Political Discussion - "on-topic & unmoderated"Rated PG13, unmoderated but threads must stay on topic - that means you can flame each other all you want as long as it's legal
I thought you were probably fooling around, but I've found that the worst case scenario when you take these things literally is someone gets a chuckle out of it.
Nope. Wish I could, but there's no way. This is not a viable environment for the discussion. Not enough common ground to make it worth the effort. If you are trying to dismiss Joseph Smith as a scifi wacko, then you don't have as much of a knowledge base of what the guy is, and what he did, than you think you have. The problem is, I'm sure you're sure you do in fact have that knowledge base, and I'm the deluded one. That leaves us nothing to talk about and no real basis for a serious conversation.
I can't prove to you that the man is a prophet when you've already convinced yourself he isn't. Not how it works. I'm not going to get into a grudge match with some anti because it's not productive for anyone. It won't convince you, and it'll just tick me off.
If you want more, look me up in PM and we can have a discussion without the peanut gallery hanging about. But based on the way you've worded your stuff, you won't accept what the Church has to say for itself, and you sure as heck won't accept what I have to say for it.
I mean no disrespect man ... it's just that I am truly fascinated (and other posters, I'm sure) how a clearly well read, educated, internet-savvy fella like yourself can in 2012 believe in the religion created by Joseph Smith.
By no means am I demanding you defend your faith or anything... I'll take whatever message board nugget you are willing to give me as to why you think Joseph Smith was the real deal and not a charlatan.
Quote:
I see the potential difference, except for the fact that Hebrew society was very literate for the era, and Romans were very bureaucratic, so a Rome-governed Palestine kept as good of records as you're going to find in the era. Christ's existence as at least human being is a matter of historical record.
You're right... you understood what I was getting at though no?
Society and thinking in post-enlightenment 19th century America was generally speaking, more advanced than bronze age Palestine. It was post-printing press so automatically, that implies a huge difference in history and record keeping.
That and about 1800 years is the difference in being able to plausibly deny Christ as a prophet and Joeseph Smith as a prophet.
Yeah, now you see this? This is religious bigotry. If you want to go after Romney's character then attack his character, but leave the church out of it.
You guys would mock the Christians if they made an issue of a man running for office who happened to be Atheist or Agnostic, so don't do the same thing.
There are parts of Mormanism that are inexcusable. Their view of black people first and foremost. Mitt Romney was part of a racially exclusive club until he was 31. That's wrong. The president of the mormon church supposedly speaks directly to god. When Brigham Young was president (and so supposedly speaking directly to god) he said, "Shall I tell you the law of god in regard to the African race. If the white man, who belongs to the chosen seed, mixes his blood with the seed of Cain the penalty under the law of god is death on the spot. This will always be so."
Religion doesn't give you the right to do believe anything and not have to face questions about those beliefs. Again, Willard Romney was a grown man when the church still owned this stuff. Did he believe it? That should be asked. Hopefully it will be asked.
All religions have their ****ed up parts. Everyone should have to answer for them. But lets also not create a false equivalency. Many of the ****ed up parts of other religions have been disowned by the institutions for a long time now. The LDS church only started to not openly say black people are inferior in the late 70s.
If the media grows a pair and starts asking him about this stuff, as they should, he should choose huckabee. otherwise he'll choose some boring guy because anyone with any star power will want to run in four years. Listen to all of them "endorsing" him. Pretty weak.
There are parts of Mormanism that are inexcusable. Their view of black people first and foremost. Mitt Romney was part of a racially exclusive club until he was 31. That's wrong. The president of the mormon church supposedly speaks directly to god. When Brigham Young was president (and so supposedly speaking directly to god) he said, "Shall I tell you the law of god in regard to the African race. If the white man, who belongs to the chosen seed, mixes his blood with the seed of Cain the penalty under the law of god is death on the spot. This will always be so."
Religion doesn't give you the right to do believe anything and not have to face questions about those beliefs. Again, Willard Romney was a grown man when the church still owned this stuff. Did he believe it? That should be asked. Hopefully it will be asked.
All religions have their ****ed up parts. Everyone should have to answer for them. But lets also not create a false equivalency. Many of the ****ed up parts of other religions have been disowned by the institutions for a long time now. The LDS church only started to not openly say black people are inferior in the late 70s.
If the media grows a pair and starts asking him about this stuff, as they should, he should choose huckabee. otherwise he'll choose some boring guy because anyone with any star power will want to run in four years. Listen to all of them "endorsing" him. Pretty weak.
I hope Dojii will have a response to the bolded.
To come to the defense of the LDS they are definitely not the only religion in town that still brings the crazy. In America, they have been historically regarded as too crazy for "regular" Christians though. Up until now, conventional wisdom thought Romney was unelectable to the GOP base because he's Mormon but obviously that has changed.
I am also kind of surprised it hasn't come up more in the campaign. Romney's campaign must be doing a good job. But rest assured if Romney gains any steam in the general election vs. Obama, these questions will pop up real quick.
Huckabee could actually be a pretty good choice for Romney. He's detested by the GOP elites and financiers, but they already have their man in Mitt, so I imagine they wouldn't protest to0 strongly. He brings the Southern and evangelical/social conservative vote, is an effective speaker, and is reasonably accomplished.
The big potential downside of a Romney/Huckabee ticket is that if for some reason the election sees a shift back forwards foreign policy and geopolitics, Obama will have an enormous advantage of that front. And if immigration becomes a major issue, Romney might regret not having Rubio or New Mexico's governor there.
Huckabee could actually be a pretty good choice for Romney. He's detested by the GOP elites and financiers, but they already have their man in Mitt, so I imagine they wouldn't protest to0 strongly. He brings the Southern and evangelical/social conservative vote, is an effective speaker, and is reasonably accomplished.
The big potential downside of a Romney/Huckabee ticket is that if for some reason the election sees a shift back forwards foreign policy and geopolitics, Obama will have an enormous advantage of that front. And if immigration becomes a major issue, Romney might regret not having Rubio or New Mexico's governor there.
Is Rubio that popular among the demographic they would be trying to placate by choosing him?
Is Rubio that popular among the demographic they would be trying to placate by choosing him?
It's hard to say, but if nothing else he could probably play well on the topic in the media (which is what a lot of this is about anyway, controlling that narrative).
For shits and giggles, I'd like to see Romney pick either Jan Brewer or Scott Walker. Either would be an epic trainwreck.
Would be sweet if it were Paul Ryan. The combination of the Mr. I Like Being Able To Fire People and the guy who wants to end Medicare would be too good to be true.
I'm a dick about a lot of things, but for some reason I have no interest in going after anyone's religion. Mitt Romney could be a Branch Davidian for all I care... his policies give me enough amunition without my having to knock him for being a Mormon.
There are parts of Mormanism that are inexcusable. Their view of black people first and foremost. Mitt Romney was part of a racially exclusive club until he was 31. That's wrong. The president of the mormon church supposedly speaks directly to god. When Brigham Young was president (and so supposedly speaking directly to god) he said, "Shall I tell you the law of god in regard to the African race. If the white man, who belongs to the chosen seed, mixes his blood with the seed of Cain the penalty under the law of god is death on the spot. This will always be so."
By the "treatment" of blacks, I assume you mean the denial of the priesthood to persons of color prior to 1978.
What you need to understand is that there was never a point in which blacks were denied access to the saving ordinances as the Church understands them. To do that, you only need access to a holder of the Priesthood. you don't need the Priesthood yourself.
I'm not sure why it took until 1978 to give blacks the priesthood, that's between God and his prophet in my mind, I honestly don't even know what the issues being discussed were about. I don't know what issues were raised to prevent this from being done earlier. It was, after all, before I was born (I was born in '79). I've heard a number of speculative reasons, but those reasons were just that. Speculative.
I believe the line from my church then and since that it was not based on any view of black inferiority. You have no reason to believe the same, and I have no hard evidence one way or the other, except the words of the leadership of the Church when the policy changed.
Either way, unlike most Christoan faiths that believe in a closed, unchanging canon, the LDS faith is a church with an open canon, that believes in continuing revelations. If it has some bad old ideas, then they're there waiting until the day that they're replaced by newer, truer revelations. I'm not that worried about what the church used to think, when it clearly doesn't think that way now.
Oh, and every time I hear a Brigham Young quote like that, when I trace the sources back, it comes back to a publication called the Journal of Discourses.
The thing about the church vis-a-vis Prophets is that there's a very specific set of circumstances that would endorse a statement by a prophet as revelatory. If a Prophet is not acting in his office, in the capacity of a prophet, then he is a man, with the capacity of a man. Even if Brigham Young said every last breath of the things attributed to him in the Journal, the Church shrugs it off because it's not accepted canon.
The Journal of Discourses is a private publication with no connection to the church. Its quotes are not verified, they are not Church canon, they were never accepted by the members as revelation, never read out over the podium or endorsed by the leadership of the church. All of these things need to take place in order for any statement by a prophet to be accepted as Church canon.
Also, many of the Brigham Young quotes in the Journal are radically out of his character and fly in the face of established modern LDS doctrine. The antis love it though.
I mean no disrespect man ... it's just that I am truly fascinated (and other posters, I'm sure) how a clearly well read, educated, internet-savvy fella like yourself can in 2012 believe in the religion created by Joseph Smith.
By no means am I demanding you defend your faith or anything... I'll take whatever message board nugget you are willing to give me as to why you think Joseph Smith was the real deal and not a charlatan.
In a word? Because it works. I'm a holder of the Priesthood. I've been through the Temple. I've given blessings with the Mormon rituals and had them work. And their doctrine has proven true every time I've tested it. And I've tested it pretty thoroughly.
There's definitely some picky details of present doctrine that I'd like to examine more closely. There's a lot I have to take on faith. But it's almost beside the point and focusing too much on details of that nature is the Pharisaic mistake.
Whether you believe it is a matter between you and God. I believe it, and it works for me. There's a power in it, and I've seen it and used it. Since science tells me that any principle that works, is worth keeping as a working hypothesis until it stops working, that's good enough for me for now.
Probably the guy that would have been the best bet to beat Obama had he ran......Chris Christie.
When even the late night talk show hosts can't come up with anything bad to say about you other than you being overweight then you know you're doing something right.
No gambles this time for the GOP. Take a safer pick.
Off the cuff, Bobby Jindhal was commended for his leadership during the disasters in Louisiana. He might be a guy to pick that everyone forgets.
Put yourself in my shoes Dojii... an average liberal armchair political scientist.
Can you see why I might be concerned that Mitt Romney, the man running for the defacto head of the world's most powerful military, truthfully believes in a specific kind of divine revaluation to the person at the top of the Mormon church ("prophet"), among other what many would at the very least identify as peculiar dogmas that the LDS church holds.
Can you see how this might cause a serious moment of pause with your average armchair political scientists??
Whether you believe it is a matter between you and God. I believe it, and it works for me. There's a power in it, and I've seen it and used it. Since science tells me that any principle that works, is worth keeping as a working hypothesis until it stops working, that's good enough for me for now.
Probably the guy that would have been the best bet to beat Obama had he ran......Chris Christie.
When even the late night talk show hosts can't come up with anything bad to say about you other than you being overweight then you know you're doing something right.
No gambles this time for the GOP. Take a safer pick.
Off the cuff, Bobby Jindhal was commended for his leadership during the disasters in Louisiana. He might be a guy to pick that everyone forgets.
Christie is notoriously corrupt, he only beat Corzine because Corzine was even more so. Jindal wasn't really around during Katrina, he was just a housie then, he became Governor in 2007 and he has popularity issues, there was a reason people in Louisiana were asking for Edwin Edwards to be pardoned to run against him. When a felon is more popular, it suggests deep issues.
Put yourself in my shoes Dojii... an average liberal armchair political scientist.
Can you see why I might be concerned that Mitt Romney, the man running for the defacto head of the world's most powerful military, truthfully believes in a specific kind of divine revaluation to the person at the top of the Mormon church ("prophet"), among other what many would at the very least identify as peculiar dogmas that the LDS church holds.
Can you see how this might cause a serious moment of pause with your average armchair political scientists??
This is basically the same argument people tried to use to keep Catholics out of office. It's not a perfect analogy, but a Pope would do for a Prophet from where I'm sitting, and it's the same "guy has religious authority over the President" argument you heard during the Kennedy and Al Smith candidacies.
Any religion with a singular leadership figure will have that particular problem.
Jindal's big problem is that he came off like a complete idiot on the national stage a few years back giving the Republican response to Obama's state of the union address. Comparisons to Kenneth the Page from 30 Rock and being referred to as the Indian Opie Taylor made him a laughing stock for weeks.
This really serves to highlight just how bad the leadership gap is in the GOP right now. Newt is the symbol of the current old guard, and no one is really listening to Newt, but they're not sure who else to listen to. This is a party that badly needs new ideas that are not just repackaged old ideas.
In that sense, perhaps the Conservative side is more ready for a Mormon candidate than they would otherwise be. It's not like the endless stream of core Protestants have done the job.
With any half decent candidate with some power and name recognition, Romney would be an afterthought. If the Democrats were in any better shape, the GOP would be screwed. But if the GOP could find a strong, charismatic candidate, the election would be theirs this year. Media notwithstanding, Obama really isn't popular right now.
<- is conservative in the American sense, but not Republican. There is a reason for this.
This is basically the same argument people tried to use to keep Catholics out of office. It's not a perfect analogy, but a Pope would do for a Prophet from where I'm sitting, and it's the same "guy has religious authority over the President" argument you heard during the Kennedy and Al Smith candidacies.
Sure, perfect comparison. I am equally concerned with Rick Santorum's belief in a specific kind of divine revelation that the Pope has with God.
Likewise, I was concerned when I heard that G W Bush truly believed his presidency was a mission from God.
No I don't. I'd be more concerned about Catholics because the Pope is not American. The current First Presidency is two born Americans and Dieter Uchtdorf, who I believe is a naturalized American from Germany.
Presidents get advice. They get advice from all kinds of sources. If some of those sources are religious in Romney's case, that really doesn't set him apart from any number of other former Presidents who made pretenses at piety and occasionally conferred with their spiritual advisors while in office.
There is not a single President who, while in office, have not invoked God and religious principles in some way or another. Even Tommy Jefferson, who was a Deist, did it. So hearing that Romney believes in God and might invoke religious principles, and listen to a spiritual advisor? Fills me with no dread or concern at all. Because frankly, it sets him apart from no other President in the history of this nation.
