Confronting the New Mormon Threat

[Nan_S]

Caution. Before you post in this thread, keep in mind the Forum Rules:

CAF is banning all discussions of political candidates. This ban includes posts that name a candidate, allude to a particular candidate, use euphemisms for a candidate, or refer to surrogates for a particular candidate.

I will try my best to comply with this ban, keeping my comments as general as possible.

This Tuesday (“Super Tuesday”) and again today I received from Catholic Answers Projects e-mails with the subject “Confronting the New Mormon Threat.”

I think it is interesting that this campaign launch coincides with the major primaries. It seems to be a not-so-subtle suggestion that we give heavy weight to the religious beliefs of the candidates, and make our choices more because of those beliefs than because of their other qualities. In fact the e-mail campaign directly references politics. Here are some of the statements from these e-mails:

Mormonism is enjoying a resurgence in popularity and interest, in part because of election news coverage.
The “new Mormon threat” is more serious than ever before. With all the talk about it in the media due to the presidential election, more and more people are curious about Mormonism and are visiting Mormon web sites. But these web sites are highly deceptive.
The Mormon church has been in the news a lot recently. The head of the church, styled its “prophet,” recently died. Many dignitaries attended his funeral, including a major political candidate whose Mormonism has been discussed a lot these last few months.
Mormon evangelists have been taking advantage of their church being in the headlines. They have been doing their best to invite Americans to take a closer look at their religion.
…we had to write a special report…It’s this powerful, eye-opening report that we need to get into the hands of as many Catholics as possible—as quickly as possible—before the Mormon juggernaut picks up more speed and takes in tens of thousands of our fellow Catholics.

The information supplied in the report (written by Jimmy Akin) is, of course, absolutely essential for anyone uncertain about the “truths” of Mormonism and the Real Truth of the Catholic faith.

What concerns me about this e-mail campaign is the heavy emphasis on our candidates’ personal religious beliefs, thereby overriding or obscuring their track records as effective (or ineffective) leaders in office.

To our shame, Catholics have historically been very inept in promoting solid, conservative candidates. It seems that Catholics instead produce the liberal wishy-washy sort of candidates who claim “I personally would never do _____ but I won’t stand in the way of anyone who disagrees” and engage in blame-America-first politics. (Abortion rights come to mind. Global warming, too.)

With this kind of a questionable track record, I would suggest that Catholic voters perhaps should put less emphasis on the candidates’ personal religious beliefs. We should put more emphasis on the candidates’ demonstrated leadership promoting those solid, effective traditional values which the Catholic Church upholds, regardless of which church the candidates attend.

For the record, I am no pro-Mormon apologist. When the missionaries come knocking I try to keep them at my door as long as possible, partly to keep them from bothering (recruiting) my less-informed neighbors but mostly to try to charitably show them the major inconsistencies in their church.

Mormon missionaries will always be with us. And the interest in them will ebb and flow like the tides of the ocean.

But the leaders we elect in the next few months will set the course of the nation for the next decade. Please consider all factors carefully when you vote, not just the candidates’ religious beliefs.

 

[why_me]

I think that you have given a good twist on the email campaign. One that I have not thought about. It would seem that Catholic Answers was attempting to influence catholic voters to stay away from a candidate because of his religion.The email attempted to plant some sort of fear factor in catholics.

The antimormonism demonstrated by the media during this election was alarming. The Wall Street Journal had an interesting article yesterday. It detailed the antimormonism that is within the general public. For example, Richard John Neuhaus, editor of the Catholic journal ‘First Things’ claimed that electing a mormon president would threaten other Christian faiths, according to the Wall Street Journal article. The Evangelicals were also playing the antimormon card in this election.

I am quite surprised about the virulent antimormonism that is being shown by such statements coming from catholic leaders. It is very unfortunate to say the least. It wasn’t that long ago that such statements were made by protestant conservatives against the catholic church. It seems hatred knows no religious boundaries and some catholic media leaders are also in on the act.

And a Florida pastor who runs an on-line ministry in Florida told his audience that a vote for Romney was a vote for satan. It is a sad day in america as religious bigotry shows its ugly face once more.

I can only imagine what would now be said if such statements were made against a jewish candidate. It would be considered hate speech for sure. But I suppose we, the people, can choose what is hate speech and what isn’t for other selected groups.

But one thing I do know, it isn’t a christian act of love and that is for sure.

 

[Nan_S]

I think that you have given a good twist on the email campaign. One that I have not thought about. It would seem that Catholic Answers was attempting to influence catholic voters … The email attempted to plant some sort of fear factor in catholics.

The antimormonism demonstrated by the media during this election was alarming. The Wall Street Journral had an interesting article yesterday.

Thank you for your comment. I wondered the same thing.

Please do not risk closing threads by making references to specific candidates.

 

[why_me]

Thank you for your comment. I wondered the same thing.

Please do not risk closing threads by making references to specific candidates.

I edited my post. I find it all rather sad in a way. I started that other thread about the email campaign and the ‘hatred’ on that thread toward mormonism was quite interesting. Of course there were also outraged posters too. But still, I would not have expected it from this site and from some its posters. I will need to have to have a talk with my nun and priest friends when I see them again.

I think that they would all think that it is very crazy indeed if they were to read the thread in question.

 

[Nan_S]

I edited my post. I find it all rather sad in a way. I started that other thread about the email campaign and the ‘hatred’ on that thread toward mormonism was quite interesting. Of course there were also outraged posters too. But still, I would not have expected it from this site and from some its posters. I will need to have to have a talk with my nun and priest friends when I see them again.

I think that they would all think that it is very crazy indeed if they were to read the thread in question.

Thank you for your help.

I will never back down from promoting the truth of the Catholic Church, even though arguments can get heated and I know there are those who object. I don’t believe it’s “hatred” to vigorously defend your position.

On the other hand, calling any candidate a Satan-spawn or engaging in religious fear-mongering is just wrong, especially against a candidate who espouses traditional American conservative values, and without promoting a viable alternative. I’d have understood that against a Muslim candidate with family ties to the Middle East, but I disagree that it was warranted with these candidates.

I just wish there was a solidly conservative political candidate I could vote “for” instead of just big-government liberals to vote “against”. It seems that every time a real conservative emerges he gets ripped to shreds from all sides, and it’s happened again this year. That we don’t need.

 

[zerinus]

Good to hear from you Nan. Long time no see! Hope you are keeping well. I missed your posts.

For the record, I am no pro-Mormon apologist. When the missionaries come knocking I try to keep them at my door as long as possible, partly to keep them from bothering (recruiting) my less-informed neighbors but mostly to try to charitably show them the major inconsistencies in their church.

My approach to door-to-door preachers is a little bit different. I love it when somebody comes to my door and tries to preach to me their religion! It is usually the JWs, because not many other people do it (apart from Mormons); and they always get a warm welcome from me. I don’t debate with them or argue with them either. When they come, I sit down and listen to them. I let them preach to me. Anybody who thinks that they have an important message (in their thinking at least) that they want to share it with the rest of the world, deserves to be treated with respect and listened to.

With the JWs, the conversation usually centers around Armageddon! It begins and ends with Armageddon! (LOL) So I let them tell me about Armageddon. They pull out their scriptures, and I pull out mine, and we talk about Armageddon. However, I always have good answers to give them out of the scriptures about Armageddon (and about the rest of the gospel), so that conversation very quickly grinds to a halt. Then I use that opportunity to tell them a little bit about my religion.

My preaching usually centers around the Apostasy and Restoration! That is guaranteed to get their attention. They prick their ears, and listen carefully. Sometimes they ask questions, and I tell them a bit more. But I don’t lecture to or debate with them either. Just a sentence or two is sufficient.

I have never converted one yet; but I know that I have planted a good seed which may some day bear fruit. One of the ways that I know that is that sometimes they come back! They come back apparently to tell me more about Armageddon; but I know that the real reason is because of the little seed I planted; and they are hungry for more. They come and sit down; and then they get tongue tied, because they know that they haven’t much else to say to me. So I tell them a bit more about the Apostasy and Restoration. I never turn anyone away who wants to come and talk to me about religion.

zerinus

 

[zerinus]

Caution. Before you post in this thread, keep in mind the Forum Rules:

CAF is banning all discussions of political candidates. This ban includes posts that name a candidate, allude to a particular candidate, use euphemisms for a candidate, or refer to surrogates for a particular candidate.

Where are these rules stated? I have not come across any.

zerinus

 

[wow]

I believe the candidate you’re eluding too is no longer a candidate.

 

[Nan_S]

Where are these rules stated? I have not come across any.

zerinus

Z,

This thread is NOT about door-to-door preaching techniques. Please do not attempt to hijack it.

This thread is about the election and what appears to be an attempt by CA to influence voters based on the candidates’ religious beliefs.

Were you a recipient of the CA e-mails mentioned? Many forum members got them, but not all.

You can find the Forum Rules - and the Banned Topics List - here:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=156527

and here:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=140872

 

[zerinus]

Were you a recipient of the CA e-mails mentioned? Many forum members got them, but not all.

Unfortunately I wasn’t. I wish I had been! Then I would have had a better idea of what you guys are talking about. But I think they had enough sense not to send me one!

You can find the Forum Rules - and the Banned Topics List - here:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=156527

and here:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=140872

I don’t think that those rules are very strictly observed. Romney’s candidacy has been discussed on this board hundreds of times, with him being mentioned by name. The following are a couple of search results for you to look at:

forums.catholic-questions.org/search.php?searchid=1253612

This link is an advanced search for “Romney” in the titles only. At first I did a search for “Romney” by posts, and the result was too many to look at. So I narrowed it down by searching in the titles only, and came up with fewer hits, which is more manageable.

I also did a Google search. When you click on Search at the top of the page, one of the options it gives you is to search CAF with a customized Google search engine. Well, I did that, using “Mitt Romney” as the search term, and came up with these results:

google.com/cse?cx=008187825485874300314%3Ae_1jpbppv18&q=mitt+romney&sa=Search&cof=FORID%3A0

So I don’t think that you need to worry about your thread being closed down just because somebody mentions Romney, or some other candidate. I think what they don’t like is somebody using the forums for some kind of “political campaigning”. Otherwise ordinary discussion is allowed.

This thread is NOT about door-to-door preaching techniques. Please do not attempt to hijack it.

I did no such thing. I made a comment on a paragraph of your own OP that related to Mormons doing just that—door-to-door preaching. I was commenting on something that you had yourself mentioned.

This thread is about the election and what appears to be an attempt by CA to influence voters based on the candidates’ religious beliefs.

Okay, I have carefully read the copy of the email posted by why me, as well as the extracts that you had posted from a different version of it that you received; and the impression I get is that the object of it is not political. The object is to raise some money for CAF. CAF seems to be perpetually short of funds, and they must have reached their wits end in how to raise money, so they decided to try this cheap scam. However, the fact that they appear to have sent a second version of the email afterwards, suggests that their first email may have had some success! So they decided that their strategy was working, and decided to persevere down the same course. That only shows how easily Catholics can be duped!

zerinus

 

[why_me]

Okay, I have carefully read the copy of the email posted by why me, as well as the extracts that you had posted from a different version of it that you received; and the impression I get is that the object of it is not political. The object is to raise some money for CAF. CAF seems to be perpetually short of funds, and they must have reached their wits end in how to raise money, so they decided to try this cheap scam. However, the fact that they appear to have sent a second version of the email afterwards, suggests that their first email may have had some success! So they decided that their strategy was working, and decided to persevere down the same course. That only shows how easily Catholics can be duped!

zerinus

Either that or their first attempt did not succeed and they thought to try again.

I am sure that I have given the email more publicity and support by posting it in this forum. But then again, it needed to be discussed.

 

[zerinus]

Either that or their first attempt did not succeed and they thought to try again.

Maybe! I was just guessing.

zerinus

 

[zerinus]

Unfortunately I wasn’t. I wish I had been! Then I would have had a better idea of what you guys are talking about. But I think they had enough sense not to send me one!

I don’t think that those rules are very strictly observed. Romney’s candidacy has been discussed on this board hundreds of times, with him being mentioned by name. The following are a couple of search results for you to look at:

forums.catholic-questions.org/search.php?searchid=1253612

This link is an advanced search for “Romney” in the titles only. At first I did a search for “Romney” by posts, and the result was too many to look at. So I narrowed it down by searching in the titles only, and came up with fewer hits, which is more manageable.

I also did a Google search. When you click on Search at the top of the page, one of the options it gives you is to search CAF with a customized Google search engine. Well, I did that, using “Mitt Romney” as the search term, and came up with these results:

google.com/cse?cx=008187825485874300314%3Ae_1jpbppv18&q=mitt+romney&sa=Search&cof=FORID%3A0

So I don’t think that you need to worry about your thread being closed down just because somebody mentions Romney, or some other candidate. I think what they don’t like is somebody using the forums for some kind of “political campaigning”. Otherwise ordinary discussion is allowed.

I did no such thing. I made a comment on a paragraph of your own OP that related to Mormons doing just that—door-to-door preaching. I was commenting on something that you had yourself mentioned.

Okay, I have carefully read the copy of the email posted by why me, as well as the extracts that you had posted from a different version of it that you received; and the impression I get is that the object of it is not political. The object is to raise some money for CAF. CAF seems to be perpetually short of funds, and they must have reached their wits end in how to raise money, so they decided to try this cheap scam. However, the fact that they appear to have sent a second version of the email afterwards, suggests that their first email may have had some success! So they decided that their strategy was working, and decided to persevere down the same course. That only shows how easily Catholics can be duped!

zerinus

The first link no longer works. You will have to do the search yourself, using the search term I had given. But the second link still works.

zerinus

 

[zerinus]

The first link no longer works. You will have to do the search yourself, using the search term I had given. But the second link still works.

zerinus

Here are the results of that search. As you can see, there have been at least 10 threads about Mitt Romney. The number posts are far greater. To my knowledge, none of them have ever been closed for that reason. One was closed for lack of charity, not for discussing politics, or mentioning him by name.

Lost a thread about Mitt Romney
A Vote for Romney is a Vote for Satan
Sharpton Denies Disputing Romney’s Faith
The Romney-Mormon Conversation Continues
Romney to denounce Mormonism next?
NY Times Article About Mitt Romney
Potential GOP Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney Talks About Abortion
How anti-Mormons will use the Mitt Romney run for the Presidency
Governor Mitt Romney shifts on adoption by gays
Romney and Michael Reagan to speak to RNC

zerinus

 

[Rachel_Malloy]

Discussion of political candidates is a banned topic. It is possible these threads were created prior to that decision.

You have been forwarned.

Thanks for your cooperation and God bless-

Rachel