What Romney won't be saying about Mormonism

Mr. Silva, this is not an article it is an attack ad. I don't even support Romney and i find this offensive. You are no doubt bowing to the coporate overlords who control The Tribune. I am ashamed of you sir.

Off subject;

The Swamp's own Marky S. gets a heads up from that NYT redhead hottie liberal Maureen Dowd!

Way to score, buddy!

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/05/opinion/05dowd.html?ref=opinion

temple of the godmakers for mormon research

Mitt Romney was a 'Taxachusetts' Liberal?
Guess I can't vote for that commie!

I do not care what a candidate believes in religious wise. If he or she can do the job that is expected of them, that is all I require.

What historian rnc bruce doesn't want you to know, and (now how does the whinerdice rant go?) ...oh yeah, and what Swamp reporters won't tell you, is that there was quite a little kerfuffle recently over a single word change in the Book of Mormon. Apparently it had something to due with the inconvenient truth of DNA evidence getting in the way of previous claims made in the book.

The book's current introduction, added by the late LDS apostle, Bruce R. McConkie in 1981, includes this statement: "After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are the principal ancestors of the American Indians."

The new version, seen first in Doubleday's revised edition, reads, "After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are among the ancestors of the American Indians."

LDS leaders instructed Doubleday to make the change, said senior editor Andrew Corbin, so it "would be in accordance with future editions the church is printing."
The change "takes into account details
of Book of Mormon demography which are not known," LDS spokesman Mark Tuttle said Wednesday.
It also steps into the middle of a raging debate about the book's historical claims. Many Mormons, including several church presidents, have taught that the Americas were largely inhabited by Book of Mormon peoples. In 1971, Church President Spencer W. Kimball said that Lehi, the family patriarch, was "the ancestor of all of the Indian and Mestizo tribes in North and South and Central America and in the islands of the sea."
After testing the DNA of more than 12,000 Indians, though, most researchers have concluded that the continent's early inhabitants came from Asia across the Bering Strait.
With this change, the LDS Church is "conceding that mainstream scientific theories about the colonization of the Americas have significant elements of truth in them," said Simon Southerton, a former Mormon and author of Losing a Lost Tribe: Native Americans, DNA and the Mormon Church.
"DNA has revealed very clearly how closely related American Indians are to their Siberian ancestors, " Southerton said in an e-mail from his home in Canberra, Australia. "The Lamanites are invisible, not principal ancestors."
LDS scholars, however, dispute the notion that DNA evidence eliminates the possibility of Lamanites. They call it "oversimplification" of the research.
On the church's official Web site, lds.org, it says, "Nothing in the Book of Mormon precludes migration into the Americas by peoples of Asiatic origin. The scientific issues relating to DNA, however, are numerous and complex."

So what's your take bruce? You're the resident Swamp historian? You recently boasted on the Swamp that you read the BOM, implying that this qualified you to speak with authority about the LDS Church. So let's here it Civil War boy.

And bruce, is it true that Joseph Smith prophesied in 1832 that the British would intervene in the Civil War and that it would extend to all nations?

That should be a real easy answer for you given that you're an expert in both areas.

Whatever Mitt Romney says in his upcoming "faith" speech won't matter much. What WILL matter in the end for him he has ALREADY said. Namely "I'm for it" - "I'm against it" - "I'm for it" - "I'm against it". American voters have a long history of "passing" on flip-floppers applying for the highest leadership job in the country. I don't think they'll be making an exception for him!

The evangelicals had their run with George W, now possibly, we can have a candidate, whomever it is, who CAN separate church from state and policy-making.

I do not care what a candidate believes in religious wise. If he or she can do the job that is expected of them, that is all I require.

Posted by: Darkwater | December 5, 2007 7:15 PM

What a bunch of hooey.

...Like you're going to vote for a Muslim or Hindu for president.

Heck, you're likely to vote against someone because he or she is black.

At least be honest.

I don't understand people who repeat the mantra that a candidate's religious beliefs have no bearing on his/her ability to be president. Of course they do. If someone's religious beliefs are that God has favored the nation of Israel and he will strike down anyone who messes with Israel, as many evangelicals and pentecostals believe, that will affect the policies the candidate has in the Middle East. How could it not? Similarly, if someone believes, as Mormons do, that the apostles of their church still get direct communications from God, what happens when God sends word that he wants polygamy, or doesn't want polygamy, doesn't want blacks in the Temple or does want blacks in the Temple, as Mormons believe he has spoken at various times. (Mormons apparently do not believe as Christian evangelicals do, that God is unchanging.) At the very least, it's important to know whether the candidate is going to take his final orders from God or the Supreme Court.

A few things.
First, why am I not surprised Mark was the snarky reporter?
Second, Mormonism is a cult and has nothing to do with Christianity.
Third, I don't care if Romney is a Mormon. I am not voting for his religion. And, while not Christian (even though they may think they are), Mormons tend to be decent, hard-working folks, Harry Reid notwithstanding.

A few things.
First, why am I not surprised Mark was the snarky reporter?
Second, Mormonism is a cult and has nothing to do with Christianity.
Third, I don't care if Romney is a Mormon. I am not voting for his religion. And, while not Christian (even though they may think they are), Mormons tend to be decent, hard-working folks, Harry Reid notwithstanding.

Posted by: John D | December 5, 2007 10:39 PM

That's some brilliant analyzing there, Jabba the Dyslin

Let me get this straight, in your mind Mormonism is OK if you're a Republican (Romney) but not if you're a Democrat (Harry Reid)?

Congratulations,
You win the Rush Limpbaugh "badge of oxycontin" award pin for the dumbest post so far this month.

Hey Pre,

I wouldn't repeat what you said here today to your LDS friends, they don't like being called cultist or non-Christians.

Also, Johnny biscuit, about your allegations about Reid being a crook and CNN being the "Clinton News Network. If that's the case, then:

Why has CNN devoted 50 times as much coverage to Harry Reid's land deal as Dennis Hastert's?

From October 12-17, CNN aired 3,361 words about allegations that Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid (NV) improperly reported a land deal in which he made $700,000.

Seventeen different CNN transcripts in the Nexis database include mention of the Reid land deal -- and that doesn't even count October 18, when CNN has aired at least one more lengthy segment on the deal.

By comparison, CNN has aired only 65 words about a land deal in which House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-IL) made nearly $2 million, a story which was first reported by the Chicago Sun-Times on June 15. By contrast, the Reid land deal first broke a week ago, when the Associated Press reported on October 11 that Reid had made $700,000 "on a Las Vegas land sale even though he hadn't personally owned the property for three years."

Hastert's property appreciated in value after he earmarked taxpayer funding for a highway near the property -- but only two CNN transcripts contain any mention of Hastert's land deal, for a total word count that is one-fiftieth the number of words CNN has devoted to the Reid story. And 65 words is an extremely generous count -- it includes a vague reference made in passing by Democratic strategist and pundit James Carville.

CNN has never -- not once -- told viewers the central allegation of the Hastert controversy: that Hastert profited after winning federal funding for a highway that increased the value of his property. As Media Matters for America has noted, that is a crucial difference between the Reid and Hastert controversies: Unlike Hastert, Reid is not alleged to have taken official government action that led to his profit. Yet CNN has devoted extensive coverage to the Reid deal, while virtually ignoring the far more serious allegations against Hastert.

See Devola, more than one can play the rnc bruce number's game.

Mr. Silva, this is not an article it is an attack ad. I don't even support Romney and i find this offensive. You are no doubt bowing to the coporate overlords who control The Tribune. I am ashamed of you sir.
_____________________________
Actually, Sam Zell controls the Tribune. Much like Murdoch controls faux noise. And Sam Zell votes republican. So... so much for your gripe.

A few things.
First, why am I not surprised Mark was the snarky reporter?
Second, Mormonism is a cult and has nothing to do with Christianity.
Third, I don't care if Romney is a Mormon. I am not voting for his religion. And, while not Christian (even though they may think they are),
__________________________

And so, with one simple post, juannieeD exposes his entire raison d'etre. He votes for Christians. He doesn't care if they are good stewards. Only the religion matters. And of course, it has to be juanniee's interpretation of religion. Otherwise the person is not worth it. "My religion! My chrisitanity! My interpretation of my bible! If you don't accept MY ideas you are not worth my time or consideration!"

And we wonder why he always seems to live in a bubble. THIS is WHY the FOUNDERS stressed THE separation OF church AND state. It was good enough for them, and it's good enough for us.

juanniee (and probably bruciee and pillow) are all basing their defense on the radical idea that bu$h is some sort of conservative saviour, and are unwilling to let that vague concept interrupt their precious world. MY VERSION OF CHRISTIANITY IS REALITY! MY VERSION OF CHRISTIANITY IS REALITY!MY VERSION OF CHRISTIANITY IS REALITY!MY VERSION OF CHRISTIANITY IS REALITY!MY VERSION OF CHRISTIANITY IS REALITY!MY VERSION OF CHRISTIANITY IS REALITY!MY VERSION OF CHRISTIANITY IS REALITY!MY VERSION OF CHRISTIANITY IS REALITY!MY VERSION OF CHRISTIANITY IS REALITY!MY VERSION OF CHRISTIANITY IS REALITY!MY VERSION OF CHRISTIANITY IS REALITY!MY VERSION OF CHRISTIANITY IS REALITY!MY VERSION OF CHRISTIANITY IS REALITY!MY VERSION OF CHRISTIANITY IS REALITY!MY VERSION OF CHRISTIANITY IS REALITY!

Romney's religion had nothing to do with the way he ran Massachusetts as governor and probably would have nothing to do with the way he might carry out his duties as president.
-
And therein lies the rub. GOP whackos WANT religion to have everything to do with the way he carries out his duties. They don't believe in freedom of religion.

Again, Kennedy was a very earthy Catholic, and people learned that they had little to fear in the area of his religion.

He was also an otherwise splendidly qualified man.

Romney is an altogether different case.

First, he entirely lacks Kennedy's best qualities of thoughtfulness and eloquence.

So if there is another reason to overlook him, the nation loses nothing.

And there is another reason. The man was a missionary for his cult church.

For some the word "missionary" sounds a bit heroic, but for many, it means someone who goes abroad and interferes with the culture and lives of others, someone obsessed with his or her religion.

The last thing America needs today is a president with these limiting, narrow qualities.

Besides, under Bush there's been an unpleasant resurgence of religious practices butting into government where they very much do not belong. Romney's background likely means more of the same rotting of the fiber of government.

In this case, his history is a completely valid reason for rejecting him.

Besides all that, the man is pretentious a stuffed shirt, trying to draw a parallel between himself and Kennedy. Simply ridiculous.

For those who, unlike the reporter, would actually want to read Romney's speech rather than some professor's musings, see http://www.examiner.com/blogs/tapscotts_copy_desk
for extensive excerpts.

rncbs, er John E., I know reading is not one of your strongsuits, but nowhere in my post do I say I only vote for Christians and don't care whether one is a good "steward" or not.
Anyway, reality dictates that Mormonism is not Christianity. It's not my interpretation of it, it's fact. Mormons do not believe in the Holy Trinity. They do not believe Jesus is the Son of God. They believe Jesus and Satan are brothers. They believe the Book of Mormon supercedes the Bible. I could go on, but right there that pretty much means Mormonism is not Christianity and I am someone who has plenty of Mormon in my family.

And, Demented Johnny E., no post of my mine can ever become the dumbest post of the month for the simple fact there will always be some from you, BC (now known as Jones), Janet, dt, and a mess of others.

Finally, perhaps CNN looked at Harry's land deals more than Hastert's for the simple fact that Hastert's is on the up and up and Reid's is fishy.

Mittens can't help it. Mormons have a history of flip flopping. First they were for polygamy now they are against it. Then they were against black people because they think they are cursed and bear the mark of Cane and then....hey wait a second, what does Mittens believe about black people? Have any reporters asked him if he shares what many Mormons believe about black people? And they call it the "liberal" media.

romney can believe what ever he wants but he must suffer the consequences of these beliefs. if he truly believes in the book of mormon then he is unfit to hold public office. believing in mormonism is akin to saying 2 + 2 = 5. if someone says this we must question his judgement and intellectual capacity. he can believe it but dont run my country.

Dyslin,

"BC (now known as Jones),"

You have your finger on the pulse of nothing whatsoever. I'll repeat: I think your idiotic feud with BC over how much politicians' suits cost and whether Cuba is in the Gulf of Mexico to be the single most boring discourse of any given day and that feud reflects very poorly on both of you.

Does that sound like something BC would say about himself? Keep guessing, genius.

First:
To John D - Mormons believe that Jesus Christ is the literal son of God, and that he was conceived "in the usual way."
Second:
Mormons do not believe in the trinity; they believe that Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three separate beings. It is also specualted that the Holy Ghost may be a 'calling' held by many glorified hosts, which is why it can be everywhere at once. The 'Holt Trinity' is not mentioned in the Bible.
Third:
Mormons are Christians, just like Methodists and Seventh Day Adventists. They are all schisms of Protestantism, which was a schism of Catholicism.
Fourth:
If you are going to inspect the claims of one religion and find them false, how about looking at the big whoppers that form the foundation of all Chrisitianity? Or how Protestant sects get authority from God?
Fifth:
Please reconcile God's behavior in the Old Testament to Jesus' (God) in the New Testament and teach me about the 'unchangeable' nature of God. The New Teatament is clearly a 're-imagining' or 're-interpretation' of the religion of the Jews. Any other argument is just Apologists talking IMO.

Jones, whether you're BC, dt, dogjudge, C Morris, John E., Janet, it's all the same. Nothing but a bunch of idiotic people who have no clue and basically are worthless human cells no better than human waste sludge residue.

[quote]

Dyslin,

"BC (now known as Jones),"

You have your finger on the pulse of nothing whatsoever. I'll repeat: I think your idiotic feud with BC over how much politicians' suits cost and whether Cuba is in the Gulf of Mexico to be the single most boring discourse of any given day and that feud reflects very poorly on both of you.

Does that sound like something BC would say about himself? Keep guessing, genius.

Posted by: Jones | December 6, 2007 12:38 PM
[/quote]

Jones:

Geographically Challenged Dumb Dumb Little Johnnie D, "the Joseph Stalin of Streamwood", calls himself a journalist, however

- he made the allegation that John Edwards pays as much for his suits as John Edwards does, yet he has NEVER proven this to be true.

- he made the allegation that Cuba is TOTALLY in the Gulf of Mexico, yet was proven wrong and will not admit it. His latest feeble attempt to cover his butt is to claim that the debate is over the Caribbean Sea being connected to the Gulf via two straits of water north and south of Cuba.

You see, Jones, like the American people wanting accountability from pResident Doogie Howser, residents of the Swamp want accountability from John Dyslin. Unfortunately, we'll never get it from either one.

I was a devout Mormon for 42 years since I was 15. I resigned in 1993 and went back to my Methodists beliefs. Frankly, I don't trust a Mormon for president because I'm scared that the Mormon Prophet, Gordon B. Hinckley, will be running the country and all things he has been denying about the Mormons beliefs from the past, etc., are scary. I feel we will be very controlled by the Mormon hierarchy. Thank you.

I am disgusted that in this day and age - in an "enlightened" democracy - we care more about a man's religion than about his position on important issues.

Imus gets fired for taking a pot shot at race, yet the entire country feels it's okay to take pot shots at a candidate's religion. Both race and relgion are considered protected classifications under the Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court.

Have we sunk so low that we gather the proverbial torches and pitchforks because a man isn't your run-of-the-mill methodist? Give me a break. . . .