Captain's Quarters -

I doubt that this has much to do with the fact that Romney is a Mormon. It has to do with the fact that he's a conservative (especially by the Times' standards).

When Joe Lieberman was the dems' veep nominee, his Jewish faith was celebrated by the media. "Look! He believes strongly in God! And (sigh!) he is proud of his religion! And he goes to church every Sunday! See! See! Liberals believe in God, too!" Not for them any articles questioning whether Americans were "ready" to have a Jew only a heartbeat away from the Oval Office, or whether us nasty ol' Evangelical Christians would have a problem with it.

Romney's a Republican, and therefore ANYTHING even remotely out of the ordinary in his resume will "raise doubts" as far as the MSM is concerned.

I hate to throw myself at odds with Captain Ed, as I probably identify more closely with his views than those of any other political blogger. I would like to bring a different perspective, though, to the Romney/Mormon issue.

Assume with me for just a moment that Mormonism is not just another religion. Assume that it can be literally disproved. Unless you have studied Mormonism (most haven't), you cannot know whether it can be disproved or not, but just assume it can be.

With that assumption, consider: I will not vote for Mitt Romney.

Why: I do not apply a religious test to the presidency, but I do apply a JUDGMENT test. While I would vote without hesitation for the right candidate of mainstream religions such as Christianity, Islam, Judaism or Buddhism, I would not vote for a candidate who clings to an outlandish religion such as the Raelian religion or Mormonism. If a person can be duped by a fringe religion (Raelians), or a cult (Moonies) or a religion that has been proven false (Mormonism), then that person lacks the judgment for the oval office. Again, this is a judgment test rather than a religious test.

I think many people will feel this way about Mitt Romney - regardless of his policy views.

Consider this:

I also would not vote for a protestant Christian who believed:

a) the earth is only 6,000 solar years old,
b) slavery is morally acceptable, or
c) black people were born cursed by God.

All of these beliefs could be (mistakenly) taken from the Bible, but no person who believes these things has sound enough judgment for the oval office. Science has proven "a" to be false. Slavery is morally repugnant, no matter what religion you follow. As to "c", well Condi Rice and Barack Obama might beg to differ.

Presidents must have both good judgment and good character. While I am sure Mr. Romney has good character, if he is a temple-recommend-holding Mormon, he lacks good judgment.

YOU ARE PROBABLY THINKING, "OK, but your thesis depends on an assumption that Mormonism can be disproved. That sounds unlikely to me."

Not really.

Mormonism can be disproved for many reasons but primarily because of the audacious nature of its claims. There are two prime examples.

First, Mormons believe that the Book of Mormon is the story of a Hebrew tribe that emigrated to the Americas and founded an advanced, flourishing society of Christians that lasted nearly 1,000 years.

Archaeology can test this claim. If the Book of Mormon recorded actual historical events, then there are quite a few things that which archaeologists would discover. There would exist the remains of a vast civilization on the American continents which, between 600 BC and 400 AD, planted wheat and barley, had a Judeo-Christian religion, used a hybrid form of Egyptian and Hebrew language and script, used horses, had the wheel, rode chariots, used smelted iron and steel, fought great battles with armor and swords, created democratic institutions, etc. (All such things are described in detail in the Book of Mormon.)

No trace of such a civilization has ever been found, and it never will be. (See: http://www.utlm.org/onlineresources/testingthebookofmormon.htm) DNA evidence has also disproved these claims. (Details are here: http://www.lhvm.org/dna.htm)

Second, consider one of the other Mormon scriptures: The Book of Abraham. Much of Mormonism's unique theology comes from this book. The origin of this book is one of the clearest proofs against Mormonism. Joseph Smith purchased some papyrus that was found with an Egyptian mummy and was part of a traveling museum show. At the time, no one in the USA knew how to interpret Egyptian hieroglyphs. Joseph Smith took it upon himself to "translate" the papyrus he bought. The result was the "Book of Abraham" - a tale of Abraham's trip to Egypt where he was almost killed by an evil Egyptian priest and where he sat on Pharaoh's throne and explained astrology to the Egyptians.

Well, once Egyptologists learned to read hieroglyphs, and once the papyrus was analyzed, it turns out that Joseph Smith made the whole thing up. The papyrus was nothing more than a common funerary text. (Details here: http://www.bookofabraham.info/)

Whether one becomes or remains a Mormon should have little to do with faith. It has to do with simple reason. Think about it this way: If I tell you I have a marble in my closed fist, you may, on faith, believe me. If I open my hand and show you that there is no marble, then the truth trumps your faith.

For Mormonism, the hand has been opened, and there is no marble to be seen. Only those who do not investigate or who suffer from cognitive dissonance can accept Mormonism's claims.

YOU MAY BE THINKING, "Wait, can't you make that argument about any religion? Couldn't you say that someone who believes the Red Sea parted or Lazarus rose from the dead or Jesus was resurrected is being 'irrational'? If you apply this standard, doesn't every religion fail?" No, and here is why. Those kinds of examples (raising the dead, etc.) all depend on the miraculous power of God. Reasonable people can assume the possibility of the miraculous. If you believe in God, then you can believe that He can do miracles such as raising the dead and parting the Red Sea. The Book of Mormon is stuffed full of such miracles attributed to God. I have no quarrel with those who acknowledge the possibility of the miraculous, and I have no complaints about Mormons for their belief in miracles. Allowing for miracles, though, is quite different than ignoring factual claims.

There is much more to the Mormon issues, but I hope you can see how reasonable people could doubt the judgment of a man who bases his entire life on a thoroughly discredited religion. Good man? Probably. Good policy views? Don't know enough about them. Good enough for the oval office? Not if he is a believing Mormon.

I think Mormonism is getting a lot of press because

A) One of the Republican candidates is one.

B) Not many people fully understand the religion (or even partialy understand it).

All that most people know about Mormonism is that you can have multiple wives and they think Jesus came to North America after the resurrection.

And you also have the fact that this is how the religion started:

"Smith said that from about 1823 to 1827, he had been visited by an angel named Moroni. Smith stated that the angel indicated that Joseph had a work to accomplish. He was to find and publish a long-buried book of gold plates protected by the angel, that told of the ancient inhabitants of the western continents. The book, along with other artifacts, was buried in a hill near his home. On September 22, 1827, Smith said the angel had finally allowed him to take the plates and other artifacts, although by this time he began having difficulties with local treasure-hunters who were trying to discover where the plates were hidden on the Smith farm."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Smith%2C_Jr.

I guess it's not really any more outlandish than how Christianity started, but that fact that it all centers on ONE person allow many people to have doubts about the origins of the religion.

Christianity and Judaism also have strong ties. They pretty much understand one another and for the most part get along and respect each other. Mormonism is alien to most Americans and by most standards there are some pretty odd things about the religion.

Or many doc's right, it's just that MSM conspiracy attacking Romney.

This post of Ed's represents the first disagreement with him I can remember; he writes: "I could[sic] care less what Romney's conception of God is, as long as it doesn't involve strapping on suicide vests or inducing hundreds of people to drink poisoned Kool-Aid."

Well, apparently this is too politically incorrect, even for conservatives, but I think, (I believe in line with the Pope and other traditional believers) that spiritual realities are as real, or even "more real" than the empirical. Therefore elected Mormons do serve to validate and promote "suicide faith" that is spiritually jihadist, and results in eternally negative consequences. Yes. Hell.
I believe it exists, and that God revealed its nature.

How negative would a Mormon presidency be? Only God knows, but it is reasonable to assume that at least as many souls that physically died on 9/11 will be nudged to drink (or keep on drinking where they were planning to stop) some kool-aid of eternal death. (To be specific, I believe rejection of the Christ of Scripture, as stated in the Bible, equates to eternal death, no matter how sincere one believes in an alternate belief system (including Mormonism, Jehovah Witnesses, and all who reject the revealed/historic Christ).)

That said, does that mean nominal Christians like Giuliani or F. Thompson (or Clinton) get a free pass? Nope. But that's another story. There's a difference between politics and religion, but that does not mean I have to cut off my traditional Christian eternal perspective as if it were irrelevent to this world.

I'm not religious at all, I really do not care what belief system a president has -- as long as he doesn't believe that the apocalypse is about to happen and he wants to hurry it up by letting loose a few nukes. I am much more concerned about a candidate's policy proposals: 1) is he going to chicken out in the war against Islamic radicals, 2) is she going to further screw up our health care system by having the government take it over, 3) is he going to increase our tax burden.

I do not recall Nixon's Quakerism generating this much heat -- is his pacifism going to weaken our national defense? (of course, I was only 5 at the time, didn't read the newspapers, but did watch the news.)

There are an awful lot of people who are nominal members of a religious community because they grew up in it. For a great many the community is much more important than the doctrine, with which they may have only a cursory acquaintance.

How many Mormons actually think that Joseph Smith's writings have any factual basis? I don't know, but when Mitt Romney was governor of Massachusetts (where I live), there was never a hint of bizarre historical claims in his public pronouncements. But I admit, it would be interesting to know how he views them.

/Mr Lynn

"Why didn't the Times think to offer this "advice" when Harry Reid, also a Mormon, became Senate Majority Leader?"

Well, for one, the advice is for a person running for the office of president.

Reid was not elected at Senate Majority Leader by the people of the US. And it's a much lower profile position.

The more important question is why you and other right-wing bloggers waste so much time trying to drum up baseless media bias claims against the Times. This one is especially silly.

The more important question is why you and other right-wing bloggers waste so much time trying to drum up baseless media bias claims against the Times. This one is especially silly.
Posted by Tom Shipley at April 9, 2007 09:00 AM

Media bias is not a claim, it is a reality that even the media admits to.

When the media starts writing hit pieces on the Democratic nominees, we can have a discussion; until then, Ships claim is the only ting silly and ignorant.

If Harry Reid was a Republican, you can bet we'd know that he is a Mormon. I follow politics fairly closely, and I had no idea Reid is a Mormon. In contrast, I've known for years that Romney is a Mormon.

The antique media clearly has two standards for Democrats and Republicans.

And as far as "right-wing bloggers", not one "right-wing blogger" ever mentioned that Harry Reid is a Mormon, that I can recall, because it's not an issue. His bad ideas for the country are the issue.

It's the Democrats who are obsessed with putting people into little boxes and then tearing them down on that basis, not the Republicans.

I found this article unintentionally funny, the part about how not many Americans know much about the Mormon faith or understand it. Really funny. Because Americans are so well schooled in all other faiths or permutations of a faith! The average American doesn't know the difference between Methodists and Presbyterians but somehow our ignorance of the Mormon faith is a major stumbling block to a candidate's run for the Presidency and he's supposed to spend a great deal of time educating us about his religious beliefs. Oh, yes, just what I want, some politican playing Sunday School teacher on the campaign trail.

This is a trap. Romney, if he's like any other politician, is probably not necessarily a real deep thinker when it comes to theological matters. If he were, he'd probably be a professor of religious studies at some university. The idea that he has to explain his faith to us, that we should question his beliefs and his own understanding of them is not only bizarre it's troubling.

I know a fair number of Mormons, having lived and worked in a couple of Western states in the last 20 years. Generally I found them to be really normal people, at least as normal as the Episcopalians I've known. Now there's a religion in need of some explaining!

I usually find the commenters at CQ displaying good collective intelligence - but not on this issue.

Romney doesn't bring up his religion unless asked. Republicans aren't bringing up his religion. It is Democrats and mostly the MSM who finds Romney's Mormonism to be, at best, questionable, and at worst, completely unacceptable to Republican voters.

Romney's religion is no more a real issue than was Bill Clinton's having tried pot but never inhaled. If you want to judge Romney, judge him on something that matters, not this load of excrement.
-----

TO: Fightn Tx Aggie

You, sir, are completely out of your mind!

Complete BS. This is simply part of the "tarnish the Republican candidates" campaign being jointly waged by Democrats and their allies in the MSM.

Also possible (and I'm surprised that no one here has mentioned this) is the idea that Romney is gaining steam and represents a serious challenge to HRC and Obama. In order to attempt to slow down the MittTrain, the NYT and the other usual leftist hit piece agencies are trying to create controversies that will serve to divide the GOP from within. "Well, yeah, Romney's a nice guy, has family values, strong work ethic, but hey, isn't he one of those MORMONS?" How productive is that kind of conversation? I'm not a huge Romney fan (the Mass healthcare reform bill that he passed raised way too many red flags for me), but please don't let the Dems dictate to you how to think. When it comes to getting their guy (or girl) elected, anything goes, as we well know. Why buy into hype that leftists are pushing?

I usually find the commenters at CQ displaying good collective intelligence - but not on this issue.

Romney doesn't bring up his religion unless asked. Republicans aren't bringing up his religion. It is Democrats and mostly the MSM who finds Romney's Mormonism to be, at best, questionable, and at worst, completely unacceptable to Republican voters.

Complete BS. This is simply part of the "tarnish the Republican candidates" campaign being jointly waged by Democrats and their allies in the MSM. Romney's religion is no more a real issue than was Bill Clinton's having tried pot but never inhaled. If you want to judge Romney, judge him on something that matters, not this load of excrement.
-----

TO: Fightn Tx Aggie

You, sir, are completely out of your mind!

The whole Mormon thing is a non-issue. Religions generally are next to impossible to prove empirically; Mormonism is no exception. That is why it's called faith. Romney's religion should be a non-issue.

pilsener, I will be happy to respond to any inquiries if you can respond substantively.

John Norris Brown, I disagree with your premise that religions cannot be empirically disproved. Some religions make factual claims which can be tested.

If a religion claimed the moon was made out of cheese, that could be tested. True?

Mormonism's audacious FACTUAL claims are testable.

Mr Lynn makes a good point. Mr. Romney may not really believe in the claims of Joseph Smith. If that was the case, I would be more at ease with him.

It is JUDGMENT which concerns me. A president must have it.

I really don't think this is any more complicated than some New York snob demanding that Mitt Romney be forced to publicly explain why "He's not like us!" to the rest of the New York snobs.

I think underneath all of the superfluous effluvia, that's what you're going to find; just another TriBeca elitist demanding to know how someone dares be different from him and his crowd of New Englanders. That's it!

This article is far from a hit job.

See this graph:

"It isn’t just evangelical Christians in the Republican base who find Mr. Romney’s religion a stumbling block. Among those who identify themselves as liberal, almost half say they would not support a Mormon for president. Although with 5.6 million adherents Mormonism is the nation’s fourth-largest denomination, 57 percent of respondents to a recent CBS poll said they know little or nothing about Mormon beliefs and practices. Mr. Romney needs to be their teacher, whether he likes that role or not."

There was also a 2006 poll that said 37% would not vote for a Mormon for president.

This is a very real issue facing one of the leading Republican candidates.

The NYTimes is in no way saying Romney is unfit for the presidency for being Mormon, quite the contrary. This is the last graph of the piece:

"The issues above are real to many people, and Mr. Romney should take the opportunity to address them at Regent University. But none of these popular reservations about the Mormon Church are reasons to vote for or against Mitt Romney. History was bound to have its Mormon moment in presidential politics, just as it had its Catholic moment when Kennedy ran. Now that the moment has arrived, much depends on Mr. Romney."

Polling indicates that people are skeptical and unfamiliar with Mormonism. It's a FACT that, for better or worse, Romney needs to address that issue if he's going to become president.

This is IN NO WAY a hit job and the fact that you guys are calling it one just makes you look like a paranoid John Nash seeking conspiracies in newspapers.

I do not wish to take umbrage with TX Aggie's comments except in one particular: So since you have so 'ably' disproved Mormonism to your satisfaction, and other candidates who do not meet your acid test, why don't you run yourself and see how well others assess your beliefs against their own?

The question is not whether his religion is proveable, but whether he is able to hold the highest office in the land, namely that of Leader of the Free World?

THAT, dear sir, is the acid test.

Fightn Tx Aggie,

"YOU MAY BE THINKING, "Wait, can't you make that argument about any religion? Couldn't you say that someone who believes the Red Sea parted or Lazarus rose from the dead or Jesus was resurrected is being 'irrational'? If you apply this standard, doesn't every religion fail?" No, and here is why. Those kinds of examples (raising the dead, etc.) all depend on the miraculous power of God. Reasonable people can assume the possibility of the miraculous. If you believe in God, then you can believe that He can do miracles such as raising the dead and parting the Red Sea."

Or perhaps you could believe that God could do miracles such as remove all contemporary evidence of an ancient people in the Americas or allow a prophet to translate a message that is completely different from it's source text? Would such miracles be any less rational to believe than raising the dead, parting the red sea, etc?

Or is the miraculous explanation only rational when it isn't being used to support religions that you dislike?

In my opinion, you cannot prove or disprove religion based on logic. Religion is the realm of faith and spiritual impression. If you stick with logic, ignoring all spiritual guidance, and you apply your logic fairly to all religions, then I can't see how you wouldn't end up agnostic.

For the record, the Mormon Apologetic response to your two listed concerns (Book of Mormon archaelogy and the Book of Abraham) does not rely on the miraculous, I was only making the point that you were being unfair in your reasoning. But if you want to know what the Apologists say then check out: http://www.fairlds.org/apol/

The problems with Mormonism and politics aren't that they are religious, conservative, or family oriented. The problems are that their faith is inherently racist (native americans couldn't have built these civilizations so ancient classical people must have), they are chauvanistic to a fault (girls shouldn't take science degrees at BYU because they should be having babies), and their leaders have very publically made these two previous points clear in recent political past with the admission of blacks to full memebership in the church in the late 70s and the vast amounts of money spent to defeat the ERA. You add to that the strange and secretive rituals (largely based on the masanic order) and you make most people uncomfortable.

Either way the point is mute. Whether you think this is correct or not, based on his membership in an organization that has public ties to racially and gender sensative issues make him un-elecible. He will spend all his time talking about this and not why he should be president. Rudy and McCain are good solid candidates that are potentially devestating to the weak candidates the liberals are likely to field. Let's not waste our time with this lame-duck.

The commenters are making my mind ramble:

Mr. Lynn excuses Mitt Romney because he is a product of his commuity. I too think that gives a pass, but only to a degree. There is a difference in believing in Uri Geller (discredited psychic) first-hand, and believing in his powers because your parents and teachers taught you such and all your friends believed the same.

I'm not saying this is a first-tier issue with Romney, but it sure is a factor.

Romney may not believe Joseph Smith--which would be good for his soul, but not for his status within Mormonism. And even if he does believe Smith, I'd most likely vote for him before any current Democrat runner.

Regardless, the problem remains that Joseph Smith is a fraud like Uri Geller, and as Texas Aggie noted above, this is a JUDGMENT issue (and as I stated, I think eternal (spiritual) perspective is likewise critcal). The founder of Mormonism, Joseph Smith, worked as a diviner of ore and water with divining rods and crystals/stones.

"All [friendly and non-friendly] sources agree that Joseph Smith used a collection of different seer stones in searching for buried treasure supposedly left by pirates, Spaniards, and Native Americans. The evidence suggests that these same seer stones were one of the primary tools used by Smith in translating the Book of Mormon. Likewise, evidence from all four categories of sources supports the idea that Smith approved of the use of rods for dowsing activities. Indeed, the first published version of an early revelation told Oliver Cowdrey that a dowsing rod (referred to as a "rod of nature") would serve as a means of receiving divine revelation." (reference Wikipedia on D. Michael Quinn, and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seer_stones_in_Mormonism )

As a grown-up, Mitt Romney needs to own his faith that the "Uri Geller" of Mormonism was right or wrong.

One other proof that Joseph Smith was a fraud was that the original Book of Mormon has dozens of errors on every page! (3000 to 4000 total corrections in subsequent versions). This gets an exclamation mark because Smith said his translation of the certain "golden disappearing plates" was divine: "by the gift of God" (through the Angel Moroni and divine "umin and thummin" that disappeared with the plates).

Witnesses/cohorts of Smith recalled:
"Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and on that appeared the writing. One character at a time would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English. Brother Joseph would read off the English to Oliver Cowdery, who was his principal scribe, and when it was written down and repeated to Brother Joseph to see if it was correct, then it would disappear, and another character with the interpretation would appear. Thus the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, and not by any power of man".

"By aid of the seer stone, sentences would appear and were read by the Prophet [Josheph Smith]... when finished [the Prophet] would say "Written," and if correctly written that sentence would disappear and another appear in its place, but if not written correctly it remained until corrected, so that the translation was just as it was engraven on the plates, precisely in the language then used". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistics_and_the_Book_of_Mormon

I don't want my president validating that kind of belief.

Marked-up copies of the original Book of Mormon showing subsequent changes to this supposedly perfect text are still available; and also, the Smithsonian Institute strongly rejects the false claim that it sometimes treated the text as historical, http://www.irr.org/mit/smithson.html

Being a Mormon has nothing to do with Mitt's qualifications. His flip-flopping on abortion and his claims of being a life long hunter(he's hunted TWICE in his life!) are the more important facts of his canidacy.

I don't think this is the forum to debate the provenance of any religion.
Last I checked the First Amendment was still the law of the land and the use of conscience is embodied in
the 11th Article of Faith:

"We claim the privilege of worshipping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege; let them worship how, where or what they may.

Second, and this is more of a personal issue with Mr. TX Aggie as to why he won't support Mr. Romney.

Aluwid, I do not believe that the truth of a religion can, by logic alone, be proved or that God can be so proved. I have no quarrel with faith.

I do believe that factual claims can be disproven. As I wrote above, if I have claim to have a marble in my closed fist, I have made a factual claim. You may, on faith, believe me, but faith only comes into play so long as the facts are unknown to you. You can test whether I actually have a marble in my hand.

In the same way, Mormonism's grand factual claims are susceptible to testing. Thanks for the link to the FAIR website, but I suspect I have read far more LDS apologetics than you have. I am well versed in same. I would recommend that you check out the links that I posted. If your beliefs are true, then investigation of same places them in no danger.

Best regards.

La Femme Crickita, I have nothing personal against Mr. Romney or the the LDS church. If I were to vote today, I would probably be for Fred Thompson, but is he even running?

The Captain listed six unimpressive reasons to oppose Mitt Romney. I oppose Mitt Romney for another reason - not embodied in those six nor in any prejudice against the LDS religion. I responded for this reason only. I think it is an interesting discussion.

It is interesting, I just don 't post here very often and prolly need to read the Captain's rules, as I don't know how far he will let a discussion go off the topic of the post...which is why I said what I did. Most bloggers prefer that if the discussion goes into a tangent that it go to email.

What I meant by personal is that it is your view of Romney's beliefs, not an indictment against the man himself.

For those who are all-a-bothered over the eternal souls of Americans if Romney were to be President, how about showing some proof that Massachusetts souls were thrust down to hell while Romney was Governor of that state. Don't give me gut feelings, but actual proof.

When I read these knee-jerk anti-Mormom comments, I am reminded of the anti-Catholic hand-twisting with JFK, and the common blood libel we hear about Jews even today. And it makes just as much sense, which is to say, none.

For anti-Mormon Republicans I have this question: if it comes down to Romney as the Republican candidate, and Clinton as the Democrat, for whom do you vote?

For those who are all-a-bothered over the eternal souls of Americans if Romney were to be President, how about showing some proof that Massachusetts souls were thrust down to hell while Romney was Governor of that state. Don't give me gut feelings, but actual proof.

You know, at times like this one must hold one's snarktillery, snarkasm, and ability to just plain be snotty.

Oh what the heck

John Kerry and Ted Kennedy?

Fightin TX Aggie,

Either you are less acquainted with LDS apologetics than you claim or you are being deliberately unfair in your framing of the two issues you mentioned. You have set up a straw man in both cases - That belief in the Book of Mormon requires that the narrative encompass a significant portion of the American continent and it's ancient peoples rather than only a subset, and that we're positive that the full complete source material for the Book of Abraham has been recovered. Neither of these two straw men is correct, if you study the apologetic arguments you should have seen that.

But this is all beside the point. If you are allowing the "miracle" wildcard then anything is possible. If factual claims don't have to depend on natural laws anymore (how many miracles do) than any objection to religious theology could be resolved by relying on a miraculous explanation. Which makes a debate on the relative rationality of any given religion pointless.

How can anybody take Romney seriously. If you are dreanged enough to believe in Mormanism(And yes I'm including Harry Reid
) that is the LAST MOTHERF*******R I would want in the oval office. Those folks are nuts and it is annoying when they ring your doorbell at 10 A.M.

Crickita & Midnight, I've already said there's no current Democrat I'd prefer over Romney. And I'm well aware that "what goes around, comes around"--meaning, that religious liberty is vitally important for everyone, not just for me and traditional Christianity.

I also agree that the media is picking on Romney in a vastly disproportionate way compared to Reid, et al.

Nevertheless, I simply don't want my president believing that an error-full document was perfectly given by God from a man speaking into a hat over his face.

Do you?

Does anyone here?

I also happen to believe that this goes beyond bad judgment and is spiritually dangerous to some through the power of personal example and likely exploitation from propagandists. I don't feel that y'all have to agree with me here, but there's nothing wrong with me thinking it's important.

W.E. Coyote,

"Nevertheless, I simply don't want my president believing that an error-full document was perfectly given by God from a man speaking into a hat over his face."

As opposed to a burning bush I guess?

Aluwid, does your answer mean that it doesn't raise any red flags with you for a presidential candidate to believe in facile hoaxes? Or are you merely looking to get a shot in against all religions, as if they were all illogical?

Like others, I don't have qualms believing in Miracles like the burning bush and many others. It is logical to believe in miracles if God exists, for by definition God is capable of doing the uncommon and supernatural.

What defies logic is believing that a perfect God would create an easily-disprovable error-ridden document; it is merely for emphasis and mockery that I note such claims by Mormons are grounded in a divining-rod charlatan who literally spoke his "divine message" into his hat.

The errors that you speak of are not doctrinal but grammatical. That said, I don't care if someone reads the The Way Bible, or the KJV or the Vulgate Bible.

Now, as to the Book of Mormon:

If Mitt believes in it, that is his personal belief.

Oh, as to the marble in the hand argument of probity'
Well, you tell me and I accept your word for it as a matter of trust. I have no reason to doubt you. But what if I ask you to show it to me and you either refuse, open your hand or set the conditions for it to be seen?

In the Bible, the conditions are pretty much set for paying tithing (see Malachi), and for the signs of Christ's return. And it isn't we who set them but the Being who authored them. Faith is the substance of things hoped for the evidence of things not seen.

One other question: Is prayer part of the test? And how do you rate that you have gotten an answer?

After my sister married a Mormon, I got to know his family and some of their friends a little. I was tempted to join myself.

I found the theology a little too screwy to take the plunge, but I garnered a lot of respect for the people. Good, hardworking, law abiding citizens. IIf I had to pick a group I would running something so as to make it likely to run well, I can't think of a better on than the Mormons.

They take care of their own? Well, duh! What good group doesn't? The difference with the Mormons is that when they hire other Mormons, the organization benefits from a top notch, hard working new employee rather than someone's goldbricking goofball cousin or nephew that hurts performance.

I know it's largely my fault, but I'm not excited about debating Mormonism here. It's a drag. Yes, they're "good people", and the six points cited by Ed are mostly goofy in my opinion.

The morals of Scripture have influenced them greatly for the good. I feel sad that they generally are chained to them in a legalistic way, but morally, at least, it's arguably positive. But that is a back-handed compliment, for legalism ain't so hot at its core.

Moreover, I shoud correct any notion that the errors they espouse are merely grammatical. The genetic evidence, the archeological evidence, the linguistic evidence, and the textual evidence all are at odds with the claims of the Book of Mormon.

If one buys into this religion's thinking in relative isolation, OK, America is largely a live-and-let-live country. Many of the commenters here are saying that and I agree to a point. It is another matter entirely, though, when one seeks to represent and lead the nation.

Is it completely irrelevent to critique a Raelian who runs for office? No. Nor is it irrelevant to critique a Mormon. Ideas have consequences.

I will say that I do not believe this comment section is the proper place to further debate technical aspects of the lack of historicity of LDS scriptures including the the Book of Abraham and the Book of Mormon.

That said, I will be happy to answer such questions as I can by email. My addy is ftaggie AT yahoo DoT com.

I believe that the New York Times may be right on this one. Evangelical and Pentecostal Christians tend to be suspicious of Mormonism. Being from the EV and Pentecostal camp, I can attest to the fact that religious affiliation and doctrine is important. Would it be determinative at election time? I think that's a different question. The conservative Christian camps and the LDS share a lot when it comes to family/moral issues, and would therefore be more aligned with Mitt Romney versus a liberal democrat. I think the enthusiasm for Romney among conservative Christians will be fairly muted, especially in the primaries where conservative Christians might be presented with a choice more to their liking. At present, however, I can think of no Republican candidate with credible stature that excites conservative Christians. Bottom line: Romney's religious affiliation will be considered along with all other fair policy and ideological considerations presented by a candidate. In the end, though, if Romney is the Republican candidate for president, Romney will be an easier pill to swallow than, say, Hillary or Obama because he is at least in the same moral and ideological solar system.

Free advice to Romney: If a reporter asks him whether or not his religous affiliation will affect his performance as president, he should turn it on the reporter and state that it is as relevant to good governance as the reporter's religious affiliation is relevant to asking a good question. Then move on.

"I would rather be ruled by a wise Turk than a stupid Christian."

Martin Luther

To re-phrase Tip O'Neill's expression: "ALL POLITICS IS LOCAL."

You begin to understand the structure within our Constitution that actually treats politicians as venal people. Hardly likely, once elected, to "do the right thing."

And, today, because we've often split the congressional-baby, 50/50. We can view what we see as SPECIAL INTEREST POLITICS. Nothing moves, unless the top salesman gets a commission.

And, these days? We have a rather weak president. And, last November? A few GOP kiesters got the boot.

The donks don't want you to remember "how" the few who got to grab GOP seats, got there. But they ran as "blue dogs." Which, upon arrival in congress, means NOTHING.

The team of special interests, where they really aren't elected by a wide majority; jumped into the wagon, designed to take President Bush off track. Got that?

This is the game plan. The other side always looks for weaknesses. To gake a rival "off track."

Back in the 1840's, not playing this game well, the WHIGS dissolved. Disappeared. And, caused havoc to Abraham Lincoln. Who had joined the WHIGS early. During the time of PResident Andrew Jackson's presidency.

AH. The first shot to the WHIGS was done by Henry Clay. Because, Andrew Jackson won THREE RACES. But the first one, in 1824, got thrown into the House. And, John Quincy Adams (from the "political dynasty" that would also eat dust). Offered Henry Clay the cabinet seat in his administration.

SO instead of citizens elected the president. The House did.

And, you always pay for these shinanigans.

As a matter of fact, following Andrew Jackson's two-successful-terms; the WHIGS wouldnt dare run Henry Clay as their presidential nominee! They'd suffered thru 12 years in the boonies. As Buchanan followed Andrew Jackson into office.

So in 1840 UGLY POLITICS reared its head. And, the WHIGS selected a handsome idiot; Harrison. To run. Lincoln drove himself sick "halping" to get this dog into the White House. Where you might as well have installed a revolving door. Because?

A president could win. And, then not get more than four years. ANd, tossed out when his time came due to run for re-election.

During that period of time? The WHIGS wanted to prevent the sales of alcohol. So you know they were the conservative-nuts of their time.

They wen't "nativist" just as millions began pouring in from Ireland. The potato famine, remember.

And, they were Catholics. Nothing set off alarm bells for the WHIGS like the catholics did.

And, the other wave were Germans. Progressives. No home for them in the WHIG party, either.

WHile all the christian groups look at Mormon's as men with too many wives; and koo-koo rituals. Say what you will. There's strength in small-group numbers. As long as you can get "local politics" to appeal across a broader spectrum.

Do not expect people to tell you the truth!

Everyone behaves, more or less, like sales ladies in fitting rooms; telling the customer that whatever ugly thing it is they've tried on; that the garment is worth purchase.

Well, you don't have eyes in the backs of your heads. (That's why hindsight has that eyeball up your anus.)

And, lots of times, to become appealing, you can be fooled into wearing fads and fashions.

But how do you guild the lilly? How do you turn something people won't talk about; into an issue you can win?

People remain polite, here. So you can't call them vulgar terms at all. And, then you hope for the best.

You hope to fool enough people.

Mitt Romney has the looks.

Oftentimes, when the GOP is gonna make a mistake in whom they nominate, looks plays a key role.

Didn't in Lincoln's time.

But Lincoln spent years, riding horseback, going to wherever someone offered him a speaking engagement. And, over time, this worked in his favor. Even better, he got the more popular Democrat, Stephen Douglas, to particpate in debates ... And, eventually, because Lincoln was smart, he gathered every single newspaper article that reported on the debates. Compiled them. And, then went to Douglas (who was the successful 1858 candidate to the Senate), to agree to their publication.

It's been a long, long time since you could produce debates that took upwards to three hours to hear.

So, that today, all you can do is what marketeers do, when they want to bring a new product to market. It's mostly bullshit.

And, the other fact? Most people are pretty wary about trying out something new; when an old dependable product, they already have, does the job.

Of course, limiting Romney to a discussion on Jesus, really limits what you get to know about this man. And, who among us trust men, these, days, just because they're good looking?

The current president is a weak guy. Who looks like he's about to be rolled by the donks.

I think, for instance, that he will sign the pork-laden Iraqi bill. Because the "piece of language" about "withdrawal" has been removed. If this proves to be true? The whole thing about "dates" were a fiction. The donks want the pork. And, Bush just might deliver the goodies. (Just in case you thought only those pansies leaving iraq; got pink goody bags.)

I'm not holding my breath for Bush to do the right thing.

Meanwhile, the field for 2008 is wide open.

To a point.

Like Lincoln knew. You needed more than friends on the Internet. (Heck, Howie Dean had plenty of friends on the Interent, in 2004. They sent him, one by one, Jackson's. To the point he collected $40-million dollars.) The donks play rough. He got tossed like a midget. But Wesley Clark didn't pass the smell test, either.

So far? I think Guiliani is the man to beat.

And, I think conservative GOP politics is just a small arena, where you need the mainstream, instead, to get elected.

That was, by the way, Lincoln's argument. He went into Chicago, in 1860 in 4th place.

And, all the top three people had such strong senses of entitlement; that he was able to whittle away at their voters. By showing the men who came to vote for the nominee, that the others were "favorite sons." Big in their states. But not possibly liked enough to get elected by the majority you'd need to swing into the White House.

That Harrison dog in 1840 taught Lincoln a lot.

But then, Lincoln was always open to learning curves. You couldn't frighten him by the difficulty of climbing mental mountains.

And, now? Mitt Romney has to worry about Fred Thompson.

Remember 1980? Where Reagan said to Bush, who became Bush #41: "IT'S MY MICROPHONE."

Do you remember Bush, then, trying to push people out of the debating chairs? Losers always show you they're afraid of the competition.

Bush., though, played his odds in Iowa and New Hampshire. And, given the reach of the Internet, that's now gone.

Even McCain chose to go to Iraq's Bagdhad. Instead of Concord, New Hampshire. So, that's another example that we're racing in new terrain.

There are a few here that have delved into the anti-Mormon bashing routine. Shame on you. Shame on you. Shame on you. This is pure bigotry. These 1000+ word hate filled posts are truly disgusting. I hope you feel bad about the time you have wasted to write them. All the arguments you have made and many many more have been made more eloquently before by others. The Atheists have done a much better job, frankly, than your feeble attempts at discrediting Mormon beliefs. They crush all religions, including yours, equally but at least they are consistent. For every “strange, provably false” Mormon belief you could come up with, an amateur Atheist could list seven of your beliefs and argue with you in the same fashion as you have treated Mormons here today. Tell me what church you belong to so I can avoid it forever. I would never worship with people who believe as you. Your “technical aspect” bash reminds me of the Sadducees and Pharisees arguments against Christ. Which persuaded the crowds to yell “Crucify him! Crucify Him!” Ask yourself if you are truly keeping the first and great commandment. Shame on you. Shame on you. Shame on you.

I'm nominally LDS. At this point in time, I'm more for Fred Thompson that Mitt Romney.

I just haveone question and one question only.

Where in the Constitution does it list religion of any kind as a qualification to the office. I gotta tell ya, I've checked my copy over several times and I can't find that part that says a Mormon or a Catholic or a Jew or even a Muslim can't be President.

I would also venture to say that if you think if Romney were to be elected that he would either be run by Salt Lake or insitute some sort of death cult, you are too stupid to be voting for President.

VW

scotty, I think you probably need to narrow your definition of bigotry. That word is meaningless in relation to my comments. Further, I feel no shame for critically and fairly examining the world around me. Ideas are important things, and it is healthy to put ideas to the test.

Best of luck.

Heh, this does point to the benefit of atheism for the people that run our government. If they have no faith-based sillyness to defend, your own version of sillyness gets neither targeted nor left out.

And we don't wear magic underwear:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Garment.jpg

scotty,

Truth has nothing to fear from being examined. I see nothing in TxAggie's post that remotely represents "hate speech". That is merely a shibboleth you are using because he is saying something you don't want to hear. His post is there to agree or disagree with. But it was not hate sppech, nor do his subsequent words betray that intent, despite your rather silly protestations to the contrary. I hear lack of confidence in challenged shaky theology speaking in your post, rather than righteous indignation.

TxAggie,

Let's assume for a moment that I agree with your comments about ancient American archaeology and the recollection of Boston museum curators regarding "new Egyptian hieroglyphs".

But aren't you extrapolating that alleged "lack of judgment" out to a rather absurd degree? We are all guilty of bad judgment at one time or another, both within and without matters of faith. I think the subject is more one-dimensional than you are making it. Sometimes we come to terms with different truths over time, sometimes even a lifetime. And for the Christian, often those struggles with logic and reason are spiritual issues, as opposed to intellectual issues.

To put it a different ways, do you think it is possible that there are Mormons who have made more money than you? Made more in the stock market than you? Held more positions of responsibility than you? Been more successful than you? Why do you think that that answer, very likely, is yes? (don't misunderstand, this is not a cheap shot at you, but merely to illustrate a point) Is is reasonable to think that all of them have sufficiently bad judgment that all of these successes are luck? Or perhaps someone being promoted to their level of incompetence? If not, how do you explain their success? And if you admit they earned their success, how then do you invalidate their candidacy on the basis of bad judgment?

I think it is injudicious and unwise, and also unfair, to assume that impairment of judgment (if indeed we call it that) in one area extends to all areas of a person's judgment.

johnnymozart, you make some good points.

I am sure Mitt Romney and many other Mormons have made more money than I have. Mr. Marriott comes to mind.

I suppose that I hold the oval office to the highest standard. I would probably vote for Romney for the US Senate, for example, but the Presidency is extremely important.

Is it unfair to equate (arguably) impaired judgment in religious matters to potential impaired judgment in governance? Possibly so.

Then again, I wouldn't vote a Raelian into office. At some point, a candidate's overall judgment must be considered.

genetic, archaeological, textual, etc. Well, let us examine the claims of science and evolutionists regarding 'Neanderthal Man.'

It was a fraud.

As to 'magic underwear,' a cheap shot simply because someone with an ax to grind can put it out there. It still does NOT answer the question of the merits of Mitt Romney: If he did well by the people of MA, then would he do well in running this country?

Address yourselves to the question. Goodness knows, the Clintons left their morals at the bottom of the slippery slope they put us on.

TWood, I assume that you make the same sort of strange comments about what other religions consider sacred.

If so, that's too bad.

I'd like to think respect and civility are still alive and well in the US.

Excuse me; it should read "I think the issue is less one dimensional than you are making it.

Romney's Mormonism is a problem for a GOP that now has the equivalent of a religious litmus test for its presidential candidates.

You GOPers crack me up.What difference does it make if The Gov. is a Moromon or not? Will it make you feel better to remind you that the born again we have in office was exactly what the theocrats wanted and what did we get with him? Smaller government, as promised, the people responsible for 911, as promised, a fix for Social Security, as promised? Why not just realize the only thing that matters regarding the next Presidential election is the appointment of Supreme Court nominees, plain and simple. Now if you want to question wether the Governor is electable go for it, but arguing the merits of his religion is just goofy. You all put too much value in your leaders. The whole government could be wiped out and we'd be fine in no time. The Indians worship cows and have Nuclear weapons does that bother you too?

But again Tx Aggie,

I think we run the risk of conflating issues which should remain separate. I agree with you that the President should be held to a higher standard, but we have to be careful not to make that standard unrealistic. My brother has remarkable spiritual discernment and when I struggle in my Christian walk, I often seek out his advice. He has an aptitude for apologetics which is in my view astonishing. So by that standard he would most likely fit your criteria for suitability for presiding over the highest office. However, my brother also has some qualities which would make him entirely unsuitable to be President, for example, an inability to understand how money works and an inability to complete tasks. (which actually makes him no better or worse than the majority of Congress)

Is it unfair to equate (arguably) impaired judgment in religious matters to potential impaired judgment in governance?

Not at all. But I think its fair game to define specifically what consititutes "impaired judgment". In the context of faith, personally, I find it a little unpalatable to categorize someone's judgment as poor on the basis of how they view the admittedly unproven claims of their religion; claims which most Mormons I'm familiar with aren't even familiar with themselves. And maybe this is an issue with which he is struggling? Surely there are aspects of your own faith with which you struggle? Either to understand or believe? How was there day and night when the sun and other heavenly bodies weren't created until the fourth day? There are Christians who believe that Genesis encompasses 7 literal 24 hour days. Are they exempt from "bad judgment" or merely seeking?

The struggle of being faced with an unexplained fact that flies in the face of what you have been taught is something that all people face. How you respond to that confrontation is first of all, not time-dependent. Some people respond immediately, some over years, some people not at all. But the issue in matters of faith, in my view, is generally not one of intellectual/rationality, but rather one of overcoming pride/fear/rebellion; human characteristics from which we all suffer.

I think issues of faith are fair game; that if its evident that the same root problem that gives you difficulty in one area causes you to make additional mistakes in other areas, then that would be a reason to invalidate a candidate's campaign. Look at the religion of socialism, for example. Compared to that, Romney's belief or not in the claim of an advanced preAmerican continental civilization of which there is not one iota of physical or documentary evidence, or of golden glasses which allow the wearer to decipher undecipherable golden plates is small potatoes.

The whole problem with the "person of faith" rhetoric the GOP spouts as being a necessary requirement for a President to have is that faith itself then becomes an issue. It isn't a problem when it's a mainline religion that a candidate professes, but it is when it's a minority religion like Romney's Mormonism. The Catholic Church's more conservative clergy members in 2004 flirted with denying communion to Catholics who supported Kerry, and one wonders what they would think of a President who was an avowed Mormon. They might just tell their flock to stay home.

W.E.Coyote,

"Aluwid, does your answer mean that it doesn't raise any red flags with you for a presidential candidate to believe in facile hoaxes? Or are you merely looking to get a shot in against all religions, as if they were all illogical?"

Sorry to cause confusion, here is what I'm getting at. Consider a life-long Mormon. They were born in the faith, taught it since nursery age, etc. They believe in all the stories of the Old Testament, all the stories of the New Testament, as well as the stories contained within their additional scriptures and their modern church history.

Coming at it from this perspective myself I find it hard to understand why one is considered rational when they believe in the standard Christian narrative but suddenly irrational when they also believe in the additional Mormon narrative. I can only see a couple reasons for this thought process:

1. The Christian narrative has been around for thousands of years and has evolved into more of a myth than what would be considered traditional history. Billions believe it in varying amounts, or follow it's traditions at least, so one does not have to feel outlandish to also believe it. i.e. there is a strength in numbers. There is also the assumption that for many it is more of a tradition than a concrete belief.

2. Given the length of time that has passed, and the difference in the amount of recording that ancient societies did vs what is available in modern times, there are not comparable sources of contemporary "Anti-Christian" materials as there are contemporary Anti-Mormon materials. For example, what do you think the Egyptians were saying about the Isrealites around the time of the Exodus? What were the Pharisees and Sadduccees saying about Christ and his followers? Obviously they had a different take on what was happening in their time (they claimed for example that the resurrection had been faked), yet we are not forced to choose between the two narratives since only the Bible is present, providing only one side to the story. With the Mormons however, it's modern history, so you get competing narratives that you have to choose between, causing a lot more ambiguity. To provide an apples to apples comparison between the rationality of the Mormon narrative vs the Christian narrative you would have to mentally add the opposing viewpoint, but I doubt that many do that when deciding whether Mormonism is more outlandish than mainstream Christian belief.

To sum it up, as an active Mormon I believe that God did in fact speak to Moses through a burning bush, that God parted the red sea. I believe that Christ performed all the miracles described in the New Testament most importantly being that he was in fact resurrected from the dead. I also believe that the Book of Mormon contains the story of a real people that lived on the American Continent, and I believe that Joseph Smith truly was a prophet. I demand physical proof for none of these beliefs, nor do I expect it. If you consider me irrational for believing in any of these things then consider me irrational for believing in all of them.

Compared to that, Romney's belief or not in the claim of an advanced preAmerican continental civilization of which there is not one iota of physical or documentary evidence, or of golden glasses which allow the wearer to decipher undecipherable golden plates is small potatoes.

It's still very silly stuff. But so is transubstantiation. The genius of secularism is that it allows everyone "of faith" to put that sort of nonsense aside when it comes to politics. I don't know about you, but if President Romney started handing out billions to Mormon Social Services, who in turn reported wonderful results from a Mormon-based welfare program, a lot of Catholics and Southern Baptists would suddenly rediscover their inner skeptics.

"The Catholic Church's more conservative clergy members in 2004 flirted with denying communion to Catholics who supported Kerry" - starfleet dude

That's patently false. There was discussion of denying communion to politicians who support abortion, but if you have any evidence of any Catholic Bishop even talking about denying the Sacrament of Holy Communion to Kerry supporters, much less actually doing it, then post a link to it. Otherwise, admit you are wrong.

Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict have done a multitude of work in reaching out to Muslims, Jews, Protestants and Orthodox Christians. There is no possibility that the Catholic Clergy will tell their followers to stay home, rather than vote for a Mormon. You have no idea what it is you are writing about.

Members of the Catholic church have allied themselves with members of other faiths when in comes to legislation that affects the values, morals
etc. of their respective states. I don't think the Roman Catholic Church would holler too much.

Next, Romney as the Chief Executive would have to uphold the laws of the United States. Remember the screeching that went on when the Dread Justice Roberts was appointed to the Supreme Court?

Have women started having back alley abortions yet?
Has Social Security become a thing of the past?
Good grief have we gone back to slavery? Ted Kennedy and John Kerry predicted it would happen...and isn't Judge Roberts a Catholic?

Sure, NoDonkey:

Kerry and Communion

Is it a sin for Catholics to vote for former altar boy John Kerry? That's the line Colorado Springs Bishop Michael Sheridan began pushing in early May, when he penned a pastoral letter to his 125,000 parishioners titled, "On the Duties of Catholic Politicians and Voters." "Any Catholic politicians who advocate for abortion, for illicit stem-cell research or for any form of euthanasia ipso facto place themselves outside full communion with the Church and so jeopardize their salvation," Sheridan wrote. "Any Catholics who vote for candidates who stand for abortion, illicit stem-cell research or euthanasia suffer the same fateful consequences."

starfleet,
how is that different from what No Donkey wrote? You supported NoDonkey's argument and pulled the rug out from under your own.

You are making belief in abortion, stemcell research, and euthanasia equivalent to "Catholics voting for John Kerry". What was at stake was the issue, not the person involved. If they were denied the sacraments, inappropriately, I believe, they were denied because they supported issues contrary to Scripture, not because they simply were Democrats, as you implied.

johnnymozart, the line

"Any Catholics who vote for candidates who stand for abortion, illicit stem-cell research or euthanasia suffer the same fateful consequences."

would seem to be very clear about the consequences for Catholics who voted a certain way, regardless of their own beliefs on abortion, etc.

I don't know about you, but if President Romney started handing out billions to Mormon Social Services, who in turn reported wonderful results from a Mormon-based welfare program.....

Yeah, gosh, that crazy religious right, always making stuff up. As if there was any history of "faith-based initiatives" being successful. As if Jesuit priests and Catholic nuns know anything about that.

What are those things they were always trying to found called again?

Oh, right. Universities. And Hospitals. Stick to regurgitating Josh Marshall, starfleet. You're safer there. Usually.

Fightin Tx Aggie: I do no need a narrow definition of bigotry. The standard meaning suits this situation very well:

bigotry: 1. stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.

I believe that works. No? My question for you is what has led you to your intolerance for Mormons? Do you have a similar disdain for Jews? I have my suspicion. What of Muslims? You say this is a critical and fair examination. Critical, yes. Fair? Who is to judge its fairness? You say yes-I say no. I think it is only fair if all parties agree that it is fair. So, you have failed the fairness test.

I have an honesty challenge for you: Do you hate Mormons? Do you hate the Mormon religion? In the following list who is going to hell? Mormons, Jews, Muslims.

Also Johnnymozart: With all due respect to your comment I believe this is hate speech. You may have a high tolerance for discussion of anything. I draw the line at ridiculing my sacred beliefs. What you see as points for debate, I view as blasphemy. While most comments could be considered only rude by most (rudeness is fair game in debate), they add up to a theme of bigotry which I view as hate speech. When you’re the target you get to judge.

An honest look at Fightin TX Aggie’s post will clearly indicate outright hateful comments toward Mormons. I’m not taking the time to point these out. Just replace Mormon with another religion and see if it passes the smell test. Trust me, it stinketh.

scotty, I get the feeling you did not even read what I wrote. (You seem to have ignored, for example, my comments about how I would vote for "the right candidate of mainstream religions such as Christianity, Islam, Judaism or Buddhism." So, your claim that I have "a similiar disdain for jews" shows that you did not even read my comment. And yet, you have called me hateful, intolerant and bigoted.

I have no ill feelings towards Mormons. Your vitriol poorly serves your position.

scotty,

now its clear you don't understand the term "intolerance", either. Fighting Tx Aggie is not intolerant of "Mormons", despite my belief that his views unfairly conflate two separate issues; Tx Aggie does not agree with Mormon theology. That is not equivalent to "hating/hate speech toward Mormons" no matter how much that you insist that it is. I'm genuinely sorry that you cannot seem to distinguish the difference.

I will reiterate, the factual basis of your theology was challenged with other apparent facts, which is always appropriate for truth, to which you responded, not with facts of your own to refute him, but rather with ad hominems about hate speech and blasphemy, and vague unfair insinuations into whether or not he hates Jews. That is a red flag, my friend, for lack of confidence in one's beliefs. Why is it blasphemy to ask why no evidence of the advanced American civilization described in the Book of Mormon has been found? The Book of Mormon makes no claim that all such evidence was removed by God. I don't know the answer to that question. Had you responded with facts, instead of an emotional outburst which speaks to the probable fact that you have no answer either, maybe I would.

I agree that Tx Aggie may have too stringent criteria for who and who does not have "good judgment"; however, it does not make him a "hatemonger" or a "bigot".

My question for you is what has led you to your intolerance for Mormons?

Sigh...I just saw this. Again, he is not intolerant of Mormons, but rather their theology. And what led him there was the fact that he examined it, and decided it was false. Believing someone's else's belief is not true is not intolerance. Things that are not true are false. Religions make competing exclusive claims, scotty. They can't all be true. And saying some are not true doesn't make me a bigot any more than pointing out anything else is not true.

I draw the line at ridiculing my sacred beliefs.

Then you clearly need to be exposed to someone who was actually doing that. There are always going to be people ready to ridicule your religious beliefs. Develop some thicker skin. The only person being "stubborn" or "complete" in their "intolerance", scotty, is you. You cannot seem to "tolerate" your beliefs being challenged, and you have provided nothing to explain why you disagree. So who's argument is on more solid ground here?

Starfleet,
as I said, I believe it was inappropriate, but I think they would have extended it to Republican voters/politicians as well.

I have problems with a guy like Romney who says (as quoted in the referenced article): “My church doesn’t dictate to me or anyone what political policies we should pursue."

As a Catholic, I find it reprehensible when a Catholic politician says that the Church does not offer any information on how to pursue political policies or what political policies should be pursued. I expect that politics and religion (or at least an ethos defined by religion) are intertwined. I find it even worse when a Catholic politician says that they understand the Church's positions but are subjugating their own feelings and are choosing to oppose them because they go against the will of the American people.

Mitt is sounding like a Teddy. And if he's lying to be elected, well, it's politics, isn't it?

Mitt would do no better than to explain how his Mormonism informs his political life, and why that combination should be tasteful to the American people.

unclesmrgol, as John Fitzgerald Kennedy said in 1960:

"I am not the Catholic candidate for President. I am the Democratic Party's candidate for President who also happens to be a Catholic. I do not speak for my Church on public matters — and the Church does not speak for me."

'nuff said.

Here's a different question for you, scotty, to make the debate a little more open. I am a Christian. I believe that the Gospels are true. Merely by making that statement, I am admitting that I believe that Judaism, Islam, Zoroastrianism, and Hinduism are false. Why? Because all make exclusive claims.
Does that make me a bigot?

Hinduism is often represented as being the most tolerant and accepting of other faiths. But this is just not true. All Hindus believe in two fundamental, uncompromising doctrines—The Law of Karma, and the belief in reincarnation. These will not be surrendered…Buddhism was born out of the rejection of two other very dogmatic claims of Hinduism…the authority of the Vedas and the caste system…The issue here is not who was right or wrong…the issue is that they were…both claiming rightness…Islam is very clearly an exclusive claim to God. A Muslim will never tell you that it doesn’t matter what you believe or that all religions are true. Are they all bigots also?

"All religions are the same. Other than differences in belief about birth, death, good, evil, heaven, hell, the afterlife, sin, and salvation, there is absolutely no difference"
--------Ravi Zacharias

johnnymozart, you have nicely pointed out the problem of making faith a litmus test for public office, because it introduces the issue of just whose faith is the test to be met. That's why the Founding Fathers wisely went with a secular form of government for the U.S., because they recognized the impossibility of ever reconciling religious claims to everyone's satisfaction.

starfleet,

I agree with you.

Perhaps I should rethink my position...... ;)

The issue for any candidate for high office is (a) whether his views are incompatible with our Constitution, and (b) whether they are incompatible with the values of most Americans.

An example of (a): An Islamist who believes our form of government should be replaced by a theocratic high council, as in Iran.

An example of (b): A member of a neo-Aztecan sect who believes that an annual sacrifice of maidens atop a pyramid, ripping their living hearts out with an obsidian knife, is essential to our prosperity and well-being.

I do not think Gov. Romney holds views anywhere near so extreme.

/Mr Lynn

Aluwid, I did misunderstand you. And perhaps you didn't see my point as I intended. I do think it can be non-rational to believe all the things you say, and that there are many, many people whose religious culture and basis of belief is parallel to yours--whether taking the name Christian, Muslim, Moonie, etc. Nevertheless, it is possible to be more rational about the trustworthiness of the Christian Scriptures than the Book of Mormon/Abraham, even if you do not claim this for yourself.

"Complete" rationality is only a gift given in heaven, yet logical consistency is to be valued in the here and now. I don't expect every Mormon, or any faith's adherents, to have the answeres to their toughest critics, but mature adherents should be able to point to apologists of their own tradition who are serious thinkers.

My greater point is that truth matters. Ideas have consequences and faith has consequences. I'll grant that I've spoken with some passion that spilled into rashness, and probably misunderstanding and rudeness--I actually thought at one point you were agnostic. If I'm right that truth matters and faith has eternal consequences there's much more serious things at stake than the logical consistency and philosophical depth of presidential candidates.

Depending on who's left, I may well vote for Romney, but I'll be praying for us all to humbly cherish and accept what is true.

Nevertheless, I think that it is fine to examine one's faith to the extent that said faith could potentially affect the ability to execute the responsibility of the position Constitutionally Examples would include a Muslim legislator using his power to support terror or enact sharia law. A Christian President forcing everyone to worship Jesus Christ(note to barking moonbat liberals- an invocation at a high school or "faith based initiatives" do not constitute the above) or a Mormon President attempting to relocate the White House to Salt Lake City.

But the argument, in effect, "if he'll believe a lie like Mormonism, how can we trust is judgment on other things?" (paraphrased, my emphasis)

Sorry, I just don't buy it.

macfan: "TWood, I assume that you make the same sort of strange comments about what other religions consider sacred. If so, that's too bad. I'd like to think respect and civility are still alive and well in the US."

I think it's well past time that all religion loses its special status of being exempt from ridicule. When people use it to justify flying planes into buildings, then it should be clear to everyone that religion has become a threat to our existence. Put the so-called "sacred beliefs" of any religion under a bright light and they will turn to vapor. How is that a proper way to run a planet?

Science and reason will eventually prevail, it's just frustrating to keep taking steps backwards. So, elect atheists, we're equal opportunity ridiculers!

Science and reason will eventually prevail, it's just frustrating to keep taking steps backwards. So, elect atheists,

Yes, by all means, elect those who assume infinite knowledge to declare "There is no infinite knowledge!!"

Starfleet_dude,

If you analyse JFK's words, you will find so much air that the statement turns insubstantial.

a) "I am not the Catholic candidate for President." False; he was the only Catholic running for President, and therefore must be the Catholic candidate.

b) "I am the Democratic Party's candidate for President who also happens to be a Catholic". True, but obvious. The wording subtly diminishes his Catholicism, though.

c) "I do not speak for my Church on public matters"; True. He is not a bishop, and cannot presume to speak for the Church. But actions are a different thing -- Catholics are obligated to act for the Church -- the people of God -- on public matters. So Kennedy is obviously using Newspeech here.

d) "and the Church does not speak for me"; False; the Church speaks for the dignity and sanctity of all humans. If Kennedy errs, the Church is right to correct him.

So, we have here a statement which is at once true and false, like any statement spoken by a true politician.

I've pointed out in my post that a person is rated on how well they represent their church, and I would rate lowly a person who attended a church but did not hold firmly to the precepts of that church in thought, word, and deed. Its just another way of rating a politician on how well they keep their promises.

"Yes, by all means, elect those who assume infinite knowledge to declare "There is no infinite knowledge!!"

Um, no, science is always tentative. Religion is the one that sets limits on the (so far) unknowable. And is then used to make false claims to power in this world based on a false claim to knowledge about the (so far) unknowable realm. Man created the currently proposed versions of God, not the other way around.

I also agree with Mozart & Starfleet, and I would not disqualify anyone who said, "I am not the Raelian Candidate, I am the Democratic Candidate who happens to be Raelian. I don't speak for them...and they don't speak for me."

No problem. No litmus test. No disqualification.

I will still retain my right, however, to express my concerns about such a candidate, and include his or her philosophical commitments as one criteria among many in my evaluation of where such a person would rank in my order of preference.

Just as religion should not disqualify any candidate, nor should voters be disqualified from weighing all categories of candidates' thinking when choosing. Just because governmental offices are properly secular, doesn't mean one is compelled to put on the philosophical straightjacket of secular pragmatism in evaluating and ranking candidates.

TWood,

"Man created the currently proposed versions of God, not the other way around."

I take that to be your statement of faith. Mine is that while many have done as you say, and created versions of God; God has forseen this and taken mercy by breaking through the subjectivity of human longings and pride by humbly revealing himself to us in the person of Jesus Christ.

I wish you well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager

TWood,

Atheists have been at the back of some of the most heinous activities ever to occur on our planet. Believing you are your own God can be just as bad as committing evil acts you attribute to an external God.

Under your reasoning, therefore, all atheists are tarred with the same brush, no matter whether they are pacifist or warlike.

Personally, I don't care much whether Romney is a Mormon or not. My only experience with Mormons was a drill sergeant in one of the other platoons during basic; he was decorated for his performance. The man didn't smoke, drink, or (incredibly) curse, and almost never lost his temper. If he's an example of what kind of behavior we can expect from a Mormon president, then I'd say it goes in the (+) column.

A note on religious "litmus" tests. What a man says about his religion and how well he lives up to its standards says something about his character and it should be given due weight in evaluating him as a candidate.

unclesmrgol writes:

a) "I am not the Catholic candidate for President." False; he was the only Catholic running for President, and therefore must be the Catholic candidate.

My reading of JFK here is that he is saying he's not running as the candidate of the Catholic faith. He's not merely pointing out the obvious, he's making an important distinction about how he sees his duty as President in the context of his relationship with his Church.

b) "I am the Democratic Party's candidate for President who also happens to be a Catholic". True, but obvious. The wording subtly diminishes his Catholicism, though.

JFK isn't subtly diminishing his Catholicism, he's making it clear that he's not running as a Catholic, but as the chosen candidate of the Democratic Party, a secular political party that includes members of many religious faiths.

c) "I do not speak for my Church on public matters"; True. He is not a bishop, and cannot presume to speak for the Church. But actions are a different thing -- Catholics are obligated to act for the Church -- the people of God -- on public matters. So Kennedy is obviously using Newspeech here.

Kennedy is pointing out that as he does not assume to speak as an authority on behalf of the Catholic Church, and that he would not abuse his Presidency by inappropriately using his powers on behalf of his faith.

d) "and the Church does not speak for me"; False; the Church speaks for the dignity and sanctity of all humans. If Kennedy errs, the Church is right to correct him.

Kennedy is saying to his audience that the Catholic Church will not speak for him as President of the United States. Given the context of the campaign in 1960, that is absolutely clear.

Interesting discussion folks. I’m grateful to the founding father’s for the separation of church and state.

I was an atheist but decided to hedge my bet and switched to agnostic ;-)

docjim505,

It's actually a double litmus test. We get to rate the person on how well they hew to their own proclaimed religious tenets, and then we get to weight them on how well they hew to our religious tenets. For atheists, they are free to substitute "ethical" for "religious", but the idea is the same.

starfleet_dude,

I believe my interpretation of Kennedy's words are sufficient and correct. You offer an alternative, but that alternative basically says that Kennedy either lied when he said he was a Catholic or lied when he said he was a Democrat. It does not matter whether it was 1960 or 1930 or 2007; the Catholic Church has changed nothing in its teachings concerning morality and faith in that interval.

Consider for example, the following rephrasing of one of Kennedy's statements: "I happen to be a Catholic who is also the Democratic Party's nominee for President". Would he also be correct, and what would Democrats think of that form of correctness? Turning that backwards, what would Catholics think of the original statement?

You don't seem to be a Catholic, starfleet_dude, so I will bore you with neither a repetition of the Nicean Creed (Credo), nor the Act of Contrition, nor the Rite of Baptism, nor the Confiteor, each of which the observant Catholic will repeat many times per year, supposedly with some understanding and meaningfulness to the words. Kennedy, as an observant Catholic, would have verbally promised to both God and his People many things with these prayers. In these prayers, he would have promised to be a proactive force for his God and His Church, and would stated that he understood that he could enter into a state of sin merely by failing or omitting actions to benefit God or His People.

Further, given the dichotomy Kennedy places in his speech between his party and his Church, I expect he had to choose between one or the other at some point, and that your idea that he was lying is correct.

And, with regard to Kerry, were he, or Pelosi, or Kennedy to come to my church and stand before me while I am Eucharistic Minister, I would be obligated to refuse them Communion, although I would bless them. A person offering the Communion wafer must not give it to a person whom they know to be obstainately persisting in sinfulness; consider Canon 915: Those who are excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to Holy Communion.

The Church and the state are separated at present with regard to abortion, euthanasia, and the death penalty. They are different masters with regard to these things, and as a famous person once said, nobody can serve two masters.

I would personally vote for a candidate that was an atheist as long as his ideas were what is best for America. For to long we have put religion into our politics when we should have been putting our country first.

Now we have fallen from the top spot in the fields of science, robotics, and mathematics that have been our mainstay for decades. And China is threatening our lead in space. CHINA of all countries! And one can point the finger at religion in politics for this downfall.

With new fields of alternative energy opening up, will we let America take a back seat here as well? What about Global Climate Change? Will we be the world leader in the opening sciences here? Our economic stability depends on developing new industries in these areas to replace our jobs that have gone overseas.

These are the questions we need to be asking every candidate in the coming election. Let religion become a backseat issue where it belongs. It doesn't seem to matter one way or another what religion a person follows. We should be able to see through their smoke screen and find the truth.

Can anyone here state with conviction that religion has helped with any of our past 5 or 6 presidents? We have been inundated with one scandal after another from every president since I can remember, and that goes back to Kennedy. And everyone of them have declared their "christian values" in order to get elected.

Before we go down the same path again, ask the question,..Is this the right person for America...not your party or your religion. We as Americans deserve better then we have gotten the past 40 years. We deserve to retake our spot in the upper tier of Nations. And only we, the voters can do it. Our government seems to have no care at all about how far we have fallen.

Free Tibet

tony,

I use my religion as a prism to diffract the candidate's position. I further use the candidate's observance of his religion as a barometer for his/her truthfulness.

A person's claimed religion has little to do with honesty, in my opinion.

I belong to a creed which gives nearly equal weight to both faith and works. But, in the realm of politics, faith is easy to fake, but works are not.

This is where I have it easy -- my religion states that consistant outward works of good indicate a high probability of a faithful interior -- and vice versa. The two (faith and works) are inextricably tied to each other. It is impossible for a person to have good faith but constant bad works, or to have bad faith but constant good works. Works include the sum of what the person has said and done -- as Jesus would say (Matthew 7:16), their fruits.

That said, my religion is my prism. I do not expect my religion to be your prism, Tony. You have your own, constructed in a way pleasing to you, which shows each politician's true colors.

You want it as good as our forebears? You want a Lincoln? If you do, you are looking for an altruistic person who puts their community ahead of themselves. Looking back at our last 43 presidents, I see flawed human beings trying to do that, and sometimes failing.

You mention an upper tier of nations. What do you mean by that?

A Challenge to Fightn TX Aggie, lets compare Romney's judgment to yours:

If Romney's devotion to Mormonism proves he lacks "judgment" then this lack of judgment should clearly show up in other areas of his life, shouldn't it? Or do you not believe in logic? So lets compare his life to yours and see who has more judgment, as demonstrated by actual applications to real life:

Romney graduated in the top third of Harvard law school while simultaeneously graduating from the top 5% of Harvard business school. This proves he has fairly keen academic judgment. Not that important in my mind, but still, do you have similar academic credentials?

Romney has maintained a successful marriage for 38 years and successfully raised five children to happy adulthood. All of his children are now happily married as well. Anyone who claims you can do this without good judgment is an idiot. Have your social and familial relationships been as successful?

Romney has made between an estimated $500 million and $1 billion dollars by raising venture capital to invest in struggling companies, analyzing what was wrong with them, and turning them around. I'd say this proves he's got fairly decent "judgment" when it comes to business matters. But I'm sure you're alot more successful than that! Aint ya Mr. Aggie?

Judgment in social issues and volunteerism? Romney turned around the scandal plagued SLC Olympics and made them a stunning success. This required media savvy, financial judgment, and political know how. Do you have any similar success stories in your background, or has your superior judgment just not yet been put to that test?

How about political acumen and "judgment." Romney was the first candidate to give Ted Kennedy a run for his money in MA in years, then won an election for Governor, as a Republican, in that bluest of democratic states. Then he used the governorship to salvage the State's bleeding budget and turn around a multi-billion dollar deficit and put it in the black. Without raising taxes. Since you have superior judgment to Romney's, please prove it. What superior political successes has your superior judgment allowed you to achieve? Do tell, do tell.

I can only wait with baited breath for the similar achievements you will be able to inform us your superior judgment has been able to achieve. Come on, come on, don't be shy. What has your superior judgment achieved in your life? Since your judgment is obviously superior to that of Mr. Romney or any other member of his religion, you must have achievements on your resume so vastly superior to Romneys that they will simply blow us all away!!! So please do share!!!!!!!

What's that? Nothing that even compares? Romney's achievements outstrip your own?

Well, that must be based on some sort of aberration. We know (you've proven to us) that you have better judgment than he. So I'm sure that this superior judgment must have demonstrated itself somewhere. Maybe you're just a late bloomer? Or maybe you expect us to believe a person can achieve incredible things in his academic life, his business life, his personal life and his political life while lacking in judgment?

Although, . . . I must say, . . . to believe that, one would have to, sort of, you know, be lacking in . . . "judgment" wouldn't they?

So lets recap, unless your response to this post demonstrates that your own academic, personal, business and political successes outstrip Romney's, it may just be that Romney's judgment is superior to yours in all of those areas.

Hmmmmmm. Wonder if he has better judgment than you in religious matters as well?

Oh but that would be absurd!

Tens of millions of Christians (evangelical/fundimental) have been taught in their churches that the Mormon faith is a cult. By using this term they place the religious beliefs of Mornans and, by extension, Mormons themselves, into a "fear" category. The added fact that it is an aggressively proselytizing group with a non-Christian theology masquerading as one is also threatening to them.

This is at the very least a significant hurdle for Romney to overcome if he is to gain the support of the conservative Christian political base.

Romney's religious beliefs are worthy of being discussed and addressed BECAUSE of religious intolerance and even bigotry against Mormons among certain segments of Christian conservatism.

I, for one, do not believe that the Mormon (LDS) faith is Christian. As an orthodox Christian Protestant I believe that their theology is a muddled mess.

But Mormons and Christians DO share a common foundational set of Biblical values and in this area, at least, Romney and I are able to speak the same "language."

This distiction between Mormon theology and moral values needs to be made clear if Romney is to overcome this pre-existing anti-Mormon bias among many American Christian conservatives.

dchrisa, surely you can see the flaw in your logic. Is every successful person a person of sound judgment? Hillary Clinton has been very successful. Ted Turner has been highly successful. Even Saddam Hussein experienced years of success.

I think Romney has not investigated his faith. If he had, he would have discovered the truth about it. That troubles me. It would be even more troubling to me if he had investigated and was somehow unable to see the fraud.

Does that mean he won't be successful in business or politics or have a good family? No. Indeed, the LDS church has an incredible record of producing strong families.

Does Romney's susceptibility to religious fraud necessarily mean that he would make a poor president? As I admitted above, I don't know for sure. I just know that at some point, you have to take a person's entire judgment into account.

For example, Bill Clinton showed very poor judgment in relation to women. Democrats would argue he still was a good president. What do you say?

WE Coyote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager

Heh, did you actually -read- that entry on Pascal's Wager? Scroll down to the arguments section for why it's no good. Beyond those arguments, even the basic narrative of Christianity fails:

God pretended to be its own child, conspired to have itself murdered, then got up and crept away when nobody was watching. Then this God insists that this fraudulent 'sacrifice' be accepted on pain of eternal damnation if you don't show thanks. Huh? Why would anybody -want- the universe to be organized this way?

Talk about a muddled mess...

I think the responses in this thread demonstrate that the NYTimes op-ed in spot on in advising Romney to address his faith on the campaign trail.

Christians and Jews can get away with and are perhaps better off not delving too deeply into their faith on the campaign trail. This is because most Americans are one of these religions or are at least very familiar with them. A Christian or a Jew running for office is a known quantity.

A Mormon, Muslim, Buddhist, Atheist or whatever will have to, as this piece suggest, be somewhat of an educator. Since they would be the first of whatever religion to hold the office of president, there's a certain comfort-level they have to reach with the electorate. And that's not to say the ENTIRE electorate would be uncomfortable with say a Mormon, but significantly more than would be with a Christian.

starfleet dude,

Once again, you have no idea what it is you're writing about.

In the quote you supplied, "communion" with the church suggests a oneness. What the Bishop was saying is that supporting politicians who work against the teachings of the Catholic Church, puts a barrier between Catholics and their church.

This is entirely different than the Sacrament of Holy Communion, which no one was thinking of denying Kerry supporters.

Once again, you are either intentionally misleading or just plain ignorant.

TWood,

God created man in His own image. I take this to mean that man has free will. Man, in his free will, sinned and fell from grace. In effect, man cut himself off from God.

And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever." So the LORD God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken. After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life.

The Book of Genesis, 3:22 - 24

God, who loves man as His children and does not want them cut off from Him, gives His only Son as a perfect sacrifice for the remission of our sins so that we MAY return to Him.

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

The Gospel According to Saint John, 3:16

The concept of a person sacrificing himself for those he loves is well understood and (I think) universally approved. Whether it's a mother dying to save her children or a man dying to save his friend, people around the world consider such a sacrifice to be the ultimate expression of love. In the case of Jesus Christ, the sacrifice is made more pointed because (1) He didn't have to do it at all and (2) He did it on behalf of people who not only don't deserve it but even gleefully participated in it.

Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends.

The Gospel According to Saint John, 15:13

When we sing the hymn "Amazing Grace" and say "a wretch like me", this is exactly what we mean: that we are aware of our sins and abhor them, and that we know that through action and omission we have deliberately, willfully, and knowingly cut ourselves off from God, like the prodigal son who left his father's house and squandered his inheritance.

"Not long after that, the younger son got together all he had, set off for a distant country and there squandered his wealth in wild living. After he had spent everything, there was a severe famine in that whole country, and he began to be in need. So he went and hired himself out to a citizen of that country, who sent him to his fields to feed pigs. He longed to fill his stomach with the pods that the pigs were eating, but no one gave him anything.

"When he came to his senses, he said, 'How many of my father's hired men have food to spare, and here I am starving to death! I will set out and go back to my father and say to him: Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you. I am no longer worthy to be called your son; make me like one of your hired men.' So he got up and went to his father.

The Gospel According to Saint Luke, 15:13 - 20

Happily, we have an advocate in Jesus Christ, who deliberately, willfully, and knowingly paid the penalty for our wretchedness and provides the means by which we may return to God.

Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

The Gospel According to Saint John, 14:6

The Holy Spirit also testifies to us about this. First he says:

"This is the covenant I will make with them after that time, says the Lord. I will put my laws in their hearts, and I will write them on their minds." Then he adds: "Their sins and lawless acts I will remember no more."

And where these have been forgiven, there is no longer any sacrifice for sin. Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the Most Holy Place by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way opened for us through the curtain, that is, his body, and since we have a great priest over the house of God, let us draw near to God with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled to cleanse us from a guilty conscience and having our bodies washed with pure water. Let us hold unswervingly to the hope we profess, for he who promised is faithful. And let us consider how we may spur one another on toward love and good deeds.

The Book of Hebrews, 10:15 - 24

So, in short, the universe is organized as follows:

1. God created the heavens and the earth, and He created man

2. Man, by his selfish (sinful) nature, rejected God

3. God, who loves man, made a concrete demonstration of His love so that man may be redeemed

4. Through Jesus Christ, man has hope that, despite his sinful nature, he may have salvation and eternal reunion with God

To my mind, it is at least as logical as the empty universe of the atheists... and a lot more hopeful.

TWood,

"atheist" is a greek declarative word. It means, literally, "There is no God"

You assume infinite knowledge to state that there is no infinite knowledge. That is implicit in the use of the term. Even Bertrand Russell backed away from that one. Either way, what I wrote was no more absurd than your pronouncements, like this one, which is a complete and total misunderstanding and/or mischaracterization of not only Christianity, but Judaism as well:

Then this God insists that this fraudulent 'sacrifice' be accepted on pain of eternal damnation if you don't show thanks.

docjim had a good answer for you, so I'll leave it to him. Before you start turning anything else "to vapor", TWood, you should have some idea of what you are talking about.

Let me clarify; what I wrote is unclear: "atheist" is a derivation of a Greek declarative phrase containing "a" and "theos", literally, "There is no God".

We now return you to your regularly scheduled "evaporation".

Further, given the dichotomy Kennedy places in his speech between his party and his Church, I expect he had to choose between one or the other at some point, and that your idea that he was lying is correct.

unclesmrgol, please don't put words in my mouth. The idea that Kennedy is somehow lying is strictly yours, and not mine. What Kennedy was pointing out was how his allegiance to Catholicism would not trump his allegiance to his duty as President to uphold the laws of the U.S., even those laws, such as the death penalty, that the Church deems to be sinful. If you expect a Catholic president to not uphold the law of the land but the canon of the Church instead, don't expect that a Catholic will again be elected President.

FYI NoDonkey, the threatened denial of full communion to both Catholic politicians as well as to those who would vote for them was clearly stated by Bishop Sheridan to his 125,000 parishioners. Given that was in the quote I supplied to you, I don't know how you could have missed it. I am not a Catholic myself, but I do understand what Sheridan was talking about and I am not misleading anyone about it here either.

starfleet_dude,

You adon't understand what the Bishop was writing about.

The Bishop was saying (again) that supporting politicians who go against the teachings of the Catholic Church is a barrier to growing closer to the church - this is the "communion" he is writing about here. "Communion" or "common union" with the Church, in a spiritual sense. In the dictionary "a body of Christians having a common faith and discipline."

That is not at all the same as the Sacrament of Holy Communion, which Catholics receive around age eight and receive (when in a state of grace) during each mass, when they receive the Holy Eucharist.

The Bishop was not planning on asking each parishioner whether they were voting for Kerry, prior to providing them with the Holy Eucharist. That's just ludicrous.

A Mormon, Muslim, Buddhist, Atheist or whatever will have to, as this piece suggest, be somewhat of an educator. Since they would be the first of whatever religion to hold the office of president, there's a certain comfort-level they have to reach with the electorate. And that's not to say the ENTIRE electorate would be uncomfortable with say a Mormon, but significantly more than would be with a Christian.

Tom Shipley, education won't necessarily make anyone more comfortable with the tenents of a faith other than their own, and might just exacerbate them instead. Romney tried to elide the differences his Mormonism makes to those of other faiths by saying that only a "person of faith" should be President of the United States. It would be better if Romney just said that his faith would not trump his duty to uphold the Constitution. Some may want to make religious faith itself a political issue, but doing that can only politicize religion. The dividing line then wouldn't be between the faithful and faithless, but between religions. The Founding Fathers made a wise choice by not making the U.S. Constituion a confessional document, and religious leaders who think it should be otherwise have a thing or two to learn from politicians.

The Bishop was not planning on asking each parishioner whether they were voting for Kerry, prior to providing them with the Holy Eucharist. That's just ludicrous.

They wouldn't have to ask them NoDonkey, they would only have to check the bumper stickers out in the church parking lot! Seriously though, when a bishop states that voting a certain way is sinful, the flock doesn't have to be asked about how they're going to vote - they're getting the message loud and clear. They also know that openly supporting the wrong candidate will be noticed, and that there will be consequences for doing so.

Twood,

Do you include your own sacred beliefs? Such as the belief that there is no diety?
The belief that having beliefs cause people to act stupidly? (In your case, this may be true.)

Well, you know Catholics are so good at following each and everything the Bishop says . . .

But there was no discussion of denying the Sacrament of Holy Communion to Kerry supporters and it's not true to say that anyone in the church was even "flirting" with the idea.

HIllary Clinton overbilled her hours and had to 'lose' the invoices from her firm. She made 100 grand in cattle futures because of brains? A forensic accountant would have a field day with the Clinton's books from that era.

Ted Turner inherited his money and married Hanoi Jane.

Saddam violated people's rights.

Where does Romney even compare?

Just asking...

And FWIW TX Aggie, you have been polite.

docjim,

Thank you for taking the time to make that response. It is however not persuasive because using the Bible to prove the claims made within itself is not persuasive. To save us both some time, I'll be presumptive enough to say that if we continue arguing this topic you will in the end say something to the effect of: "I believe because I believe." Which, sadly, is also where Andrew Sullivan has left his argument with Sam Harris. I say sadly because I had hoped to see something more rigorous out of Sullivan.

Regarding the term 'atheist' I think there's a failure in language that has affected my presentation, a failure that I've experienced in this argument before. In truth, I'd classify myself as a pantheist in the tradition of Spinoza and Einstein. My experience with using that term in mixed company has not been good, since many people automatically assume I worship a pagan goat-man. If that's where anyone here is coming from, go look it up.

But it's also arguable that most people here are atheists when it comes to Gods from the past, say Thor. So I'd be an atheist in that sense when it comes to the crop of Gods currently in favor. All of which are man made.

Johnnymozart: I wonder why you are speaking for Fightin TX Aggie? You seem to be characterizing his statements for him. Well I think his comments speak for themselves. You insist that he is not intolerant but that I am. Well let me point out he is demeaning my beliefs. I have not picked out his sacred beliefs and belittled them. You further state that it is not hateful what he has done. Well here are a few things I believe are hateful:

-He says any Mormon shows poor judgment to believe their faith. That is hateful
-He says Mormonism is outlandish. That is hateful
-He says Mormonism is a cult like Raeliens. That is hateful.
-He says Mormons are duped by a fringe religion. That is hateful.
-He says Mormonism has been proven false. That is hateful.
-He says Mormonism makes audacious claims and points to 2 major falsehoods. That is hateful

The two major falsehoods he points to are Archeology claims and the Book of Abraham

You say I should refute these if I believe they are true. Ok, go here and read:
http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/answers.php
Beware, an honest investigation of this website will take a loooooong time. These refutations are made by very intense Mormon scholars and your head may explode. On the other hand you may learn something (not just about Mormonism but something which would strengthen any thoughtful Christian testimony of Christ)

You go on to say that he is not intolerant of Mormons but only their theology. Ok, so you admit he is intolerant of Mormon theology. Now we have agreement. That is the classical definition of bigotry.

You personally state that Mormonism is a “Shaky theology” Come on, that is borderline hateful bigotry too. I see that the discourse has been generally cordial since the big hate bomb Aggie left in the second post on this thread. I wish he would apologize and retract the post.

scotty, you are the one who should apologize to me. Your personal attacks are uncalled for.

Honest investigation is what lead me to realize Joseph Smith's frauds. I have almost certainly read more FAIR and FARMs and Jeff Lindsay than you even know exists.

I do not believe Mormonism is a cult. If you took that from my post, you misunderstood me. I do believe it is outside the mainstream, and I do believe it is false. The evidence in support of these beliefs is strong.

Please consider the possibility that it is you who have failed to honestly investigate. As I said, this is not the place to debate the technical aspects of Book of Mormon archaeology or the papyrus Joseph Smith, but if you truly have interest in the truth, I will be happy to answer your questions by email.

If your faith cannot withstand inquiry or criticism, then perhaps you need to self-examine.

Let me help you think outside the box: a person can assert that "gentile" churches are false. That does not make such a person hateful. It just means he or she rejects such churches. Maybe he or she thinks the churches fell victim to a great apostasy. If so, he or she can explain the history behind this claim.

That is called discussion or debate - not hate.

I challenge you to honestly consider and read materials critical of the LDS church. Decide for yourself whether it is true. Don't let the church decide for you.

Best of luck.

Fightn Texas Aggie:

You have failed to respond to my challenge and you have ignored the point of my post, as well as ignoring the point of your original post.

Your original post posited that (1) you have proven to your satisfaction that the truth claims of Mormonism are false; and (2) anyone who disagrees with you lacks the necessary judgment to be President.

A necessary corollary of your position is that your judgment is superior to Romney's. Judgment is a highly subjective term, but I do think the proof of the pudding is in the taste, and if your judgment is superior to Romney's that should surely be demonstrable by some real world example of where your superior judgment has allowed you to achieve something he has not. Your inability to respond leaves me to believe that your supposedly superior judgment may actually be a figment of your overly arrogant imagination than something on which I should rely in comparing your judgment to his.

As to the other successful people referenced in your non-response, let me make two points:

(1) None of the names you mentioned has experienced as much success as Romney in ALL areas of life. To take just one example, while Hillary is a very successful politician her marriage surely leaves something to be desired, and she hasn't had anywhere near the business sucess as Romney. Some success, in some areas of life, can be attributable to good luck, or timing, or connections, or raw ambition, but bad judgment will eventually out, if not in one's public life, than (usually first, as it turns out) in one's private life.

(2) More importantly, if I vote against Hillary, it won't be because I claim she lacks the judgment to be President (let alone because I would be arrogant enough to claim that my differences with her religion proves she lacks judgment). It will be because I disagree with her politics. Evaluating someone's judgment and claiming that your own is superior to theirs is your game not mine. In that regard, I'm still waiting for proof of your claims.

Provide me with one real world example in which your superior judgment has allowed you to achieve something that Romney has not?

Still waiting . . . . Still waiting . . . . Still waiting . . . .

dchrisa, why do you wish to personalize this? And how do YOU define success? Is money success?

Based on youre remarks, I graduated with a higher ranking from my law school than Romney did from his. I have a wonderful family. I am an accomplished musician. (Is Mitt?) I am an accomplished hunter. (Mitt is not.) A statewide magazine in Texas just listed me as being in an elite category (top 2.5% of all lawyers in the state). (Did Mitt ever receive such recognition?)

I volunteer with the needy, visit elderly people in nursing homes and help build houses with habitat for humanity. Yippee for me....

Importantly, though, I am not running for the presidency. That is a good thing, because I am not qualified. I could not do the job.

I also hold the office in very high regard, and I see no reason to "settle" for a candidate who has a glaring problem.

I do not think I would vote for Romney. I also would not vote for a protestant who thought the world was created in six solar days and is only 6,000 years old - when we know the world is much, much older.

In my view, when it comes to the president, you must consider his judgment as a whole. Romney has some good points, but he has also fallen victim to a PROVEN fraud. Now, johnnymozart raised some really good counter-arguments, and I have tipped my hat to him to some extent.

I hope this helps.

I'm puzzled by all the vitriol directed against Mormons, especially the sneers about our underwear. Where I come from, a gentleman does not make inquiries about a lady's undergarments.

I recommend reading Hugh Hewitt's book "A Mormon in the White House?" and I think he made some great points about Mitt's run for the POTUS. First, that there should not be a political litmus test for federal offices--it's un-American and un-Constitutional. Second, that Christians should be careful in denigrating Mormonism because, as mentioned here previously, atheists and secularists will use the same arguments to denigrate Christianity.

You can see by how Christianity is being attacked daily in the MSM that this is already happening. Just the other day I was watching a National Geographic special on the Exodus that said there was no archaeological evidence for the Exodus as told in the Bible so it was probably just a bunch of folklore passed down by some scattered groups of Hebrew nomads. How do the Jews and Christians on this board feel about arguments like that? The scientists feel they have effectively disproved the existence of Moses, one of the founding prophets of Christianity and Judaism. I like to think that in regards to archaelogical data that the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.

Now some people on the right seem to want to help out the secular left by attacking their Mormon brothers and sisters for their so-called foolish beliefs? It's senseless and counterproductive.

I'm not supporting Romney because he's LDS (that's just a bonus), but because his platform is closest to my political beliefs AND I think he is most likely to beat whoever the Dems run. I would never vote for Harry Reid. He makes me sick because he seems to have no convictions of his own, just spouts the party platform.

Calling the LDS church a cult or not Christian is just name calling and using definition by exclusion. I celebrated the resurrection of Jesus Christ, my Savior, on Easter sunday at church, took the sacrament, and read about Christ's last hours in the New Testament. I pray to God following the model Jesus set forth in the Lord's prayer. I think that qualifies me as a Christian. I think what people mean by not Christian is not "their kind of Christian." They don't like the Book of Mormon, they don't like Joseph Smith, and they don't like that our belief about the Trinity or other doctrines is different than theirs.

Also, whoever said that the LDS church is misogynist is just plain wrong. I have a Ph.D. in Biophysics and have 1 son (another on the way) and no one ever told me to just stay home and have kids. Education is very important to LDS members and so is family so we each have to figure out how to balance both.

BTW, it was the LDS women (my mom included) that were mostly opposed to the ERA and organized against it. We have no problem with the belief that children need a mother to raise them, especially in their early years, and we don't deny that most women have a natural nuturing instinct. We've got biology and the Bible on our side of the argument.

You should read what the consequences of that amendment would do to our society, especially our families (Phyllis Schafly wrote a great article about it). Women would be forced to join the draft and would lose benefits such a widow's pensions for veterans.

If you'd like to see more young mothers in combat just as we saw with the British naval hostages, by all means support the ERA. I just thought Americans had more honor than to force their mothers, daughters, and sisters to fight their wars for them.

I think of myself as a feminist, but as a biologist I know that I could never physically perform half as well as a man in combat. the fact is men and women are different and have diffent strengths and weaknesses. And I certainly think a mother should be home with her young children if possible instead of being out in the front lines. Political correctness cannot trump biology and common sense.

Just the other day I was watching a National Geographic special on the Exodus that said there was no archaeological evidence for the Exodus as told in the Bible so it was probably just a bunch of folklore passed down by some scattered groups of Hebrew nomads. How do the Jews and Christians on this board feel about arguments like that? The scientists feel they have effectively disproved the existence of Moses, one of the founding prophets of Christianity and Judaism.

I welcome such discussions. I think the exodus draws robust debate by qualified archaeologists. Objective professionals disagree - as you probably saw on the same show.

I expect my faith to stand up to vigorous and honest scientific analysis.

Fightin Tx Aggie: I have attacked you personally? I merely think that your personal attack of my beliefs indicate hate, intolerance, bigotry and are hateful, shameful, disgusting, a waste of time, feeble, reminiscent of Sadducees’ and Pharisees’ arguments, and amount to hate speech. ( I think that is all the words I’ve used)

Okay, I’ll admit it. It appears that I have attacked you personally, but we are at an impasse. You demand an apology for my behavior; but, if I apologize, am I endorsing your attack? Am I saying it is okay to belittle my religion? Shouldn’t I be allowed to defend my beliefs even by calling names if necessary?

I think I am willing to apologize for not being eloquent enough to argue using only polite language. I am willing to apologize for not being able to disagree without being disagreeable. However, do not take this to mean that I agree with your tactics and rhetoric nor do I apologize for attacking it, only for the in-artful way in which I attacked it.

Thanks for your generous offer to further disseminate anti-mormon thought to me (wink); however, I have thoroughly studied all the literature you could supply. Before being becoming a Mormon as an adult, I studied it all. It truly is not a very deep pool. One can quickly categorize the entire known universe of anti-mormon literature into maybe a handful of different groupings. And it doesn’t take too long before you’ve heard all the arguments. They are all old arguments (no new thoughts in over 50 years) and they are endlessly recycled.

Once I had all the information before me I had to make up my mind. This took me 5 years, and in the end, it wasn’t a logical deduction that made me join the LDS faith, it was a spiritual witness. And those spiritual witnesses have continued to come through the last 15 years at various frequencies and intensities. Only recently I found, through study of the Book of Mormon a stunningly complex literary chiasmus that encompasses the entire book of 1 Nephi (I am still mapping it out, maybe I’ll publish one day). Along with this discovery, came a witness more powerful than I had ever had before, that the Book of Mormon could not have been written my any man but is The Word of God. So, I am left to weight whether the peculiar story of Joe Smith with his head in a hat is too strange for me to discount the Spirit witnessing to me. Well, I have my answer, it is peculiar, it is strange, it is true. Never have I regretted my decision. It makes me and my family deeply and profoundly happy. Maybe that is why I cannot abide what I perceive as an attack on my way of life. In effect, I view it as an attack on my personal integrity and my family. Them ‘s fightin words and who did it come from but someone callin himself Fightin Tx Aggie. Somehow it seemed appropriate to put up my dukes.

TWood wrote (April 10, 2007 11:41 AM):

It is however not persuasive because using the Bible to prove the claims made within itself is not persuasive. To save us both some time, I'll be presumptive enough to say that if we continue arguing this topic you will in the end say something to the effect of: "I believe because I believe."

Well, that IS why it's called "faith" (incidentally, I included verses from the Bible to better explain what Christians believe, not as proof that we are right). Though I've never read the work, I'm given to understand that St. Augustine "proved" the existence of God. C.S. Lewis makes an attempt in "Mere Christianity", and I'm sure any number of theologians and churchmen over the centuries have made similar efforts.

Personally, I think such efforts, while an interesting intellectual exercise, are ultimately vain. I don't think that the existence of God can be proved any more than one can prove that ten angels can dance on the head of a pin.

Indeed, belief in God - faith - is itself a gift from God. St. Paul writes:

For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God...The Book of Ephesians, 2:8/blockquote>

What is required of man is an open heart. In some extreme cases (such as Paul himself), God has been known to take more direct measures.

But, again, I freely admit that the existence of God cannot be proved. All I can tell you is that I believe and urge you to ponder the words of the Gospel in your own heart. I would also add (and it shames me to do it): please do not judge God by what we, His miserable people do, but by what great things He has done.

Fight'n Texas Aggie:

Thank you for telling me more about your background, but I'm not that impressed. I'm sure a lot of people graduated higher in their law school than Romney did from his. But were their law schools as competitive as Harvard? Was yours? Or were you an Aggie? Did you simultaenously graduate higher than Romney from Harvard business school? I'm sure a lot of people would claim to have a wonderful family. I don't know anyone who would say different, even if they're on their third marriage and two of their kids are in jail. How about some specifics?

Here's the bottom line: You are unwilling to vote for Romney because he's a Mormon. You could've just come straight out and said so, but you knew that people would consider that attitude to be bigoted. You didn't want to be called a bigot. So you dressed it up: you claimed your concern wasn't Romney's religion, per se, but Romney's lack of judgment, as proven by his religion. Furthermore, you thereby necessarily claimed that your judgment was superior to his, simply because he has not accepted your arguments about his religion.

This was a bit arrogant (anyone who can't see the truth of my arguments lacks judgment). But hey, better to be called arrogant than a bigot.

So I asked you to prove that Romney's judgment was demonstrably inferior to yours in some tangible real-world way. You haven't been able to do so. Your emperor has no clothes. There's no empirical proof that Romney lacks judgment, let alone that he has less judgment than you. Your unwillingness to vote for him cannot rationally be based on a claim that he lacks judgment. It is, therefore, in fact, based on prejudice against him based on his religion. That's fine. But be honest with yourself and the rest of us about it.

Which of these two statements is more likely to be true:

Romney seriously lacks judgment, but despite this major obstacle, he has somehow managed to be hyper-successful in school, marriage, parenting, business, politics, and other endeavors.

Or: Romney has incredibly good judgment, as demonstrated by the fact that he has been hyper-successful in school, marriage, parenting, business, politics, and other endeavors.

If you find the former of the foregoing two statements more likely than the latter, I think you are the one who lacks judgment.

Either that, or maybe your whole "judgment" analysis was just a red herring in the first place, and you're really just a bigot who didn't want to say so.

I don't believe that Fightin' Texas Aggie has engaged in hate speech.

I'm not even sure that he has proven himself to be a bigot.

However, I believe that he absolutely proven himself to be intolerant.

There are two reasons that I have come to that conclusion:

First, his links don't work.

Now, one could legitimately question whether the websites he linked to themselves were bigoted, intolerant or involved hate speech, but that isn't my point here.

They just don't work.

So, Texas Aggie - as part of his definitive "proof" of the falseness of the Mormon faith - provided 3 links. Two went to files that couldn't be found and one to a page that doesn't work. I've tried them numerous times over the past couple of days from different computers and get the same messages everytime.

Now, that leads me to two possible conclusions:

1) Texas Aggie appropriated the whole piece from a 4th website (which he didn't credit) and, in his haste to do so, simply didn't test the links out himself.

or

2) His post was something he had on file because he's used it before and he simply didn't stop to check if the links were still good.

Either way, it gives the impression that this issue is something of an obsession with him and that suggests intolerance.

The other reason is his insistence on only two possible interpretations:

1) Romney hasn't investigated his faith

or

2) Romney has been fooled by a false religion and therefore has impaired judgement.

Most adults have lived enough to know that seldom are things so black and white. I am reminded of something that happened to me in my mid-20's. I was living in another country at the time and it was ruled by a rather notorious tyrant. I had the temerity to say to a friend from there that I now understand what it was like to live under a tyrant. She gently corrected me - I only knew what it was like to VISIT a country living under a tyrant. I could (and would) leave to live in freedom. Her freedom took a decade longer to arrive.

While someone looking at us from the outside could believe our situations to similiar, they actually had nothing in common.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with Texas Aggie expressing the opinion that the Mormon faith is false.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with Texas Aggie saying that he would never vote for Romney. (Frankly, I am unlikely to do so either.)

However, he has no way of knowing the experiences, education or thought processes that led Romney to accept the Mormon faith. To claim that he does - which he is doing by claiming there are only two explanations for the decision - is, at best arrogant, and, at worst, ignorant.

I also am amazed that someone would even claim to be able to scientificially "prove" faith. Does he/she not have a dictionary? ;-)

For a lawyer, though, he hasn't made much of a case.

I do not believe that Fightn Texas Aggie has engaged in hate speech. But I do believe he has demonstrated himself to be a bigot.

Is it bigoted to seek to refute the truth claims of Mormonism, or any other religion? Absolutely not.

But when you take the next step, and say that: Therefore, any member of that religion [is not qualified to hold a particular political office] [lacks judgment] [is mentally inferior to me because they don't accept my arguments] [fill in the blank], as Fightn Texas Aggie has done, then you are not just making a theological / factual argument. Rather, you are turning that factual/theological argument into a value "judgment" (to use the word Mr. Aggie originally focused on) about the worth of another human being, based upon that human being's religious beliefs.

If that's not bigotry then the word has no meaning.

Folks like Mr. Aggie always show up in these types of discussions and want us to believe, and insist on characterizing what most who have posted or read here would probably agree is stiff intolerance and probably hate-laden conversation, as nothing but scientific, objective, civil, empirical, and factual discourse. I'll grant that the debate from their end can appear innocuous and civil sometimes. But the premises where their arguments come from are hardly objective and are in reality burdened by so many assumptions, a professional archaeologist like myself would never let them touch a trowel or wield a pen because of this inability to eliminate some pretty obvious basic biases in the way they interpret the world around them. Alas, they're simply helping us all to reveal the truth--so they incorrectly profess.

When it comes to religion, they base this flawed rationalle on the belief that no harm comes from undermining another belief system if it's done from the basis of using "objective empirical criteria" and follows a "scientific" method. They will logically tell you that there's nothing wrong with subjecting religion, cultural practice, and anthropological diversity to what they think of as some trumping set of objective scientific criteria that governs the universe, and then making a universal judgement about its worth to the world, and the worth of the individual that claims the belief.

To apply the scientific method to faith is just preposterous, and dangerous. I mean, really, come on---saying that the tenets of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints are any less believable from a scientific perspective, than Christianity or Hinduism or take thousands of picks throughout history and the world, is just laugh out loud baloney, that is especially baloney if you have a clue what the functioning doctrine of the Mormon religion really is.

Funny thing is that you'll never hear, or very very rarely hear, of members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints degrading or undermining other religions. But, you have a whole bunch of organized religions that are consistently on the attack against the Mormons.

I agree that when it comes to stating an opinion of Mr. Romney's religious belief, in the form of agreement or disagreement , is of course fine and dandy. But to say it's a lie and anyone who disagree's with your conclusion has impaired judgement is just so silly, hurtful, and certainly proves your own lack of judgement.

Mr. Romney has a clear record of leadership that improves. He's shown outstanding leadership and judgement in his political life, and is obviously conservative in his world view. He's accompanied by scores of other Mormon's in our highest offices of government, and not to mention in our highest positions of business. These people are not kooks that lack judgement and are prone to mysterious actions. We needn't fear them, and we needn't focus on their religion to judge whether we want them to lead our government. They already are, and frankly, we need more that observe their principles and policies.

Well, well. Quite a bit has been said since I was here last. let me briefly respond.

First the links I provided work - but the comments software allowed the ")" to become part of each link, which caused them to not work. Here they are without the ")" :

http://www.utlm.org/onlineresources/testingthebookofmormon.htm

http://www.lhvm.org/dna.htm

http://www.bookofabraham.info/

Let me return briefly to dchrisa. I have never been divorced and have one beatiful child. I was also not the son of a former Michigan Governor, Housing and Urban Development Secretary, American Motors chairman, and Presidential candidate.

I notice you did not address my other accomplishments, but again, my accomplishments are irrelevant as I am not running for the most powerful office in the world.

You appear to have defined "success" as financial wealth, an apparent intact family, political success and work on the olympics. Is it your premise that a financially poor, single person who never held elected office or chaired a large corporation is less successful or has less judgment than someone like Mr. Romney? (Be careful with your answer.)

Finally, my LDS critics on this comment thread seem to ignore the fact that I would not vote for a "gentile" who thinks the world is only 6,000 years old or who thinks black people were cursed by God. In my view, such a person would lack sound judgment.

Would you vote for someone who thinks black people were cursed by God? (He could never make such bigotry into policy, so such troglodyte views would not directly impact his governance.) Do you think such a person, though, would have the judgment necessary for the white house?

Texas Aggie ...

I see that you are changing the goal posts on your arguement.

First, you left links up for 2 days that did not work - hardly the sign of a scholarly approach to a discussion where your are CLAIMING to have objective proof.

Now, you claim that they did work - except that they didn't ... but that wasn't YOUR fault ....
it was that other things fault ....

That is consistent with the overall arrogance of your comments but, again, hardly speaks in your favor as far as objectivity.

Second, you question DChrisa on how he defines success ...

The only problem is that that was not what he said. He asked about indicators of how someone's judgement could be judged "good" or "bad". "Success" is simply one indicator that could be used.

Your attacking him on that tangential point - instead of his central one - and lets not forget the implied threat that you added - speaks to the weakness of your overall argument.

You are claiming that Romney not agreeing with you completely on Mormon theology can only have to possible explanations:

1) He hasn't investigated the faith

or

2) His judgement is poor

Answer DChrisa's question - why should we value your judgment?

Finally, my LDS critics on this comment thread seem to ignore the fact that I would not vote for a "gentile" who thinks the world is only 6,000 years old or who thinks black people were cursed by God. In my view, such a person would lack sound judgment.

Would you vote for someone who thinks black people were cursed by God? (He could never make such bigotry into policy, so such troglodyte views would not directly impact his governance.) Do you think such a person, though, would have the judgment necessary for the white house?

That I had to quote - and for one simple reason.

Two of the sites that you quoted are to Mormonism what the KKK and Arayan Nation sites would be to a discussion the fitness of Barak Obama's judgement.

What does that say about your judgement?

He asked about indicators of how someone's judgement could be judged "good" or "bad".

One definition of "judgment" is "the formation of an opinion after consideration or deliberation."

Under this definition, I would say that poor judgment would be the formation of the opinion that the LDS church is true IF overwhelming and compelling evidence shows the LDS church to be false.

Notice that is a big "if."

Put another way, I would say that poor judgment would be the formation of the opinion that black people are cursed by God. Some people, even those who are not full of hate, have mistakenly reached this conclusion from their review of the Bible.

You may agree with me that black people are not cursed by God and disagree with me that the LDS church is false, but my premise remains the same.

IF the evidence against Joseph Smith's church is overwhelming and compelling - IF it can be literally disproved - then I would hope a presidential candidate could grasp that truth.

Perhaps you can respond in substance rather than with more attacks on me personally?

Funny thing is that you'll never hear, or very very rarely hear, of members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints degrading or undermining other religions.

An interesting sidenote in relation to this comment. When I undertook an open, honest and thorough investigation of the LDS church, I attended more than one service. At one, Douglas L. Callister, a member of the Second Quorum of the Seventy, belittled the Lutheran church during his official talk. He drew titters from the congregation. (His comments had to do with infant baptism.) Now, I am not Lutheran, and I took no offense to his comments, but his point was that Lutherans have it all wrong.

Let me note again that this comment string is not the right place to debate the specifics of whether or not the LDS church is false. Again, Captain Ed raised the issue of valid/invalid reasons to oppose Mitt Romney. I have set forth my premise in that regard.

Testing, testing, 1, 2, 3. :-)