Mormon President

[PauloFreire2]

“Peter Mclaren”

Tried to read one of his books. Very, very bad. He’s probably smart, but his prose is awful. He uses MASSIVE SENTENCES, chuck full of $49 words, NONE of which make any sense. :tsktsk: :coffeeread:

 

[isaac.madsen]

Mitt Romney’s Mormonism will be a MAJOR factor in 2008 if a miracle happens, and he gets the Repub nomination.

I still don’t see why the fact that he is Mormon is a problem to so many people other than that they may not understand the current beliefs of Mormonism or perhaps fear a Mormon take-over of government. That, indeed, would be a frightening situation, but I honestly don’t believe such a thing would happen. If it did, I guarantee the citizens of the United States would be outraged because the government is not supposed to support or deny support of any religion (unless - in the case of the Government not supporting - such a religion infringes on the rights of others). Something like that would be a definite blow to both the government and to Mormonism, which is why I’m not really afriad that something like that would occur.

However, regardless of what I’ve just said, even though I’ve been raised a Mormon, I have little respect for Mitt Romney. He flip-flops on important issues. Some would indeed see it as a miracle if Mitt Romney were to become the Republican nominee. The majority of Mormons I’ve talked with about it would not - neither would they vote for him.

 

[Allweather]

I still don’t see why the fact that he is Mormon is a problem to so many people other than that they may not understand the current beliefs of Mormonism or perhaps fear a Mormon take-over of government

You may think that Mormons are beloved among the great unwashed secular mass of Americans, but they are not. Evangelical Protestants and conservative Catholics don’t like them for religious reasons. Athiests and don’t-cares don’t like them because of the white shirted kids on bicycles who they view as quirky, odd, irritating. When most people think “Mormon” they think, “uh oh.” It may be unfair, but it is true.

So, Romney is carrying this weird religion baggage, and I guess you’ve noticed that it has already come up in newsprint, even long before the primaries. During the primaries, it probably won’t be much of a factor, since those races are localized. It will matter more in some places than others. An asset in UT and perhaps AZ, but not much of anywhere else; not much of a minus, either. If Romney survives the primaries, which is almost certain not to happen, he will then enter a whole different type of race: a nationwide race accompanied by a withering press attack. Any blemishes in his background, like, say, something connected with Mormonism, will be found out and gleefully published. In this sense, a solid family history won’t help, because everyone expects Mormons to be strangely sober and family-oriented. Most Americans don’t relate to this type of person. They relate better to someone like Bill Clinton, or W, who have skeletons rattling around in their family closets.

OK, so the conservative Christians will be telling everyone in their congregations about the Mormon things, like becoming gods, and god has hair and teeth, and THE GREAT APOSTASY (that one will be very popular). The atheists and don’t-cares will be laughing at old pix of Mitt in white shirt and backpack on a bicycle. Everyone will be sick and tired of rightwing prevaricators and flip-floppers who got us involved in an unpopular war, raped civil liberties, and turned a national surplus into a rising national deficit.

There’s more, but space is limited. You get the idea.

 

[PaulDupre]

And Joseph was right, for not long after Mormon war parties began raiding Gentile towns and plundering food, livestock, and valuables, burning around 50 non-Mormon homes in the process.

That’s what I was referring to in an earlier post as the Mormon practice of “spoiling the Egyptians” as they called it. The Mormons were convinced that they were the new Chosen People, and therefore they could “spoil the Egyptians” as the children of Israel did when they left Egypt.

Paul

 

[isaac.madsen]

You may think that Mormons are beloved among the great unwashed secular mass of Americans, but they are not. Evangelical Protestants and conservative Catholics don’t like them for religious reasons. Athiests and don’t-cares don’t like them because of the white shirted kids on bicycles who they view as quirky, odd, irritating. When most people think “Mormon” they think, “uh oh.” It may be unfair, but it is true.

Well, certainly I’d agree with that.

So, Romney is carrying this weird religion baggage, and I guess you’ve noticed that it has already come up in newsprint, even long before the primaries. During the primaries, it probably won’t be much of a factor, since those races are localized. It will matter more in some places than others. An asset in UT and perhaps AZ, but not much of anywhere else; not much of a minus, either. If Romney survives the primaries, which is almost certain not to happen, he will then enter a whole different type of race: a nationwide race accompanied by a withering press attack. Any blemishes in his background, like, say, something connected with Mormonism, will be found out and gleefully published. In this sense, a solid family history won’t help, because everyone expects Mormons to be strangely sober and family-oriented. Most Americans don’t relate to this type of person.

Not too many years ago, that’s exactly the sort of person Americans WERE looking for. It’s a shame the general American no longer wants a presidential leader who is a positive influence (and I’m not saying that only Mormons can be a positive influence or even that a Mormon leader wouldn’t be a negative influence).

They relate better to someone like Bill Clinton, or W, who have skeletons rattling around in their family closets.

OK, so the conservative Christians will be telling everyone in their congregations about the Mormon things, like becoming gods, and god has hair and teeth, and THE GREAT APOSTASY (that one will be very popular). The atheists and don’t-cares will be laughing at old pix of Mitt in white shirt and backpack on a bicycle. Everyone will be sick and tired of rightwing prevaricators and flip-floppers who got us involved in an unpopular war, raped civil liberties, and turned a national surplus into a rising national deficit.

There’s more, but space is limited. You get the idea.

Makes sense enough. Still, today Mormonism has become very mainstreamed (at least in your average Mormon’s beliefs from what I’ve come across - but that doesn’t mean there’s any shortage of weirdos out there). The weird things are mainly in the history of the religion and the temple cult rituals. If it wasn’t for polygamy and the temple, I think Mormonism would be a lot more popular and there would be a lot less worry about Mitt Romney.

On second thought, however… knowing what I went through in the temple ceremony last weekend, I don’t think I’d ever want a Mormon president either. I want nothing to do with that sort of thing.

In objections to Mormon history though (at least in objections to the violent parts of history), many of the same objections could be claimed in regard to a Catholic President. I find it interesting that some Mormons and Catholics both also have objections about the other religion based on accusations of occult influence on their religion.

 

[why_me]

That’s what I was referring to in an earlier post as the Mormon practice of “spoiling the Egyptians” as they called it. The Mormons were convinced that they were the new Chosen People, and therefore they could “spoil the Egyptians” as the children of Israel did when they left Egypt.

Paul

I have never heard any mormon refer to themselves as the new chosen people. But they do believe that their church is the true church of christ, organized in the latter days.

And spoil the egyptians is still a foreign concept to me. But I am going to check into it.

 

[why_me]

You may think that Mormons are beloved among the great unwashed secular mass of Americans, but they are not. Evangelical Protestants and conservative Catholics don’t like them for religious reasons. Athiests and don’t-cares don’t like them because of the white shirted kids on bicycles who they view as quirky, odd, irritating. When most people think “Mormon” they think, “uh oh.” It may be unfair, but it is true.

There’s more, but space is limited. You get the idea.

People generally don’t like ‘the other’ in people because of ignorance in the other. If you read your post, you will see what I mean. Ignorance is bliss when it comes to understanding lds people. But, regardless of what some ignorant Evangelical Protestants think, I will still love them as human beings. And the ignorant conservative catholics who make up 1% of the catholic faith, I will also show love, not to mention the ignorant atheists. I can love them too.

Ignorance creates separation, not togetherness. And yet, for all those who may be included in allweather’s post…well…you are not christian because you are only engaged in reading the word and not the world. Christ was not just a reader of the word but also a reader of the world. Think about it. :newidea:

 

[why_me]

“Peter Mclaren”

Tried to read one of his books. Very, very bad. He’s probably smart, but his prose is awful. He uses MASSIVE SENTENCES, chuck full of $49 words, NONE of which make any sense. :tsktsk: :coffeeread:

I know him personally. And you are right. But I think that he is trying to tone down his vocabulary. As a person, he is a great guy who speaks not the way he writes. Very down to earth.

Paula Allmann is also a good critical revolutionary pedagogist. Her book Critical Education against Global Capitalism: Karl Marx and Revolutionary Critical Education is a must.

Good to meet you, comrade! :juggle:

 

[why_me]

And Joseph was right, for not long after Mormon war parties began raiding Gentile towns and plundering food, livestock, and valuables, burning around 50 non-Mormon homes in the process. This escalated the conflict and things only got worse from there until the Mormons eventually fled to Illinois in the spring of 1839. This is the part of history Mormons don’t talk about. In their eyes they are always the victims. Yes they were treated terribly, but they also had blood on their hands.

**jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_Danites.shtml#danites

The 1838 Mormon war was the culmination of years of violence against Latter-day Saints, who had been driven from two states before Missouri and had been driven from two counties within Missouri. In previous attacks from Missouri mobs, the Saints learned that the government of the state had no interest in protecting unpopular victims of violence. The Saints were on their own, and in 1838, it became a literal war of survival against forces bent on the expulsion or extermination of the Mormon settlers. After having tried to deal with their problems through appropriate civil and military channels, the Saints realized that they would have to take military action on their own to survive. Thus, in mid-October, LDS leaders sent their own state-authorized militias in Caldwell and Daviess counties to actively resist mob efforts. Unauthorized and improper events took place, possibly under influence of the Danites, including crimes of burning homes of settlers in Daviess County where the Mormons needed to drive out the gathering mobs. Naturally, the use of force by Mormons, even though it was in the name of self-defense, only further infuriated the mobs and the pro-expulsionist Governor Boggs. The so-called “Mormon War” would culminate in the imprisonment of Mormon leaders, a genuine massacre of Mormon settlers at Haun’s Mill, and the issuance of an inhumane extermination order from the Governor of Missouri authorizing the expulsion or extermination of Mormons.
In 1838 the Mormons, having settled in the northwestern part of the state, were now gathering in force and were resolved not to be driven out again. Call it self-defense or stubborn militancy, the Saints were prepared to fight and resist the local mobs who were again bringing fear and violence to the Mormons. They would resist, even if it meant driving the mobs out of the area with force. Unfortunately, this militant attitude, reflecting Joseph Smith’s frustration with the established legal systems and his statements that the Saints needed to quit yielding to mobs and stand up for themselves, was, in hindsight, foolish and disastrous. It only exacerbated tensions with the people of Missouri and led to an escalation of hostilities against them.

Thus, in October of 1838, several bands of Mormons associated with local and legitimate militia groups appear to have gone well beyond what legitimate state militias were normally allowed to do - but the Mormons were in a desperate bid for self-preservation. Mormon groups marched across county lines from Caldwell County into Daviess County, a place associated with mob attacks against the Saints. Sadly, some of the Mormon troops burned and plundered homes of some Missourians, most of whom had fled the county. For many, such acts were generally viewed as justified by a desperate need to remove the lethal threat of mobs. But some LDS people saw those acts as extreme and unjustified. Orson Hyde and Thomas Marsh, both Apostles, were offended by the militant actions for defense and broke ties with the Church and wrote affidavits accusing the Church of much evil, though they both later repented of what they had done and returned to the Church. Unfortunately, it is probable that the burning and plundering occurred under the influence of Sampson Avard’s Danite band, who had been taught by Avard that God wanted the Mormons to have the wealth of the Gentiles and to seek vengeance regardless of the law.**

And this is from a mormon source. But as you can see history is open ot interpretation. Such is history and we tend to follow the side of the fence that we are sitting on. Be that as it may, the persecution of the mormons led to mormon militancy. There is no doubt about that.

But check out the Danites. They were an interesting group and you can read about them from the link I posted. And by the way, mormon ignorance is only because some Mormons don’t read very much. I guess it is the same for catholics…

 

[Allweather]

In objections to Mormon history though (at least in objections to the violent parts of history), many of the same objections could be claimed in regard to a Catholic President.

In what specifics?

 

[Allweather]

People generally don’t like ‘the other’ in people because of ignorance in the other. If you read your post, you will see what I mean. Ignorance is bliss when it comes to understanding lds people… Ignorance creates separation, not togetherness. And yet, for all those who may be included in allweather’s post…well…you are not christian because you are only engaged in reading the word and not the world. Christ was not just a reader of the word but also a reader of the world. Think about it. :newidea:

Actually, it works both ways. Three years ago, I knew virtually nothing about Mormonism. As far as I knew, Mormons were jes’ plain folks. A little strange, maybe, but no different than any other good tax-paying Americans. It wasn’t until I started studying Mormonism that I discovered that there is so much NOT to like about it.

So, you see, ignorance can be “bliss” and education can inform as to the reality of something that needs understanding in order to confront. Who was it that just said something about a Temple event recently that convinced him/her that he/she would never want a Mormon President? So, we find that when information is got, opinions are better formed, have more strength, and are more firmly applied to life.

A person ignorant about the deep theologies of Mormonism might think that Mormons are just another group of Christians. In fact, it appears that Mormon missionary efforts focus in part on deceiving people as to many of these teachings. Many Mormons know very little about Mormon theology, or history. This is not an accident.

 

[isaac.madsen]

Who was it that just said something about a Temple event recently that convinced him/her that he/she would never want a Mormon President? So, we find that when information is got, opinions are better formed, have more strength, and are more firmly applied to life.

That was me, and for those who may have questioned, indeed I am a HE and have never been otherwise. The temple is supposedly the most sacred thing in Mormonism, but I have always taken Christ’s view on the “money-changers” in the temple. It doesn’t seem right to me that I ought to rent temple garments to obtain salvation, or that I can buy lunch in a cafeteria inside the temple. The cafeteria always bothered me. To be honest, the first time I may have really started questioning Mormonism was at twelve years old when I first did “baptisms for the dead.” It never felt right to me and I have never been comfortable in the temple since. Sure, I felt the spirit there. It was often a very spiritual experience to be inside the temple, but as Christ evidenced with the money-changers, what happens inside a temple isn’t always what is supposed to be happening. It can be sacred and holy ground and still be wrong.

The endowment session was the breaking point for me. Nothing felt right in there. While it was nice to be with my parents and grandparents, the entire “session” was horrifying to me. Sure, the temple movie was interesting and brought some insights about what Mormonism really teaches, but that was the only thing I could connect with at all. I see no evidence in any scripture that the following handshakes and secret passwords are what get us into heaven and I wouldn’t trust having a president who has made secret oaths to protect such a ceremony.

A person ignorant about the deep theologies of Mormonism might think that Mormons are just another group of Christians. In fact, it appears that Mormon missionary efforts focus in part on deceiving people as to many of these teachings. Many Mormons know very little about Mormon theology, or history. This is not an accident.

Indeed, it is not by accident. Any faithful member will tell you it’s by “divine inspiration.” I laugh at the thought.

 

[4boysMom]

That was me, and for those who may have questioned, indeed I am a HE and have never been otherwise. The temple is supposedly the most sacred thing in Mormonism, but I have always taken Christ’s view on the “money-changers” in the temple. It doesn’t seem right to me that I ought to rent temple garments to obtain salvation, or that I can buy lunch in a cafeteria inside the temple. The cafeteria always bothered me. To be honest, the first time I may have really started questioning Mormonism was at twelve years old when I first did “baptisms for the dead.” It never felt right to me and I have never been comfortable in the temple since. Sure, I felt the spirit there. It was often a very spiritual experience to be inside the temple, but as Christ evidenced with the money-changers, what happens inside a temple isn’t always what is supposed to be happening. It can be sacred and holy ground and still be wrong.

The endowment session was the breaking point for me. Nothing felt right in there. While it was nice to be with my parents and grandparents, the entire “session” was horrifying to me. Sure, the temple movie was interesting and brought some insights about what Mormonism really teaches, but that was the only thing I could connect with at all. I see no evidence in any scripture that the following handshakes and secret passwords are what get us into heaven and I wouldn’t trust having a president who has made secret oaths to protect such a ceremony.

Indeed, it is not by accident. Any faithful member will tell you it’s by “divine inspiration.” I laugh at the thought.

Wow!!! Thanks for the insight. Many of us wonder what happens inside the Temple. While it may be sacred to the Mormons it truly seems secretive to the rest of the world. That is why I like being a Catholic-Christian, anyone is welcome at our sacred Masses anytime.

 

[isaac.madsen]

Wow!!! Thanks for the insight. Many of us wonder what happens inside the Temple. While it may be sacred to the Mormons it truly seems secretive to the rest of the world. That is why I like being a Catholic-Christian, anyone is welcome at our sacred Masses anytime.

Actually, very little of the temple ceremony is actually “secret.” The only thing that’s secret are the actual “signs and tokens” and I certainly haven’t revealed any of those so I’m not eternally damned according to Mormon standards yet.

 

[isaac.madsen]

I can guarantee that if these pages with my actual signature are found by my bishop or stake president (or possibly somebody even higher up) - or by any member who knows me for that matter, I’ll likely be excommunicated anyway.

 

[4boysMom]

I can guarantee that if these pages with my actual signature are found by my bishop or stake president (or possibly somebody even higher up) - or by any member who knows me for that matter, I’ll likely be excommunicated anyway.

Good luck on your journey. It seems like you are taking a turn from your past. May God Bless you.

 

[PaulDupre]

Wow!!! Thanks for the insight. Many of us wonder what happens inside the Temple. While it may be sacred to the Mormons it truly seems secretive to the rest of the world. That is why I like being a Catholic-Christian, anyone is welcome at our sacred Masses anytime.

There are films of the temple ceremonies on the internet. Just google Mormon temple endowment and you will get several sites that explain or show films of the temple ceremonies.

Paul

 

[why_me]

I can guarantee that if these pages with my actual signature are found by my bishop or stake president (or possibly somebody even higher up) - or by any member who knows me for that matter, I’ll likely be excommunicated anyway.

Not true. You have done nothing on these boards to get excommunicated. The most that I see is a man who is searching for his own place and truth. There is nothing excommunicable about that. In fact, if your bishop is a kind and sensible man, I can see nothing wrong in telling him how you feel and where these feelings are leading you. And if he is not a kind and sensible man, well, no one is perfect.

Isaac, no reason to play the ‘victim’ in this case.

 

[why_me]

Wow!!! Thanks for the insight. Many of us wonder what happens inside the Temple. While it may be sacred to the Mormons it truly seems secretive to the rest of the world. That is why I like being a Catholic-Christian, anyone is welcome at our sacred Masses anytime.

Actually, Isaac is not quite right in what he has just wrote. I suppose that it all comes down to attitude and when one is searching, one can see things just a little shaded. I am sure that it is the same for catholics who are disappointed in the catholic faith. The symptom is rather the same for all people who are disappointed in their religion. The negative needs to have a more dominate place over the positive.

I been through a couple of temples and I saw no cafeteria inside. But on the temple grounds there may be a cafeteria so people can eat lunch or dinner. And that would be only natural.

And may I remind some people here that there are often little shops that sell statues and rosaries and religious medals among other things inside catholic cathedrals. and when I was in Vilnius, Lithuania, women were selling wax candles for money inside the main cathedral and if one had no money, one did not get a candle.

But in the lds case, one can buy temple garments and sciptures and lunch on the grounds of the temple. Which makes sense since the temple can be rather far from a diner or a eatery.

 

[majick275]

Actually, Isaac is not quite right in what he has just wrote. I suppose that it all comes down to attitude and when one is searching, one can see things just a little shaded. I am sure that it is the same for catholics who are disappointed in the catholic faith. The symptom is rather the same for all people who are disappointed in their religion. The negative needs to have a more dominate place over the positive.

I been through a couple of temples and I saw no cafeteria inside. But on the temple grounds there may be a cafeteria so people can eat lunch or dinner. And that would be only natural.

And may I remind some people here that there are often little shops that sell statues and rosaries and religious medals among other things inside catholic cathedrals. and when I was in Vilnius, Lithuania, women were selling wax candles for money inside the main cathedral and if one had no money, one did not get a candle.

But in the lds case, one can buy temple garments and sciptures and lunch on the grounds of the temple. Which makes sense since the temple can be rather far from a diner or a eatery.

I can assure you that many LDS temples do in fact have clothing sales inside and a cafeteria inside as well. I don’t have a problem with the clothing sales because in the ones I have seen at least it is out in the vestibule area and thus is in my mind much like why me’s example of having rosaries and medals, etc. available at some catholic churches. (although that’s probably better off being done at the parish office like most of the ones i’ve been to). I do find the cafeteria inside the “sacred” area (that which requires a valid temple recommend to enter) problematic. the clothing rental inside that area seems wrong to me as well. I used to go quite often when i was a veil worker and my parents are regular temple workers currently. They seem to feel it a huge convenience to have the cafeteria there but I wonder if it would really be that much of an issue to move it out to the vestibule area where they wouldn’t have to go into “street clothes” but at least wouldn’t require a temple recommend to eat.

I’ll also say that even though it was inexpensive it did freak me out a little my first time through that I had to rent clothes to go through. that was about as money changers in the temple as i could think of. you literally can’t go through the temple ceremony without paying. you either have to buy everything or rent what you don’t have or you can’t go through. i find that a little disturbing. Although the endowment is a lot MORE disturbing this is something at least that we can all talk about openly.