Naturally, no thread yet on Romney's speech Thursday

Substantial or not - we are electing the president not a Pope.

 

And I would likely counter that Henry breaking away from Rome was a pretty big deal; and that since Romney didn't enumerate any of the things that make Mormonism different from other strains of Christianity - in fact, only spoke the word "Mormon" once in a 25-minute speech - that folks don't know much more about it than they did before.

The only difference now is that they have Romney's personal assurance that he believes in Christ. The nature of that Christ, however, is much different in Mormonism than it is in Catholicism or Episcopalianism or Pentacostalism.

And those differences are what religious folks seem to spend their time arguing and fighting about.

 

Henry's split surly was a big deal at time but not now in how people view differences between catholic church and church of england.

 

I have to get to sleep, but a couple of last thoughts...

I thought Mr. Romney's speech was pro forma and mostly harmless - as I said several pages back. An American presidential candidate coming out in favor of freedom and faith isn't news.

My real objection was his offhand dismissal of the 40 million Americans who don't hew to a particular religion or church or system of belief. That he did so quite lightly, and without fear of any consequence, speaks volumes about the current state of the greater American mind and heart.

As I said a few posts back, it's not necessarily the electorate's contempt of a candidate's faith we need to fear, but the contempt of the candidate for the beliefs of the electorate.

As to the differences between the Mormon Christ, and the Christ of traditional American evangelism, we'll see how those differences play out once they get some detailed play in the press, which they most assuredly will now that the speech has put them in play. Would our policy toward Israel change, for example, if the White House expected Christ to return to earth in Missouri rather than Jerusalem? Worth asking, I suppose.

'Night everybody.

 

Thing is, the differences between Mormonism and evangelical Christianity run deeper than "you call him a pastor, I call him a priest" differences in semantics. That's why the Romney "speech about his religion" was completely misleading. It highlighted the similarities between Mormonism and evangelical Christianity, not the differences.

Mormonism is very different, and those extreme differences are actually a source of pride among believers.

Certain elements of doctrine are so extreme that believers have been cautioned about "outsiders not understanding" and not to be so forthcoming about those things, even to those who are curious about the church. They call it "milk before meat," or explaining the more benign elements of doctrine (such as the importance placed on family life or abstaining from drugs/alcohol) before explaining the extreme views.

Among the big differences
- the Mormon-only scriptures, including the Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price, Doctrine and Covenants;
- the Eternal Progression belief that each man will one day become the god of his own planet (some point to this as proof that Mormonism is polytheistic);
- the extensive geneology work that Mormons are encouraged to do is for the purpose of Baptisms for the Dead, which are done in the exclusive setting of the Mormon Temple. Under "milk before meat" the practice is also know as Baptisms by Proxy;
- the Priesthood, which is a lay clergy ordination reserved for males 12 years and older. Prior to 1978, blacks were prohibited from this ordination. Women cannot hold the priesthood, meaning 12 year old boys hold higher ranking and responsibility in the eyes of the church than even their mothers or grandmothers.

 

Been there ... done that.

 

Well, that didn't take long:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/12/huckabee.mormons/index.html

 

It might heal this land.

But then some of us don't want genuine people in leadership. Lies and corruption are part of the game. If it wasn't there, the Dems would have nothing to bitch about.

 

Religion isn't genuine.

And it would only "heal" those in the "in-crowd" with the leader's beliefs. The rest of us would be suffering fools ungladly.

Misidentifying something as progress just because it benefits you and your unenlightened, uneducated ilk is truly the trait of a dyed in the wool dunce.

 

A wonderful reminder of just how foolish, arrogant and prejudiced you really are, Yawn.

 

Foolish? Arrogant?

The left of this ROOM has been bitching about Bush II since Gore's fit of November 2000. Examining and dissecting every bit of corrupt behavior, alleged or factually supported, with only one motive -get him out of office. Offering nothing in terms of alternatives. And yet, someone comes along that articulates something positive and what do you people do? And you call me prejudiced? It's ingrained in your political culture and has been since you fucked up the Democratic Party in Chicago, 1968.

 

Vote Craig/Haggard in 2012!

The leadership America deserves!