the testimony may go from you into all the world unto every creature.
Romney hasn't even come close to bearing a testimony. Why doesn't he follow the Book of Mormon teachings and bear it with conviction whatever the consequences (i.e. Abinadi)? BEcause he knows he would get lambasted for it, and then the Church would have to deal with explaining D&C 84:94-96:
wo unto that house, or that village or city that rejecteth you, or your words, or your testimony concerning me. Wo, I say again, unto that house, or that village or city that rejecteth you, or your words, or your testimony of me; For I, the Almighty, have laid my hands upon the nations, to scourge them for their wickedness.
It seems Romney isn't a very good Mormon. He should bear his testimony and let the spirit do its work. I mean isn't a testimomy to be had in the bearing of it? Doesn't the bearing of it bring the spirit to all those who hear it?