quote:

---

Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
I see no reason to make an issue of it here.

---

Then...why bring it up?
 

---

Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 

quote:

---

Evangelicals mean when they say Jesus is "the Son of God." Evangelicals mean that Jesus is actually One with the Father, of the same divine substance, from all Eternity, and was never created, never promoted. As Jesus declared, "Before Abraham was, I AM." Thus announcing that it was Jesus Himself who spoke to Moses out of the burning bush, and who gave Moses the Law on Mount Sinai. Jesus is completely and fully and always was God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by enochville:
It seems as if Romney is saying atheists, agnostics and the irreligious are second-class citizens at best.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomDavidson:
The message of the speech: I believe in Christ, unlike some icky people. Consequently, I am more like you evangelical Christians than I'm like an icky person.

---

quote:

---

"Americans acknowledge that liberty is a gift of God, not an indulgence of government."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Javert:

quote:

---

"Americans acknowledge that liberty is a gift of God, not an indulgence of government."

---

Yeah...definitely not voting for him.

---

quote:

---

We should acknowledge the Creator as did the Founders - in ceremony and word. ... Our greatness would not long endure without judges who respect the foundation of faith upon which our constitution rests.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomDavidson:
BB, why wouldn't you vote for Richard Dawkins?

---

Well 90% because I don't know his political platforms.

But seriously, he views religion with far more hostility then I think is appropriate. But hey if he gave a similar sort of speech as JFK or now Romney and meant it, it would be POSSIBLE that I would vote for him.

edit: By similar I mean the bits about not representing a religion but not discriminating against any either. Not that he thinks God is a foundation upon which this country was made.

Synesthesia: Nothing in of itself, but it like religion can be over applied IMO.
 

---

Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
 
What is so bad about being secular?
 

---

Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 
Jhai: I have an idea, but I am not positive which part of my post you are responding to. Could you do me the courtesy clarifying?

As for your quote, I did not particularly like that part of his speech either. I wish he had clarified what he meant. He vaguely talked about public nativities and menorahs but that still felt pretty vague for me.
 

---

Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
From what I remember of JFK's speech, he made clear that his religion was personal and he emphasised the separation of church and state. That doesn't seem like what Romney did.
 

---

Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
 
"What is so bad about being secular?
Nothing wrong with being secular. However secularism means separation of Religion and Law.

Making pronouncements about God is religious.
Assuming ones beliefs are unquestionably true is fanaticism.
A religious fanatic refuses to accept others' right to have different opinions about the nature of God.
QED RichardDawkins is a religious fanatic.
And a religious fanatic is too dangerous to have as Commander-in-Chief of a nuclear state.

[ December 06, 2007, 10:58 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
 

---

Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by kmbboots:
From what I remember of JFK's speech, he made clear that his religion was personal and he emphasised the separation of church and state. That doesn't seem like what Romney did.

---

quote:

---

Oh right as if you were seriously considering it in the first place. I don't mean to be a jerk, but that's like me saying, "welp, now I'm not voting for Richard Dawkins."

---

quote:

---

But perhaps you have a good reason for not voting for a man who feels liberty is a gift from God instead of something our government gives us to spoil us.

---

quote:

---

Making pronouncements about God is religious.
Assuming ones beliefs are unquestionably true is fanaticism.

---

Am I allowed to disagree with both these assertions?
 

---

Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
 
BB: the part about painting atheists as "icky" or 2nd class citizens. It may not be overt in the statement I quoted, but I think he's certainly suggesting that religion ought to be playing some sort of role in the lives of Americans. And if we're not following that ought, we're in some way 'bad' (since ought implies requirement, and not fulfilling requirements is a bad thing).
 

---

Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Threads:
An Atheist Responds to Mitt Romney's Speech on Religion

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by BlackBlade:
But perhaps you have a good reason for not voting for a man who feels liberty is a gift from God instead of something our government gives us to spoil us.

---

quote:

---

"Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom. Freedom opens the windows of the soul so that man can discover his most profound beliefs and commune with God. Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by BlackBlade:
Oh right as if you were seriously considering it in the first place. I don't mean to be a jerk, but that's like me saying, "welp, now I'm not voting for Richard Dawkins." But perhaps you have a good reason for not voting for a man who feels liberty is a gift from God instead of something our government gives us to spoil us.

---

quote:

---

Or perhaps he has a good reason for not voting for a man who believes that atheism and freedom are incompatible.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomDavidson:
Let's be fair to Romney for a second and point out that same-sex marriage is not really a "liberty" or "freedom" issue.

---

Depends on your definitions of liberty and freedom.

As far as I'm concerned, consenting adults should have the freedom and the liberty to do what they want provided they harm no one. Maybe my definitions are a bit unique.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Well, yes. But since federal marriage isn't religious marriage, that's not really sensible grounds for complaint. I don't mean to nitpick; I agree with you on the larger issue. But I think arguing that an opposition of same-sex marriage represents an unwillingness to extend liberty and freedom to homosexuals is an unfair distortion.
 

---

Posted by Steev (Member # 6805) on :
 
Yeah keep the religion vs. state things separate.

Marriage, if I recall (in)correctly, originated as a religious concept. So, if there is to be a federal marriage then it shouldn't matter who the marriage is between and if the religions want to keep the sanctity of marriage to man and woman then the federal marriage, by all means, should be called something else. Give it a different word. Will it matter? Who cares? But my point is if Mr. Romney is going to serve the country and not his church then something as minor as same sex unions should not even be an issue.

But they are issues because he has to fall in line with political party lines in order to get elected. Too bad really.
 

---

Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
quote from Jhai --"Hinduism recognizes homosexual marriage as valid."

How? I had no idea. Tell us more.
 

---

Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
 
Well, let me start by disclaiming that India isn't a homosexual paradise or anything like that. Indian culture is not good with homosexual anything. From a strictly religious point-of-view, however, there's plenty of textual evidence that says homosexual marriage is okay, at least within certain contexts. In fact, two male gods marry each other. Another pair of gods, Visnu and Shiva (two of the more important male gods) also procreate together. Their kid was so powerful that the other gods had to neutralize him (or maybe her - not sure) to keep the general harmony from being destroyed (or maybe the world - to some extent, they're the same thing).

Now if you tell this to Hindu friends of yours, they probably won't immediately believe you, or even know about Visnu & Shiva's kid. This is because a large part of the religion is passed down culturally, rather than through any particular text, so messages get garbled and things that are difficult to accept culturally get left out. For the most blatant example of this, consider the no-no of eating beef.

There's nothing in the Vedas (the most fundamental Hindu text) that says you can't eat beef. In fact, the Vedas say that noble/rich people should slaughter their best cattle and serve beef when important guests visit the kingdom. But historically cattle has been too important to be used for consumption, so eating beef was frowned upon culturally. This has eventually filtered down to most Indians as "good Hindus don't eat beef."
 

---

Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
 

quote:

---

Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom.

---

quote:

---

But in recent years, the notion of the separation of church and state has been taken by some well beyond its original meaning. They seek to remove from the public domain any acknowledgment of God. Religion is seen as merely a private affair with no place in public life. It is as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America - the religion of secularism. They are wrong.

---

quote:

---

Any believer in religious freedom, any person who has knelt in prayer to the Almighty, has a friend and ally in me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by BlackBlade:

quote:

---

Originally posted by kmbboots:
From what I remember of JFK's speech, he made clear that his religion was personal and he emphasised the separation of church and state. That doesn't seem like what Romney did.

---

I disagree but my perception of the speech hardly holds more weight then yours.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
Thus announcing that it was Jesus Himself who spoke to Moses out of the burning bush, and who gave Moses the Law on Mount Sinai.

---

This is a sentence fragment. It's not a terribly big deal, but since English is not my first language, I tend to take learning it a bit more seriously than some.
 

---

Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
Wow, lots to cover here:

Slim, Obama gives a speech pretty much every day, and often more than one a day. If you haven't seen them, it's because either the media isn't pushing them or you aren't looking. But specifically, Obama gave a very, very good speech on religion, and usually I'm pretty indifferent to religious speeches.

Now in general -

Romney was attempting to do a 50 years (approx) later version of JFK's Catholicism speech, and I think he took the ball and ran in the opposite direction with it. Kennedy, by the way, I think faced a much more virulent stigma than Romney. Now their speeches were the same in one way, they both shared the "I won't take orders from elsewhere, and I'm not going to stop being who I am, yet I'm going to be a president first, and a religious person second," and while I think that is important, the similarities stop there.

Kennedy downplayed in the extreme the importance of religion. His speech focused on America and Americans, and all the things we can do together and all the reasons we should unite. Romney's speech was about America and RELIGIOUS PEOPLE. Kennedy's speech could be viewed as championing a secular government, whereas Romney more or less says we're a Christian nation, everything we have comes from religion, and only religious people have the moral authority to contribute. Frankly I found the whole thing EXTREMELY offensive.

He wasn't talking to all of America, he was talking to God fearing Americans. It was his attempt to say "hey, Jesus freaks, I'm just like you." If that was all he was trying to do, it probably came off pretty good. But if he was going for a speech like JFK's, I think it fell flat, with a hard thump. If anything I think he just pointed a finger at the divide in America between secularists and the religious, and then soundly planted his flag with the religious.

It's true that I wasn't planning on voting for him before, but I never had a specific problem with him. Now I feel I have a duty to stop him from reaching the White House. I think he has dangerous notions on what America is and should be.
 

---

Posted by Saephon (Member # 9623) on :
 
For what it's worth, I doubt the goal of Romney's speech was to rally atheists and non-Christians. This seems to be more like preaching to a choir that's slightly weirded out by the preacher's social life.
 

---

Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
 

quote:

---

Kennedy, by the way, I think faced a much more virulent stigma than Romney.

---

quote:

---

separation of Religion and Law.

---

quote:

---

"The founders proscribed the establishment of a state religion, but they did not countenance the elimination of religion from the public square. We are a nation 'Under God' and in God, we do indeed trust."

---

quote:

---

Let's be real. How would you go about trying to convince an atheist to vote for a man who believes that freedom would "perish" under atheism? That's exactly what Romney is saying when he says that freedom would "perish" without religion.

---

quote:

---

Dagonee: IIRC you have not decided if Romney's swich from pro-choice to pro-life was a real change of heart or a political move. Is that right? How do you plan on determining that? Vibes?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dagonee:

quote:

---

Dagonee: IIRC you have not decided if Romney's swich from pro-choice to pro-life was a real change of heart or a political move. Is that right? How do you plan on determining that? Vibes?

---

I have no idea how I'm going to determine this.

---

I suppose if you catch him working in an abortion clinic you'd have your answer.

If he made revising or eliminating Roe V Wade part of his platform would that do it?
 

---

Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by BlackBlade:
There is a difference between:

1. Believing that if an atheist were president that freedom would perish.

2. Believing that if the official state religion was atheism that freedom would perish.

3. Believing that if everyone in the country/world were atheist that freedom would perish.

I believe in 3 but not 1 or 2, (though 2 could lead to 3 but not necessarily) Is it so hard for an atheist to believe that if we went back to the days of a state sponsored religion that everyone was compelled to believe in that freedom would cease to exist? Well for the religious, pushing all forms of religious expression out of the public sector is a step in that direction, only towards atheism rather then a specific theism.

---

quote:

---

If he made revising or eliminating Roe V Wade part of his platform would that do it?

---

quote:

---

Why do some religious people think that "we're not going to mention religion" is equal to "we're promoting atheism"?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dagonee:

quote:

---

If he made revising or eliminating Roe V Wade part of his platform would that do it?

---

Not in and of itself. That would be consistent with both hypotheses that explain his switch. Moreover, Bush I made the same types of promises, and he gave us Souter on the Court.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by BlackBlade:
What is atheism if not the absence of theism? Even if it is unintended isn't a reduction in religious expression an increase in atheist sentiment?

---

quote:

---

Even if it is unintended isn't a reduction in religious expression an increase in atheist sentiment?

---

quote:

---

Secularist atheist often seem like they are championing a cause that will conveniently make the country more comfortable for them at the expense of the rest of us.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mucus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by BlackBlade:
What is atheism if not the absence of theism? Even if it is unintended isn't a reduction in religious expression an increase in atheist sentiment?

---

That kind of definition is completely unable to distinguish between atheism and agnosticism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by BlackBlade:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mucus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by BlackBlade:
What is atheism if not the absence of theism? Even if it is unintended isn't a reduction in religious expression an increase in atheist sentiment?

---

That kind of definition is completely unable to distinguish between atheism and agnosticism.

---

I don't really want to argue about the difference between atheism and agnosticism. For me, atheism is a certainty that there is no God where as for agnostics the question is still unanswered.

---

quote:

---

Is expression akin to sentiment?

---

quote:

---

What part of the "secularist atheist" agenda makes your life less comfortable?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomDavidson:
Hey, BB, do you believe God also strategically placed men to create the Netherlands?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by BlackBlade:
Right now not much, but for example banning nativities setup on public land feels like a step too far in the wrong direction.

We had a thread earlier where Javert was glad a school board refused to observe a mandatory moment of silence as to Javert it was just a disguise for getting mandatory prayer in school.

That sort of sentiment where any spark of religion needs to be stamped out worries me as far as public policy is concerned.

---

quote:

---

If you want to put the world's largest nativity scene on your private land

---

Do you have something against a nativity seen (or replace seen with, "scene" both work ) in a public park?
 

---

Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by BlackBlade:

quote:

---

If you want to put the world's largest nativity scene on your private land

---

Do you have something against a nativity seen in a public park?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by BlackBlade:
The less a person expresses their religion, the less they start to think about it, the less they start believing in it, the more they start cultivating atheistic sentiments.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by BlackBlade:
Maybe none of that would happen, but for me at least, I believe the concepts of the rights of man were divinely inspired in the first place. Men capable of expressing those ideas intentionally placed so that they could play such a role. For me at least, I believe God himself had an active hand in creating the United States so that an environment of relative tolerance could exist.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Do you have something against a nativity seen in a public park?

---

Aesthetically? No. Constitutionally? Yes.

---

quote:

---

No one has stamped on our right to pray or set up nativities.

---

quote:

---

BlackBlade, not promoting a religious expression over other expressions is not the same thing as "stamping out" religious expression.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dagonee:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Do you have something against a nativity seen in a public park?

---

Aesthetically? No. Constitutionally? Yes.

---

Does your opposition to that extend to situations where private groups are allowed to put up their own displays in the park (subject to reservations and permitting rules)?

---

quote:

---

Why would freedom require religion?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by suminonA:

quote:

---

Originally posted by BlackBlade:
Maybe none of that would happen, but for me at least, I believe the concepts of the rights of man were divinely inspired in the first place. Men capable of expressing those ideas intentionally placed so that they could play such a role. For me at least, I believe God himself had an active hand in creating the United States so that an environment of relative tolerance could exist.

---

- - - emphasis added - - -

Short question:

Do you think egocentrism is (in general) promoted by your religion, is it a consequence of scientific endeavor, or something else? What about in your case?

A.

---

See my other comments, the ones about God being interested in the formation of other countries. I don't think my religion promotes egocentrism.
 

---

Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
 
ok, thank you.

A.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Javert:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dagonee:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Do you have something against a nativity seen in a public park?

---

Aesthetically? No. Constitutionally? Yes.

---

Does your opposition to that extend to situations where private groups are allowed to put up their own displays in the park (subject to reservations and permitting rules)?

---

As long as there isn't religious preference shown.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dagonee:
As I alluded to above, there are active groups that seek to ban such schemes on establishment clause grounds. Although you don't advocate such things, there are people who do. Although I wouldn't call their goals the "secularist atheist agenda," there is such an agenda and BB is not simply imagining things when he points out its existence.

---

quote:

---

You have to look at each case separately.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by BlackBlade:
Twinky: Wow, because that's totally not what I said. *I* said that beyond a certain point if the government cuts back on religious expression it leads in that direction.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dagonee:

quote:

---

You have to look at each case separately.

---

I agree. But when you see enough of the individual cases, patterns emerge. There's a clear pattern of some people trying to gain special treatment from the government for religion and for particular religions. There's also a clear pattern of some people trying to gain "antispecial" treatment for religion.

Both sets of people have had some significant success in getting governments to cave to their wishes. Both sets of people have been reigned in by the courts at various times.

But both sets represent ongoing efforts to alter the place of religion in the public square - either to promote it above or demote it below other forms of expression.

---

quote:

---

Dag, on our own property? That surprises me.

---

quote:

---

Some people believe that the current level of preference that is shown towards religion is against the constitution as it is. If it stays at this level I wouldn't be terribly upset. But I don't like it having that foothold.

---

quote:

---

BlackBlade, what do you mean by "aetheist state"?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dagonee:

quote:

---

Some people believe that the current level of preference that is shown towards religion is against the constitution as it is. If it stays at this level I wouldn't be terribly upset. But I don't like it having that foothold.

---

And many people believe that the current level of government restrictions on religious speech in public spaces are against the constitution as it is.

---

quote:

---

I don't believe I was talking about freedom of speech. I was referring to showing religious preference. Not the same thing.

---

quote:

---

What restrictions are you talking about?

---

quote:

---

You've said you believe that "freedom would perish" if everyone were an atheist; you've also said that you're opposed to secularist efforts to curtail religious expression, on the grounds that a reduction in religious expression would indirectly lead to an increase in "atheistic sentiments," which you apparently think is a negative outcome.

---

quote:

---

You gave two concrete (anecdotal) examples in your 10am post (CST), and neither dealt with speech.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by BlackBlade:
Surely you must concede that because of mandatory Christianity in middle age Europe there were many people who believed in Christianity who would not have given a free choice from the start?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by BlackBlade:

quote:

---

You've said you believe that "freedom would perish" if everyone were an atheist; you've also said that you're opposed to secularist efforts to curtail religious expression, on the grounds that a reduction in religious expression would indirectly lead to an increase in "atheistic sentiments," which you apparently think is a negative outcome.

---

No I said that I often distrust secularist atheists on the grounds that aggressive secularism can conveniently promote their religious view point. I'm saying that if you start eliminating where religion can be expressed beyond a certain point you make it harder and harder for people to remain strong in their faith. Surely you must concede that because of mandatory Christianity in middle age Europe there were many people who believed in Christianity who would not have given a free choice from the start?

I said nothing about forcing people to allow Christians to express their faith all the time so that Christianity can remain strong.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by BlackBlade:
Surely you must concede that because of mandatory Christianity in middle age Europe there were many people who believed in Christianity who would not have given a free choice from the start?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dagonee:

quote:

---

You gave two concrete (anecdotal) examples in your 10am post (CST), and neither dealt with speech.

---

Both dealt with speech.

The content of the speech to be expressed was the determining factor in the denial of a public accommodation.

This is absolutely about speech.

(And there were 3 examples in there, not just 2.)

---

quote:

---

You cannot have Freedom without Religion and you cannot have Religion without Freedom

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dagonee:

quote:

---

Dag, on our own property? That surprises me.

---

No. I said nothing about my own property.

---

quote:

---

I'm alluding to the denial of public accommodations available to the general public being denied to religious groups.

For example, when our magazine was being unconstitutionally denied funds by UVA, we tried to have a fund-raising concert (with Phil Keagy, which would have been AMAZING) in a city-owned auditorium in Charlottesville. The city refused to give us the fundraising rate available to every other school (university and primary/secondary) group, explicitly stating that this was because we were religious.

Religious art was removed from a public art display (which allowed artists to register and put in their own private works). The only content-based restriction that was enforced against art in the show was based on the work being religious. I participated in a forum in which 8 people applauded that move.

---

quote:

---

Finally, I believe in an America where religious intolerance will someday end — where all men and all churches are treated as equal — where every man has the same right to attend or not attend the church of his choice — where there is no Catholic vote, no anti-Catholic vote, no bloc voting of any kind ....

---

quote:

---

I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute — where no Catholic prelate would tell the president (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote — where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference ...

---

quote:

---

Whatever issue may come before me as president — on birth control, divorce, censorship, gambling or any other subject ...

---

quote:

---

But if the time should ever come — and I do not concede any conflict to be even remotely possible — when my office would require me to either violate my conscience or violate the national interest, then I would resign the office; and I hope any conscientious public servant would do the same.

---

quote:

---

When I place my hand on the Bible and take the oath of office, that oath becomes my highest promise to God. If I am fortunate to become your president, I will serve no one religion, no one group, no one cause, and no one interest. A President must serve only the common cause of the people of the United States .

"There are some for whom these commitments are not enough. They would prefer it if I would simply distance myself from my religion, say that it is more a tradition than my personal conviction, or disavow one or another of its precepts. That I will not do. I believe in my Mormon faith and I endeavor to live by it. My faith is the faith of my fathers - I will be true to them and to my beliefs.

---

quote:

---

While the so-called religious issue is necessarily and properly the chief topic here tonight, I want to emphasize from the outset that we have far more critical issues to face in the 1960 election ...
These are the real issues which should decide this campaign. And they are not religious issues ...

---

quote:

---

There are some who may feel that religion is not a matter to be seriously considered in the context of the weighty threats that face us. If so, they are at odds with the nation's founders, for they, when our nation faced its greatest peril, sought the blessings of the Creator.

---

In short, I guess what I'm trying to say is, given just these two speeches I would vote for JFK rather than Romney. Thats pretty impressive given that there have been 60 years past. Why don't you have leaders (or at least speechwriters) like that anymore

Edit to add: Sorry for all the quoting
 

---

Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
 
Wow, this thead has really grown since yesterday. But I want to comment on something you said early on, Slim: "We also believe He is God. The part that 'Mormons believe something different' is only that we believe He is a different person than His Father."

Ah, no. Most Christians believe Jesus is a different Person from His Father. The mystery of how the Trinity (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) can be three Persons and yet be One, is something we cannot explain, and Jews take us to task for it regularly.

Would you care to go into an explanation for us of how Jesus was one of the Lords of Kolob? Let's just agree not to go there, and simply acknowledge that Mormons teach something different about the nature of Christ than do most Evangelicals.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 

quote:

---

I do understand that this is an issue for you. It is not the issue I was addressing which is private religious expression. What we do with our own time, property, and funds.

---

quote:

---

I'll take that as a 'no', then. As I suspected.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dagonee:
Please. Our magazine was denied a freely available government benefit because of its content

---

quote:

---

Did you ask the local ACLU for help? It's their purpose to defend your 1st amendment rights.

---

quote:

---

Would you care to go into an explanation for us of how Jesus was one of the Lords of Kolob?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
Wow, this thead has really grown since yesterday. But I want to comment on something you said early on, Slim: "We also believe He is God. The part that 'Mormons believe something different' is only that we believe He is a different person than His Father."

Ah, no. Most Christians believe Jesus is a different Person from His Father. The mystery of how the Trinity (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) can be three Persons and yet be One, is something we cannot explain, and Jews take us to task for it regularly.

Would you care to go into an explanation for us of how Jesus was one of the Lords of Kolob? Let's just agree not to go there, and simply acknowledge that Mormons teach something different about the nature of Christ than do most Evangelicals.

---

Yes, I think that's what I was trying to say in my first post. I acknowledge that we teach something different about the nature of Christ than do most Evangelicals.

But, If we are going to agree to disagree, lets make sure that we actually do disagree first, and second, make sure that what we disagree on, the other actually believes.

I believe the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three separate individuals, and when the scriptures speak of them being one, I believe it means they are one in purpose, not being.

You say you believe that God cannot really be explained.

That's fine, we can disagree on that.

But we both believe it was the same person who spoke to Moses out of the burning bush as the person that died on the Cross. Let us not disagree on that.

And Jesus a Lord of Kolob? I've never heard that term either, and I don't get that out of these verses. (the only ones that mention Kolob.) So, there's no point to disagree with each other on what neither of us believe in.

But if you do get that out of those verses, we can disagree on that.
 

---

Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
 
It's much more likely that Ron doesn't know the difference between a statement and a piece of doctrine, and that he's confused about what, exactly, is canon and doctrine.

BSG, the first version, was absolutely, completely Mormonism-alluding all the way through.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 

quote:

---

Pooka, it seems to me that like Roman Catholics, Mormons in general are not well acquainted with their own church's actual teachings. Maybe it's best to leave well enough alone.

---

quote:

---

Would you care to go into an explanation for us of how Jesus was one of the Lords of Kolob?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MattP:
That may have been deliberate. Glen Larson is LDS and many LDS themes appear in the show.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by kmbboots:

quote:

---

Originally posted by BlackBlade:
Surely you must concede that because of mandatory Christianity in middle age Europe there were many people who believed in Christianity who would not have given a free choice from the start?

---

But...that was a bad thing, right?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MattP:
Wouldn't the opposite extreme be the outlawing of Christianity, not just refraining from promoting Christianity?

---

quote:

---

It seems to me that like Roman Catholics, Mormons in general are not well acquainted with their own church's actual teachings. Maybe it's best to leave well enough alone.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MattP:
BB,

To clarify, do you believe that a government agency should be permitted to display a nativity scene on public property while at the same time excluding displays representative of other worldviews?

---

quote:

---

So for example, If a High School allowed students or student groups to put up seasonal decorations in the halls, religious students should not be prevented from displaying religious symbols.

---

quote:

---

The "The Lords of Kolob" thing sounds reminiscent of some teachings which have been attributed to Brigham Young or sometimes Joseph Smith but which have never been considered Church doctrine. I have never heard them mentioned in any church setting in over 4 decades of church attendance. I don't know how things work in your church, but in our church the fact that some church member, even a prominent church leader, once said something doesn't make it doctrine.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomDavidson:
So if they display snowflakes, they should also be allowed to display swastikas?

---

quote:

---

Rabbit, it is fair to note, I think, that disavowing Smith's statements about Kolob calls into serious doubt the validity of his Egyptian "translation."

---

quote:

---

The "The Lords of Kolob" thing

---

quote:

---

Yes. But that problem is precisely why so many schools prohibit the students from putting up decorations of any kind.

---

This is why I oppose personalized license plates.

Oh, and may I say, "You go, Rabbit!"
 

---

Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
Hey, I have a personalized license plate.
 

---

Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
 
OPECFY (Warning: NSFW)
 

---

Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
 
Dagonee, you said in remarks addressed to me: "You spout off about a lot of subjects here. In those areas where I happen to have expertise, you are generally very ill-informed."

I think you probably are confusing me with someone else. But such a sweeping criicism invites a challenge: Cite one thing I have ever said about anything that you can demonstrate you knew better about. Give me the quote, and justify your opinion.

Those of us who have made an in-depth study of theology and church history, often run across demonstrations of the lack of knowledge of the general laity of the very theological issues over which wars have been fought in the past. If the Mormon church takes some measures to educate its laity in details of doctrine, then it is doing about the same as the Catholic church does in having its members attend catechism classes. I have encountered many Catholics however who were just next to totally ignorant of what their church really teaches about anything. All those catechism classes seem to have had little effect. That is just my impression.
 

---

Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 
MattP/kmbboots: Rabbit managed to summarize my feelings on this particular matter.

quote:

---

I don't know about BB, but I certainly would find that unacceptable. I do think that religious groups are entitled to the same use of public spaces and free expression of their views as are all people. I would oppose any government agency creating a religious display of any kind, but I would also oppose any prohibition of religious displays in public areas where displays sponsored by other religious groups are allowed.

---

quote:

---

I think you probably are confusing me with someone else.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by BlackBlade:
... Things we are either not able to discuss at length, or have little import, or are sacred. Perhaps you have no convictions or beliefs that fit into the "too sacred" category, but we do.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mucus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by BlackBlade:
... Things we are either not able to discuss at length, or have little import, or are sacred. Perhaps you have no convictions or beliefs that fit into the "too sacred" category, but we do.

---

I must admit, I'm scratching my head on this one. I can think of things that are too embarrassing to discuss (and indeed, would be for most people), but "too sacred"? Thats a tough one.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
Dagonee, there is no one who posts to any of these forums who knows more about science, evolution, creation, and related issues than I do. I have been addressing these subjects in technical detail in public for fifty years. You may disagree with my conclusions, but you do not have superior knowledge. You would be well advised to exercise better self-discipline, and not let your conceit about your own opinions do your talking.

---

And apparently you've been wrong for 50 years. Ron, aren't you a YEC (Young Earth Creationist)? That belief denies modern physics and chemistry (especially absolute dating methods), geology, astronomy, cosmology, molecular biology, genetics, linguistics, anthropology, archaeology, palaeontology, etc. How you can claim to know more about science than everyone here while reverting to laughably antiquated and debunked 18th- and 19th-century science is a mystery to me.

And that was a lame dig at Democrats.
 

---

Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
 
"One of the revealed works of God mentions a planet called Kolob with little description of what it is."

This is INSANE! There is no PLANET called Kolob as it is a STAR! At least get that right - even for you BB.

quote:

---

2 And I saw the STARS, that they were very great, and that ONE OF THEM was nearest unto the throne of God; and there were many great ones which were near unto it;
3 And the Lord said unto me: These are the governing ones; and the name of the great one is Kolob, because it is NEAR unto me, for I am the Lord thy God: I have set this one to govern all those which belong to the same order as that upon which thou standest.
4 And the Lord said unto me, by the Urim and Thummim, that Kolob was AFTER THE MANNER OF THE LORD, according to its times and seasons in the revolutions thereof; that one revolution was a day unto the Lord, after his manner of reckoning, it being one thousand years according to the time appointed unto that whereon thou standest. This is the reckoning of the Lord’s time, according to the reckoning of Kolob. (emphasis mine)

---

quote:

---

Would you care to go into an explanation for us of how Jesus was one of the Lords of Kolob? Let's just agree not to go there, and simply acknowledge that Mormons teach something different about the nature of Christ than do most Evangelicals.

As for the Lords of Kolob thing, that came from Mormons on this site in the past. I did not invent it. Some Mormons here in this thread have acknowledged that there is something about it in Mormon teaching; they merely quibbled about how prominent it is (whether it is "cannon" or not). Did you notice this? Do you wish to take them to task as well?

---

quote:

---

You would be well advised to exercise better self-discipline, and not let your conceit about your own opinions do your talking.

---

quote:

---

Dagonee, there is no one who posts to any of these forums who knows more about science, evolution, creation, and related issues than I do.

---

quote:

---

The idea that something is "too sacred" to discuss is really one that I find very difficult to understand.

---

quote:

---

The idea that something is "too sacred" to discuss is really one that I find very difficult to understand.

---

quote:

---

Tom, do you think that expression is ever meant literally?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
I predict that within a generation, no more than a stubborn few will still believe in evolution.

---

A generation, huh?
I would take that bet. In fact, I would raise you one more. I bet that by 2050, there will be more people that will learn about and believe in evolution in just the two countries of India and China than there are currently people in the continental United States of America, period.
 

---

Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
Rakeesh, et. al., my beliefs about life and cosmic origins do not contradict any science, they are better in harmony with all the facts of science than your beliefs. Evolution is totally impossible. At one time or another I have cited item after item in the natural world which Creationism can explain and evolution cannot, and I have even explained carefully the basic principles of science which the theory of evolution plainly contradicts, and you have always just blathered something vague, and pretended that was an answer, and then you go on and pontificate about your unsound opinions. Ever since the court case in Kansas where a judge let himself be swayed by the mainstream majority and ruled that Intelligent Design was not science, you have been pretending you won a great victory, and have been indulging in a triumphalistic attitude. But you are still wrong and eventually evolution is going down to defeat and will be relegated to the scrapheap of history where all false theories belong. I predict that within a generation, no more than a stubborn few will still believe in evolution. But for now, go ahead and believe what you want. In my view you are the most cultic and fanatical and pitiable sort of brainwashed "true believers" of all, with your bondage to your cherished theory of evolution.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mucus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
I predict that within a generation, no more than a stubborn few will still believe in evolution.

---

A generation, huh?

---

quote:

---

I have no wish to discuss this any further with you in this thread or any other, because we have been over this ground before, and frankly I do not think you are capable of honest, fair-minded debate about this.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Threads:
*snore*

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by twinky:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mucus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
I predict that within a generation, no more than a stubborn few will still believe in evolution.

---

A generation, huh?

---

His post actually originally said "within ten years." I presume he decided that was too optimistic after the fact.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Speed:
I predict that within the next generation Richard Dawkins will make love with a monkey, and their offspring will discover cold fusion, the trans-warp drive and the flux capacitor before he finishes kindergarten.

---

A.
 

---

Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 

quote:

---

Ever since the court case in Kansas where a judge let himself be swayed by the mainstream majority and ruled that Intelligent Design was not science,

---

quote:

---

I have no wish to discuss this any further with you in this thread or any other, because we have been over this ground before, and frankly I do not think you are capable of honest, fair-minded debate about this.

---

quote:

---

As for the Lords of Kolob thing, that came from Mormons on this site in the past. I did not invent it. Some Mormons here in this thread have acknowledged that there is something about it in Mormon teaching; they merely quibbled about how prominent it is (whether it is "cannon" or not). Did you notice this? Do you wish to take them to task as well?

---

quote:

---

But really, the whole point is that Mormons do not mean exactly the same thing that most Evangelical Christians do when they say "Jesus is the Son of God."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Samprimary:

quote:

---

Ever since the court case in Kansas where a judge let himself be swayed by the mainstream majority and ruled that Intelligent Design was not science,

---

Ron, I'm content to ignore the rest of your post even though you make several statements which you probably cannot back up sufficiently. Maybe later, eh?

But the man who you are talking about is Judge Jones. You say this about this man, you better back it up because you are slandering a good man and a good judge.

I am going to defend him from your attack on his character and motivations.

You will show me what you think gives you the right to say this about him, or you will drop that line cold.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mucus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
I predict that within a generation, no more than a stubborn few will still believe in evolution.

---

A generation, huh?
I would take that bet. In fact, I would raise you one more. I bet that by 2050, there will be more people that will learn about and believe in evolution in just the two countries of India and China than there are currently people in the continental United States of America, period.

---

I'll jump in with Mucus. Any other takers? We can pool our money and hey, Ron, if you're right, you could take in a lot of cash.

And if you're against betting for profit, just give it to charity.
 

---

Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Samprimary:
You will show me what you think gives you the right to say this about him, or you will drop that line cold.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Occasional:
"One of the revealed works of God mentions a planet called Kolob with little description of what it is."

This is INSANE! There is no PLANET called Kolob as it is a STAR! At least get that right - even for you BB.

---

quote:

---

But you are still wrong and eventually evolution is going down to defeat and will be relegated to the scrapheap of history where all false theories belong. I predict that within a generation, no more than a stubborn few will still believe in evolution.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by kmbboots:
The troublesome thing for me is that, in 1960, Kennedy's strategy for addressing the religion questions was to assert that there should be no religious test for public office. Romney's strategy in 2007 is to convince people that he passes that test. That really concerns me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by kmbboots:
The troublesome thing for me is that, in 1960, Kennedy's strategy for addressing the religion questions was to assert that there should be no religious test for public office. Romney's strategy in 2007 is to convince people that he passes that test. That really concerns me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by steven:
I think that, overall, the Mormon church is less prone to violence as a method of achieving goals. Maybe I'm being too hard on the RC church because of the Inquisition, the profiting from the conquest of the Americas, etc.. I don't entirely think so, though.

---

I don't think the Catholic church of centuries ago is very relevant in this context.
 

---

Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
I do believe it is a little difficult to fairly compare the two. However, I think the structure of the Mormon church is much less dangerous, in general. Paid clergy with lots of power and money are more scary, to me, anyway, than earnest fresh-faced well-scrubbed young adults on bicycles.
 

---

Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
 
I hope no one has failed to notice how rabid the pro-evolutionists are revealing themselves to be.

Just out of curiosity, would any of the Mormons posting here care to enlighten me on what the official position of the LDS church is concerning evolution? This could conceivably impact Governor Romney's campaign, if there is an issue here that someone might wish to exploit.
 

---

Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
I hope no one has failed to notice how rabid the pro-evolutionists are revealing themselves to be.

---

Yep, we're all just foaming at the mouth with anger at your heresy
 

---

Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
 
Have a drink of water.
 

---

Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
The context of the Catholic Church in the U.S. might be more relevant than the Medieval Church. Immigrants, unions, and an official Vatican position that (in theory at least, if not in practice) the state should recognize the Church.
 

---

Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
Of course, kate. It's theoretical, at this point. I don't really think the RC church is potentially dangerous to America. As to what kind of influence the Mormon church might ever have on national politics, I don't worry too much. The most a Mormon can do is annoy the shizzle out of you. There's a great big difference, IMHO, between dangerous and annoying.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 

quote:

---

Just out of curiosity, would any of the Mormons posting here care to enlighten me on what the official position of the LDS church is concerning evolution? This could conceivably impact Governor Romney's campaign, if there is an issue here that someone might wish to exploit.

---

quote:

---

I hope no one has failed to notice how rabid the pro-evolutionists are revealing themselves to be.

---

quote:

---

Just out of curiosity, would any of the Mormons posting here care to enlighten me on what the official position of the LDS church is concerning evolution?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by BlackBlade:
Again I disagree, he clearly made several succeeding remarks specifically mentioning that he was not running as a Mormon president, but as a president who happened to be a Mormon. He then pointed out that objections based on his being Mormon are precisely the sort of religious test the founders wanted to avoid.

As far as I recall he never once used his religious convictions as some sort of, "that's why you should vote for me" point but rather as a, "This is what I believe, now you don't have to wonder anymore."

---

quote:

---

The prevailing opinion of leaders of the LDS Church is that Evolution is an evil philosophy (that doesn't have anything to do with good or bad science).

---

What distinction are they making between philosophy and science, and under which conditions does evolution qualify as the former?
 

---

Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
 
Hard numbers:

JFK:
God: 1
Jesus (or Christ): 0
Creator: 0

Romney:
God: 15
Jesus Christ: 2
Creator: 3

Verified with ctrl-f
 

---

Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
 
FWIW, BYU teaches evolution in its biology classes and their science curriculum is a lot closer to, say, UC Berkley than Bob Jones.
 

---

Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 

quote:

---

I'd have to side with kmbboots on this one.

---

Don't worry you aren't hurting my feelings.

quote:

---

The JFK speech is notable from my POV precisely because of what it avoids saying. Aside from the ending "so help me God" there is really nothing detailing Kennedy's beliefs and furthermore, he explicitly goes and says some pretty concrete and verifiable statements. (No public funds for churches and church schools, resignation before allowing his religious convictions to come before the country, etc.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by BlackBlade:
Evangelicals did not have to question whether Catholics believe in Christ, or in a concept of the trinity, but they did have to worry about a Catholic being beholden to Rome.

---

quote:

---

See, this is the juncture in your post where the problem starts. The very fact that Romney even needs to assure evangelicals that he believes in Christ, or that humans are children of God means that he's trying to convince them that his beliefs are compatible with theirs.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Threads:
A few decades from now, atheists could be becoming more prominent in the government as well. It will be interesting when an atheist candidate will have to give a speech about atheism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by BlackBlade:
Or else it's a sure fire way to lose the election, but at least Romney would have YOUR approval.

---

quote:

---

Just out of curiosity, would any of the Mormons posting here care to enlighten me on what the official position of the LDS church is concerning evolution? This could conceivably impact Governor Romney's campaign, if there is an issue here that someone might wish to exploit.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Threads:
Whats wrong with a "hollow faith"? Do you find the idea of an atheist president worrisome?

EDIT: Removed an unnecessary assumption on my part

EDIT2: Or would it be the hypocrisy that bothers you?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by kmbboots:
The troublesome thing for me is that, in 1960, Kennedy's strategy for addressing the religion questions was to assert that there should be no religious test for public office. Romney's strategy in 2007 is to convince people that he passes that test. That really concerns me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Javert:
Judge Jones was actually the one from the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial, not Kansas.

---

quote:

---

Like Mucus says, whether or not it's politically expedient is a separate issue. But Romney loses there anyway: he's shown through a litany of flip-flops that he's willing to say whatever he can to get elected. For example, his positions as a candidate for Governor of Massachusetts on gay rights, gun control and abortion were all diametrically opposed to his current ones.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Samprimary:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Javert:
Judge Jones was actually the one from the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial, not Kansas.

---

darrrrgh

Dang, what judge are we talking about then? I guess I just totally don't remember the Kansas judge?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
Thanks, Lem. But I did not slander a good judge. It is those of you who keep repeating that inaccurate statement who are engaging in slander. I stated the truth, that he allowed himself to be swayed by the mainstream majority, who are past masters at browbeating laymen. If this were not true, he would have recognized that the scientific basis for Intelligent Design is far better than for evolution, because that is the factual reality that anyone who honestly evaluates the evidence for himself will agree.

---

Words fail me.

Smilies, however...
 

---

Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by BlackBlade:
Evangelicals did not have to question whether Catholics believe in Christ, or in a concept of the trinity, . . .

---

quote:

---

Some of you are calling Romney's attempt to placate people's fears concerning his religion an attempt to, "pass a test."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Icarus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by BlackBlade:
Evangelicals did not have to question whether Catholics believe in Christ, or in a concept of the trinity, . . .

---

It is still a commonly held belief that Catholics are not Christian. I have been told this back when I self-identified as Catholic, I have been outraged for children of my friends who were told this by people who should have known better, and I have actually seen it argued on this very forum that Catholics are not Christians.

---

quote:

---

Goes to show that even if there were no atheists, the believers would have no shortage of people to go after.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rakeesh:

quote:

---

Goes to show that even if there were no atheists, the believers would have no shortage of people to go after.

---

This just in! This just in! Human beings like to band together in groups and go after the outsiders! Extra, extra, read all about it! Breaking news!

---

 

---

Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rakeesh:

quote:

---

Goes to show that even if there were no atheists, the believers would have no shortage of people to go after.

---

This just in! This just in! Human beings like to band together in groups and go after the outsiders! Extra, extra, read all about it! Breaking news!

---

Oh yeah. So we can't hurt anything by coming up with plenty of reasons to keep that pattern going.
 

---

Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 

quote:

---

Oh yeah. So we can't hurt anything by coming up with plenty of reasons to keep that pattern going.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Icarus:
Um, so the pope came out and expressed his opinion that he and the folks who agree with him are right? Huh. Guess what? I am also of the opinion that the opinions I hold are correct. I could be wrong, but I would guess most atheists would agree, when pressed, that atheism is correct. And the Mormons would agree that the Mormons have it right.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Occasional:
How in the world can you say Kennedy's response was braver than Romney's? If anything, Romney's was much braver because HE ACTUALLY EXPRESSES BELIEF in something that part of his audience thinks is an abomination.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Occasional:
All Kennedy said was "my religion is meaningless to me, so there is nothing to fear."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by BlackBlade:
Some of you are calling Romney's attempt to placate people's fears concerning his religion an attempt to, "pass a test."

---

quote:

---

What is inherently wrong in a candidate addressing his religious views and clarifying how those views will effect the administration he runs?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Javert:
Goes to show that even if there were no atheists, the believers would have no shortage of people to go after.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Occasional:
By the way, anyone who thinks Romney's speech was inauthentic or less than Mormon ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Javert:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Icarus:
Um, so the pope came out and expressed his opinion that he and the folks who agree with him are right? Huh. Guess what? I am also of the opinion that the opinions I hold are correct. I could be wrong, but I would guess most atheists would agree, when pressed, that atheism is correct. And the Mormons would agree that the Mormons have it right.

---

I was merely responding to your comment. Yes, it is a widely held belief that Catholics aren't Christians. It is also a widely held belief that only Catholics are Christians.

---

quote:

---

I am sure that Mormons do not appreciate his glorification of the Greek pantheon, either.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by BlackBlade:
I already agree there shouldn't be that sort of test, but I disagree that Mormonism is accepted to the point that Romney could have just continued being mostly silent about his faith and still found a way to placate fears regarding his religion, he was being too coy.

---

quote:

---

The only major change in opinion of Romney that I am aware of his is views on abortion. His views on gay rights, gun control, etc have remained largely unchanged.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MrSquicky:
From where I'm standing, he changed dramatically on both of the issues you mentioned. Also, he completely turned his back on the government health care plan that he was trumpeting when he was governor.

---

quote:

---

Plus there's the whole going from "Massachusetts is the greatest state in the country." while governor to "You know what state sucks? Massachusetts." when talking to the anti-MA Republican base.

---

quote:

---

Perhaps he was feeling a little disillusioned after a very contentious term as governor.

---

quote:

---

The troublesome thing for me is that, in 1960, Kennedy's strategy for addressing the religion questions was to assert that there should be no religious test for public office. Romney's strategy in 2007 is to convince people that he passes that test. That really concerns me.

---

quote:

---

# In a 1994 letter to the Log Cabin Republicans, who advocate gay rights, Romney said he was in favor of "gays and lesbians being able to serve openly and honestly" in the military. He now says it would be a mistake to interfere with the "don't ask, don't tell policy."

---

quote:

---

# While campaigning for the governorship of Massachusetts in 2002, he said he would not "chip away" at the state's tough gun laws. He signed up for "lifelong membership" of the National Rifle Association in 2006, while contemplating a run for the Republican nomination.

---

quote:

---

# In 2005, appeared to favor immigration reform, along the lines proposed by Sen. John McCain. He now denounces it as an "amnesty plan."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Occasional:
The prevailing opinion of leaders of the LDS Church is that Evolution is an evil philosophy (that doesn't have anything to do with good or bad science).

---

quote:

---

Can you back this up?

---

quote:

---

Perhaps he meant that using "survival of the fittest" as a guide for social policy is an evil philosophy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Occasional:
Now, not everyone means to imply this, but there have been some (here and other places on the net) who have to a smaller or larger degree.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dagonee:

quote:

---

# In a 1994 letter to the Log Cabin Republicans, who advocate gay rights, Romney said he was in favor of "gays and lesbians being able to serve openly and honestly" in the military. He now says it would be a mistake to interfere with the "don't ask, don't tell policy."

---

This appears to be a significant change in policy. I have not researched his rationale for this change.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SenojRetep:
There have been in the past fairly pointed comments by previous leaders of the LDS church about their belief that humans could not have evoloved from an ape-like ancestor. I imagine this is what Occ is refering to.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jon Boy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by SenojRetep:
There have been in the past fairly pointed comments by previous leaders of the LDS church about their belief that humans could not have evoloved from an ape-like ancestor. I imagine this is what Occ is refering to.

---

It could be, but I wouldn't call pointed comments from select leaders over the course of a century a prevailing opinion.

---

quote:

---

I don't know how else to put it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Occasional:
Well, I would like to know of one LDS leader who got up in General Conference and said something positive about Evolution.

---

quote:

---

Dag: If you read the contents of the letter, Romney says that Clinton's don't ask don't tell policy was a step in the right direction. He also states that he shares the goal of one day allowing gays and lesbians being able to openly serve in the military. During the youtube debates he was asked about his statement, "gays/lesbians openly serving...etc" and he said that he does not think now is the time for modifying the don't ask don't tell policy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Javert Hugo:
I think the big fear is not that Romney would turn out to be terrible but that he'd turn out to be wonderful and make Mormons look good. Disaster!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by BlackBlade:


----
kmbboots: You said,

quote:

---

The troublesome thing for me is that, in 1960, Kennedy's strategy for addressing the religion questions was to assert that there should be no religious test for public office. Romney's strategy in 2007 is to convince people that he passes that test. That really concerns me.

---

So are you saying it concerns you that the state of affairs in the US is such that it appears we DO have a religious test for candidates? Or are you saying it concerns you that Romney is trying to pass some perceived religious test in order to be president?

I've answered the second questions several times, but it seems like you are saying you only meant the first question.

---

quote:

---

But I did not really expect Romney to do that.

---

quote:

---

Perhaps he also didn't believe it. You know, just because someone doesn't express what you wish they did doesn't mean their motive is cowardice.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MrSquicky:

quote:

---

But I did not really expect Romney to do that.

---

I don't think you can expect the courage to go against the Religious Right from Republican candidates. I would have been happy if he didn't play the "We have a common enemy" card aimed at other Americans.

---

quote:

---

Did Kennedy not attack anyone in his speech? Not even Communists? Because there are Communist Americans. I know a few. If I'm wrong I'll happily admit you're right, Squicky.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Occasional:
Eventually the Church publishedThe Origin of Man. As an official position, it seems to come close to officially rejecting Evolution.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MrSquicky:
That's not really the heart of my comment. I agree that a Republican candidate pulling a 2000 John McCain by overtly standing up to the evangelicals would be remarkable. The Mitt Romney did not is barely comment-worthy. I'm taking exception with the way he tries to show that LDS isn't all that scary, by including an attack on other Americans as a common enemy.

---

quote:

---

Upon the fundamental doctrines of the Church we are all agreed. Our mission is to bear the message of the restored gospel to the world. Leave geology, biology, archaeology, and anthropology, no one of which has to do with the salvation of the souls of mankind, to scientific research, while we magnify our calling in the realm of the Church. . . .(Heber J Grant 1931)

---

quote:

---

“On the subject of organic evolution the Church has officially taken no position. The book Man, His Origin and Destiny was not published by the Church and is not approved by the Church. The book contains expressions of the author’s
views for which he alone is responsible. (David O. McKay 1957).

---

quote:

---

President McKay said that the book has created a problem. Being written by the president of the Quorum of the Twelve, it has implications which we can appreciate. The book has not been approved by the Church; we are authorized
to quote him on that. The work represents the opinions of one man on the scriptures. Brother Smith’s views have long been known. Striking the desk for emphasis, President McKay repeated that the book is not the authoritative position of the Church. He does not know how it came to be chosen
as a text for the seminary and institute teachers last summer, but the choice was unfortunate.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Occasional:
"If Smith's book had not simply been dismissed as "not official" but been followed by a rebuttal" . . . then I think the LDS Church would have seen a very open power struggle not seen since Joseph Smith's death.

---

quote:

---

“As president he’s going to carry the influence of that office, not just here but worldwide, and there’s no denying it’s going to lead people to check out that religion, which according to biblical Christianity, will lead them ultimately to hell.”

---

quote:

---

"There are some who may feel that religion is not a matter to be seriously considered in the context of the weighty threats that face us. If so, they are at odds with the nation's founders, for they, when our nation faced its greatest peril, sought the blessings of the Creator. And further, they discovered the essential connection between the survival of a free land and the protection of religious freedom. In John Adams' words: 'We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion... Our constitution was made for a moral and religious people.'

---

quote:

---

But my journey is part of a larger journey - one shared by all who've ever sought to apply the values of their faith to our society. It's a journey that takes us back to our nation's founding, when none other than a UCC church inspired the Boston Tea Party and helped bring an Empire to its knees. In the following century, men and women of faith waded into the battles over prison reform and temperance, public education and women's rights - and above all, abolition. And when the Civil War was fought and our country dedicated itself to a new birth of freedom, they took on the problems of an industrializing nation - fighting the crimes against society and the sins against God that they felt were being committed in our factories and in our slums.

And when these battles were overtaken by others and when the wars they opposed were waged and won, these faithful foot soldiers for justice kept marching. They stood on the Edmund Pettus Bridge, as the blows of billy clubs rained down. They held vigils across this country when four little girls were killed in the 16th Street Baptist Church. They cheered on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial when Dr. King delivered his prayer for our country. And in all these ways, they helped make this country more decent and more just.

So doing the Lord's work is a thread that's run through our politics since the very beginning. And it puts the lie to the notion that the separation of church and state in America means faith should have no role in public life.

---

There are many more examples but let me summarize by saying that when placed side by side, Romney seems only to repeating mantra's and regurgitating sound bites that I've heard over and over again from the religious right. Obama's comments seem fresh and thoughtful. Romney seems to be addressing only people with deep religious convictions. Obama seems to be trying to reconcile all those who have shared values whether those values stem from religion or not. Romney seem to be beating the war drums for a more religious America. Obama suggests compromises in an attempt to heal the divide between people of faith and non-religious peoples.
 

---

Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
 
Do Mormons think that Jesus and the Devil are brothers?

If Huckabee really "doesn't know much about [Mormonism]" then why he did he ask an intentionally inflammatory question?

If I ever become a politician I would like to think that I would educate myself on ideas before spouting off opinions. I think Huckabee should be embarrassed for asking something so ridiculously dumb. Unfortunately, comments like that probably just get him more support from Mormon haters.
 

---

Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
 
Freudian slip there Threads?

edit: hehe...good job.
 

---

Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
 
I actually did that another time too but I caught it. It's fixed now.
 

---

Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Threads:
I think Huckabee should be embarrassed for asking something so ridiculously dumb.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by dkw:
Nice to know that he is as adept at mischaracterizing other Christian's beliefs as Huckabee is about Romney's.

I'm disappointed, but not surprised.

---

quote:

---

We all point to the Bible and say, "We believe in the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob." We believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, that he is divine himself, and that only by his grace can we be cleansed of our sins and return to the presence of the Father.

As far as I'm concerned, anybody who believes that is a Christian. You can be wrong about a lot of the details, but all who accept Christ's divinity and try to live by his teachings are Christians.

---

quote:

---

The main point of disagreement between Mormons and traditional Christianity is that we believe in the biblical God — the God in whose image we were made, the resurrected Christ with a perfect body of flesh and bone — and they don't.

Or, rather, their theologians don't. Most ordinary Christians ignore the creeds; when they pray, they're thinking of God as a person with a face, with arms and legs, who actually exists in space and time.

They believe in the biblical God, as we do. You have to go to college to accept the paradoxes of the platonic God that traditional Christianity has embraced.

---

quote:

---

Well I should think mischaracterizing the beliefs of Christians as a whole is far easier then micharacterizing the beliefs of one small group.

---

quote:

---

Just so we're clear-- what beliefs did OSC mangle?

---

quote:

---

So why does one require a higher degree to serve in other churches? Mormonism requires no degree at all. I've had Bishops who were plumbers.

---

quote:

---

most important, the idea that God must be either a personal god or an infinite, perfect god.

---

quote:

---

The idea that most lay Christians actually believe something closer to the Mormon conception of God than what the clergy believe.

---

quote:

---

I do think he's correct in saying that most lay people do not consider the mysteries/paradoxes inherent in a Trinitarian view of God.

---

How could you possibly know that? It seems extremely arrogant for you to assume that you can know what goes on in the minds of complete strangers.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Okay, I have to admit: that was a really, really good one. Scott, I'm afraid you were served.
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 

 

---

Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 

quote:

---

Your statement is extremely overbroad. One does not require a higher degree to "serve" in other churches.

---

quote:

---

Of course, I don't really know how the Catholic Church does it, but some sort of advanced degree is usually called for in much of Protestantism, usually a Ph.D.

---

quote:

---

The doctrine that our opponents would love to hang around Romney's neck is the one about human beings having the potential to become like God.

---

quote:

---

Just as specific training is required in the LDS Church. It's not college, but it's still education above and beyond what the typical high schooler gets.

---

quote:

---

Where did OSC make the mistake?

---

quote:

---

The main point of disagreement between Mormons and traditional Christianity is that we believe in the biblical God — the God in whose image we were made, the resurrected Christ with a perfect body of flesh and bone — and they don't.

---

quote:

---

Hmm...do you mean the training that LDS missionaries receive?

Otherwise, I'm racking my brain to think of some other formalized training our leaders receive...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dagonee:

quote:

---

Hmm...do you mean the training that LDS missionaries receive?

Otherwise, I'm racking my brain to think of some other formalized training our leaders receive...

---

LDS Seminary.

---

quote:

---

Oh...oh, that's not training. That's for teenagers - it's like regular sunday school, only every day. Seriously - seminary consists more of talent shows and movies than anything I'd call training.

---

quote:

---

Aha. I'm not prepared to call it "training," but I can see why you used that term.

---

quote:

---

And as Javert pointed out, Seminary is not compulsory (though most LDS teens, at least in Utah, attend) and it is not a prerequisite for holding any position.

---

quote:

---

OSC's comment about needing college to understand our view, besides being flat out wrong, doesn't seem to say much of anything significant in the face of the fact that Mormons have special instruction in their beliefs.

---

quote:

---

Catholics do believe in ""the resurrected Christ with a perfect body of flesh and bone." (We use the term "glorified" to describe Christ's post-Resurrection body.) My understanding is that the mainstream Protestant denominations (Methodist, Lutheran, Anglican, etc.) do as well (although I don't know if they use "glorified"). dkw seems to have confirmed this with respect to Methodists at least.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by pooka:


Aren't there particular religious classes teenagers get in Catholic School? These do not qualify the students to head congregations.

---

quote:

---

I can sympathize with the sentiment, though I don't think the LDS Church is necessarily much better in that regard than the Catholic church.

---

quote:

---

but clergy are not the head of the congregation

---

quote:

---

Central to Christianity, Trinity is the doctrine that God is one being who exists, simultaneously and eternally, as a mutual indwelling of three persons (not to be confused by "person"): the Father, the Son (incarnate as Jesus of Nazareth), and the Holy Spirit. Since the 4th century, in both Eastern Christianity and Western Christianity, this doctrine has been stated as "three persons in one God," all three of whom, as distinct and co-eternal persons, are of one indivisible Divine essence, a simple being. The doctrine also teaches that the Son Himself has two distinct natures, one fully divine and the other fully human, united in a hypostatic union.

---

quote:

---

The idea that most lay Christians actually believe something closer to the Mormon conception of God than what the clergy believe.

---

quote:

---

I don't understand why saying that learning more about God is a bad thing.

---

quote:

---

Just as bad is the idea that you need formal schooling to understand Him.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MrSquicky:

quote:

---

Just as bad is the idea that you need formal schooling to understand Him.

---

Who says that?

---

quote:

---

I don't know that human beings can ever totally understand God.

---

quote:

---

Who says that?

---

quote:

---

why higher education is needed if not for a correct understanding of doctrine?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by dkw:
Nice to know that he is as respectful of other Christian's beliefs as Huckabee is about Romney's.

I'm disappointed, but not surprised.

---

quote:

---

a bit surprised to read it from OSC

---

quote:

---

it is an aspect of human nature to retire from the effort involved in participating in an understanding of God

---

quote:

---

Right now, I feel like we CAN understand Him-- if anything is possible with God, than so is that.

---

quote:

---

The thing that bothers me about Scott and pooka's participation here is that they really don't seem to me to be looking to understand how other religions see things, btu rather looking for avenues to attack them. Maybe that's not their intent, but it does seem that way to me.

---

quote:

---

I guess you're not seeing all the places I point out that Mormonism is subject to the same ecology of pride and detachment of form from function.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomDavidson:

quote:

---

it is an aspect of human nature to retire from the effort involved in participating in an understanding of God

---

I'm not sure I agree. I look around and see a whole lot more humans trying to understand God than trying to understand physics.

---

I wonder if you see humans trying to understand God or thinking that they already do?

Besides. God is more interesting than physics.
 

---

Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
Hey, if that's not what you are doing, then that's fine. I'm just telling you how it looks to me.
 

---

Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by kmbboots:
Besides. God is more interesting than physics.

---

Could not disagree more. Physics is so much cooler!
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
EDIT:

I'm not looking for an avenue of attack. Ain't how I roll.
 

---

Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
 
Squicky, what do you feel is the best way to understand God? How do you try to do it?
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Javert:

quote:

---

Originally posted by kmbboots:
Besides. God is more interesting than physics.

---

Could not disagree more. Physics is so much cooler!

---

quote:

---

Squicky, what do you feel is the best way to understand God?

---

quote:

---

If its any consolation Dana, I felt exactly the same way. OSC does to mainstream Christianity in this essayexactly what we Mormons complain about when other Christians do it to us. I am always dismayed when I see members of my church doing this. I was particularly disappointed and a bit surprised to read it from OSC.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Javert Hugo:
What, exactly, do you do or think or feel when you want to understand God?

---

I know this is not meant for me, but hey, it's a public forum, so ...

I personally feel the same way as when I'm left out on an inside joke. I ask questions and nobody answers, all they say is inconsistent and then still claim they do understand it and I don't. So basically, I'm waiting for an answer that never comes.

A.
 

---

Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
Mircea Eliade described a major aspect of religious thought as a separation of the sacred from the profane. While this is certainly evident in many of the world's religions and it seems to work for many people, I don't accept this distinction.

Terry Pratchett has a character say something much more in line with the way I see it: "Either all days are holy or none of them are." Likewise, for me, either all moments are holy, all experiences are holy, or none of them are.

I choose to believe that they are holy.

You are asking my questions from the sacred/profane background assumption. They don't really make sense with the latter perspective.

I've given you what answers I can. If you want to understand, you're going to need to change how you think about them.

---

Plus, I don't think there is a single active member of Hatrack who would think that you are asking these questiongs in good faith or with a sense of respect.

---

edit: Because I'm pretty sure most people here would need to know me better to get this off the bat, the juxtaposition of Eliade and Pratchett (especially who they are) is a deliberate part of my answer.
 

---

Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 

quote:

---

I'm pretty sure that Squick thinks of divinity in a manner fairly close to Kate.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by suminonA:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Javert Hugo:
What, exactly, do you do or think or feel when you want to understand God?

---

I know this is not meant for me, but hey, it's a public forum, so ...

I personally feel the same way as when I'm left out on an inside joke. I ask questions and nobody answers, all they say is inconsistent and then still claim they do understand it and I don't. So basically, I'm waiting for an answer that never comes.

A.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Artemisia Tridentata:
Charles Ives: "The Unanswered Question". Take a listen, I think you will find it to be a good match for your feelings.

---

Thanks, I will look for it.

A.
 

---

Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by MrSquicky:
Mircea Eliade described a major aspect of religious thought as a separation of the sacred from the profane. While this is certainly evident in many of the world's religions and it seems to work for many people, I don't accept this distinction.

Terry Pratchett has a character say something much more in line with the way I see it: "Either all days are holy or none of them are." Likewise, for me, either all moments are holy, all experiences are holy, or none of them are.

I choose to believe that they are holy.

You are asking my questions from the sacred/profane background assumption. They don't really make sense with the latter perspective.

---

quote:

---

"Either all days are holy or none of them are." Likewise, for me, either all moments are holy, all experiences are holy, or none of them are.

---

quote:

---

I personally feel the same way as when I'm left out on an inside joke. I ask questions and nobody answers, all they say is inconsistent and then still claim they do understand it and I don't. So basically, I'm waiting for an answer that never comes.

---

quote:

---

Likewise, for me, either all moments are holy, all experiences are holy, or none of them are.

---

quote:

---

Well, I'm sorry that previous digressions have made anything I want to say likely to be misunderstood.

---

quote:

---

But you (Squick) are saying one has a choice whether to see one's life as sacred or profane?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by kmbboots:
In my opinion, all explanations of God are gross oversimplification. And that's okay.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Javert Hugo:
The closest I can come to understanding is how people talk about music - how it's transcendent. In August Rush, the kid says he believes in music the way others believe in fairy tales. I've certainly tried to listen, and taken years of lessons, and done my best, and I still always try, and while I can hear that it's beautiful, it never clicks the way...the poetry or science or visual arts do.

---

I can personally attest to getting rather extreme emotional rushes while listening to trance music. I have to be in the right state of mind though.
 

---

Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 
Dag: I'm typing this on my wii so forgive the shortness. I think the geometry metaphor was more a comprehensive comparison of the dialogue that goes on when mormons and TC converse on the topic of the trinity. Before joining hatrack all discussions I had about the trinity were very similar to Cards mock dialog. Having said that I was not impressed with the overall message of the post. I remember Mr. Card's response to your question and found it a bit dismaying. He sounds so pleasently kind when he speaks but comes across as quite sour in his opinion writing. And now my wrist hurts
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 

quote:

---

I think the geometry metaphor was more a comprehensive comparison of the dialogue that goes on when mormons and TC converse on the topic of the trinity. Before joining hatrack all discussions I had about the trinity were very similar to Cards mock dialog.

---

quote:

---

And now my wrist hurts

---

I'm glad this isn't an ona...

er, thanks for braving the wii to reply.
 

---

Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dagonee:
If he added "conveniently selected inarticulate and ill-informed" before "traditional Christian" he might have been accurate. But he presented it as the traditional Christian view.

---

quote:

---

The Trinity is the term employed to signify the central doctrine of the Christian religion -- the truth that in the unity of the Godhead there are Three Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, these Three Persons being truly distinct one from another.

Thus, in the words of the Athanasian Creed: "the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and yet there are not three Gods but one God."

---

quote:

---

There is but one only living and true God, who is infinite in being and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions, immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible, almighty, most wise, most holy, most free, most absolute . . .

---