Romney’s Religion Problem is Mine Too

35 responses so far

• 1 Grizelda // Nov 30, 2009 at 4:13 pm

  So, Mitt thinks it is best if a woman with an ectopic pregnancy dies?

• 2 Carney // Nov 30, 2009 at 5:45 pm

  To other commenters, I advise ignoring Grizelda’s trolling and keeping the conversation on-topic.

  Rinehart mentions two issues. The first is a whine that Mormonism is not fully socially accepted. I suggest, if he is of long-term Mormon descent, that he reflect on the deadly violence Mormons were subjected to, up to and including a full fledged US Army invasion and demand that the Church change a defining, core doctrine before Utah was admitted, and realize that his forbears would be delighted that their descendant only receives the occasional snub. Such a progression has been the path all religious minorities have taken, and a victim mentality ill-becomes them.

  Second, he vouches for Romney’s long-term pro-life bona fides. While I can and do accept Romney’s conversion on this issue, Rinehart conveniently ignores the reality that Romney was photographed attending a 1994 Planned Parenthood fundraiser, and indignantly fended off claims that he was not sincerely pro-choice both in his 1994 Senate campaign against Ted Kennedy, and in his 2002 campaign for governor. Today, Romney states that he never called himself “pro choice” and felt at the time that despite his personal convictions that public policy should not mandate the pro-life position – a feeling that has shifted as he has seen the value of human life cheapened by the abortion culture to such an extent as to create human beings via cloning for use as spare parts or research subjects.

  That’s a reasonable position, and even if it were not 100% sincere, Romney is obviously aware that he could never now get away with another shift on this issue, and so that pro-lifers can have a reasonable degree of confidence that he will act in accordance with pro-life positions if elected. (It’s a similar calculation we made with Bush Sr.)

  Rinehart does Romney no good by ignoring this history and pretending that those nasty evangelicals somehow invented an image out of whole cloth and with no factual basis of Romney shifting his stance on this issue. Even Romney himself acknowledges that he has done this.

  With Mormons (despite their overall squeaky-clean image) having a strong reputation among evangelicals for selective omission, misleading claims of agreement and affinity, and otherwise disguising stark and unbridgeable differences, such tactics by Rinehart are HIGHLY unwise – they feed directly into negative stereotypes that have emerged over decades as a result of countless interactions in the real world, and reinforce rather than reduce the image of Romney as being shifty. With advocates and friends like this, Romney needs no enemies.

• 3 Grizelda // Nov 30, 2009 at 6:26 pm

  Yes, that’s right, move along here, nothing to see – it is perfectly normal for a major politician to have a past history of intervening in doctor-patient and even spousal relationships.

• 4 AllNewsUtah.com // Nov 30, 2009 at 6:40 pm

  [...] Romney’s Religion Problem is Mine Too (FrumForum) [...]

• 5 StevenRinehart // Nov 30, 2009 at 6:51 pm

  Carney:

  Everything Romney has said and done for twenty-years has been mined by his detractors for inconsistencies. Anyone in this world subjected that kind of scrutiny could be shown to have to made statements they regretted and that did not accurately characterize them. On balance, Huckabee and McCain are far more deserving of the flip-flopper label than Romney is. They vascillated to-and-fro on taxes, illegal immigration, MLK day, gay rights, abortion, and almost every fiscal and social issue imaginable whenever it was convenient. Additionally, Huckabee and McCain didn’t have the pressure from liberal electorates that Romney faced when running. Romney responded on a couple of occasions to enormous liberal pressure in MA from Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, and other — and his statements should be interrpretted in light of his desire to prove that he wouldn’t try and impose his religious beliefs on the populace at large. McCain denounced the USA under pressure in Vietnam in 26 recorded videos, but those are not used to exemplify his character.

  Many Catholics I know believe Romney was a better friend to the Catholic church as governor of MA than any of the other governors it had previously — and Romney was the only one who wasn’t himself Catholic. He was the only MA politician who refused to condemn the Archdiocese or its leaders during the sex scandal, and he stopped legislation that would have forced Catholic orphanages to let gays adopt children. He donated 100% of his state salary to non-religious charities, and if he really flopped whenever doing so was politically expedient, why has he never flopped on his biggest political liability: his religion. Why has he always been faithful to his wife, his family, and God as he understands him? Why has he taken his marital commitments so much more seriously than Mccain and others who are given a pass for flopping on them? Romney’s accomplishments in the private sector, with his family, and with his education, far exceed anything Huckabee or McCan managed or were capable of. It is obvious to me (as it should be to all informed voters) that Romney is unfairly labeled by evangelicals in ways other candidates aren’t, and I believe the impetus compelling that stigma is evangelical outrage not over his words and deeds, but over his religious beliefs.

  Ironically, it is Mormons’ own passion for evangelism that offends evangelical “Christians” so much and breeds so much hatred on their part for Mormonism.

• 6 Carney // Nov 30, 2009 at 7:27 pm

  Good response, Rinehart, although you did not directly address my points.

  And for many of the reasons you pointed out, I was a Romney voter and donor in the 08 cycle and plan to be again coming up.

  However, I would advise hastily and permanently dropping the comparison of political pressure in a campaign, however intense, with torture (REAL torture, not naked frat hijinks) over the course of years in a Communist dungeon.

• 7 BoolaBoola // Nov 30, 2009 at 10:38 pm

  Mr. Reinhart, it sounds like you have suffered anti-Mormon prejudice FROM CHRISTIANS.

  This should not bother you! Christians are, with few exceptions, mindless kooks. You should wear their prejudice against you as a badge of honor.

  Christians are almost as mindless, and kookey, as, well, MORMONS!

• 8 ThomasJames // Nov 30, 2009 at 10:51 pm

  Grizelda:

  You’re a tool of the Obama administration. Look, we get it. You believe Romney has the great chance at beating President Obama and you’re here disparage Romney, whatever the cost to your integrity.

  Why doesn’t President Obama donate all of his salary to non-religious charities like Romney did as an executive?

  Isn’t President Obama already a millionaire?

• 9 Grizelda // Nov 30, 2009 at 11:08 pm

  TJ, didn’t Romney inherit wealth, and then turn that into even more wealth by buying up companies, laying off the workers and outsourcing the jobs?

• 10 ThomasJames // Dec 1, 2009 at 12:00 am

  Grizelda:

  Isn’t President Obama already a millionaire?

• 11 sinz54 // Dec 1, 2009 at 9:49 am

  Grizelda is an obvious Dem troll.

  Her shot at Romney for allegedly laying off workers was lifted from Ted Kennedy’s 1994 campaign against Romney. I live in Massachusetts so I remember that campaign well.

  In fact, Romney’s firm, Bain Capital, created far more jobs than it destroyed. When you restructure any failing company, you have to get rid of the dead wood. (Something that liberal Dems refuse to acknowledge, since they think that the main purpose of a business is to employ people.)

  But this Dem smear ignores companies like Staples, Inc., which started as a tiny store but under investment from Bain Capital expanded into the national chain we’re now all familiar with (with all the thousands of jobs that created). You want to create jobs, you have to start by creating profitable companies that make products people want to buy. That’s something that liberal Dems in Obama’s cabinet who never worked a day of their lives in private industry simply don’t understand.

  Ted Kennedy is dead, and his smears should have died with him.

• 12 Grizelda // Dec 1, 2009 at 10:06 am

  From Politico:

  • In 1992, the firm acquired American Pad & Paper. By 1999, the year Romney left Bain, two American plants were closed, 385 jobs had been cut and the company was $392 million in debt.

  The next year, Ampad was forced into bankruptcy.

  • Bain Capital and Goldman Sachs bought Dade International for about $450 million in 1994.

  The firm quickly fired or relocated at least 900 workers. Over the next several years, it sunk increasingly into debt and laid off 1,000 workers.

  In 2002 — after Romney had left Bain — it filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.

  • A 1997 buyout of LIVE Entertainment for $150 million resulted in 40 layoffs, roughly one in four of the company’s 166 workers.

  The job cuts affected all aspects of the company, from production and acquisition to legal and public relations.

  • In 1997, Bain bought a stake in DDI Corp., a maker of electronic circuit boards.

  Three years later, Bain took the company public and collected a $36 million payout.

  But by August 2003, the company filed for bankruptcy protection, laying off more than 2,100 workers.

  Four months after the bankruptcy, unhappy shareholders sued company executives, the initial public offering underwriters and Bain for mismanaging the IPO and failing to disclose company financial information. (Romney was not named in the suit.)

  In March, all the defendants settled for $4.4 million.

• 13 Carney // Dec 1, 2009 at 11:33 am

  Grizelda, are those snippets representative of Romney’s overall performance? Honestly? Would those companies that failed have succeeded without being acquired by Bain, or Romney’s management?

  I didn’t think so.

  Did Romney create net jobs, overall? Did he create net wealth, overall? That’s what counts.

• 14 Stewardship // Dec 1, 2009 at 12:15 pm

  I’m a Michigander. George Romney did a fine job as governor here, more than 40 years ago. I’m a Catholic…but I work with a core group of Mormons in my community on various projects. There isn’t a finer bunch of people in the city. I’ve met both Mitt and Jon Huntsman…and hold both in high esteem. I think, with the relevancy of China in global affairs, Hunstman may have a better c.v. for the job come 2012. I’m just glad there are people who believe in some power greater than themselves who are trying to step into the arena. Too often in politics–especially liberal politics–people think of themselves as the greatest power in the universe.

• 15 Levedi // Dec 1, 2009 at 12:25 pm

  Mr. Rhinehart, as a Christian I am ashamed and saddened to hear about your treatment at the hands of other Christians. I can’t apologize on their behalf, but I do offer you my own apology. No one who professes to know the love of Christ should have behaved that way.

• 16 MI-GOPer // Dec 1, 2009 at 1:07 pm

  sinz54 notes: “Ted Kennedy is dead”

  Hey, this may be the longest time in history that TeddieK has been sober!

  It may even be the longest time that no women have been raped by the Kennedy tribe in Palm Beach!!

  At this rate of miracles, it won’t be long before Obama Messiah will be tempted to try walking on water!!!

• 17 ThomasJames // Dec 1, 2009 at 1:38 pm

  Grizelda:

  Isn’t President Obama already a millionaire? Why don’t you think he would donate his salary to employing more people in struggling companies or in Government positions? Obama’s salary could probably provide at least 10-15 jobs to unemployed workers.

  Romney is a millionaire and he donated his salary as Govenor. He also said he’d give up his pay if elected President. Why hasn’t President Obama followed Romney on this practice?

• 18 ThomasJames // Dec 1, 2009 at 1:41 pm

  Grizelda:

  The liberal establishment is asking some hard questions. How do you answer them?

  Nov 30, 2009: Jobs, Mortgages, Food Stamps — Where Is The President?

  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/howard-schweber/jobs-mortgages-food-stamp_b_373541.html

  “Now, after eleven other summits, we are told it is time to have a summit to focus specifically on jobs. You think??”

  “But 10.2% is only the formal unemployment rate. If you include not only those collecting benefits but also those who are “discouraged” (no longer seeking work), those who are forced into part-time employment but want full-time employment, and so on, you get an effective unemployment rate of just over 17%.”

  “The bailout was supposed to get credit flowing again, which was supposed to get small businesses back on their feet, which would then stimulate employment. It didn’t work, because that’s not what the banks chose to do with the money. Then there was the $787 billion stimulus; that was supposed to create jobs. It hasn’t worked, either. Perhaps that shouldn’t be surprising, as Obama’s senior economic advisor seems to think that job-creation is a secondary concern to increasing GDP. “The primary objective of our policy,” says Larry Summers, “is having more work done, more product produced and more people earning more income. It may be desirable to have a given amount of work shared among more people. But that’s not as desirable as expanding the total amount of work.” (Jared Bernstein, Vice President Biden’s senior economic advisor, takes a different view.) Nonetheless, the administration claims that stimulus “created or saved” a million jobs. Even taking the administration’s number at face value that clocks in at an average cost of $787,000 per job … and almost no one takes the administration’s number at face value, given its non-existent congressional districts and broad counterfactual assumptions.”

  “The administration’s mortgage program has been a near-total failure; no more than a few thousand mortgages have seen permanent modifications, while more than 14% of mortgages nationwide are either in foreclosure or delinquency, a number that climbs to one in four in places like Florida and Southern California.”

  May guess is that you want Obama to stay in office just because he’s a democrat.

  Obama doesn’t have a clue on how to solve the mess. He’s no better than the buffoons who created it. As a way to prove this, what is Obama’s policy on how to raise American’s earnings? The silence is deafening.

  Mitt Romney has the answers. He’s already tried the solutions out and they worked.

• 19 ThomasJames // Dec 1, 2009 at 1:42 pm

  Grizelda:

  Grizelda:

  Why didn’t Obama’s administration’s bailout get the credit flowing again?

  Why didn’t Obama’s administration see to it that its mortage program help the 1000s of people who need it?

  Why does the UNemployment continue to RISE when Obama claimed his administrative policies and laws would have the opposite affect?

• 20 jhuston7 // Dec 1, 2009 at 7:15 pm

  Having spent 40 years as a practicing, believing Mormon, I believe I have a unique perspective on Mormon political candidates and “persecution.” I left Mormonism after several years of intense study of the doctrines and history. If that creates a prejudiced against me, then stop reading now.

  While Mormons suffered during their early history, they were instigators, not victims. The Haun’s Mill Massacre is always brought up, as is the extermination order. At Haun’s Mill 18 innocent Mormons were killed. The extermination order was to kill or run out Mormons from Missouri. What most Mormons are not told and do not know is that the Mormon Militia attacked the Missouri Militia at Crooked Creek weeks before in an unprovoked attack as the Missouri Militia was crossing the creek. The Mormon Militia attacked from the cover of the trees. They are also not aware of the Salt Sermon in which Sydney Rigdon declared war on Missouri in July of that year. The sermon was printed and sent to all regional newspapers. Later a group from Missouri was massacred by Mormons as they passed through Utah, primarily because they were from Missouri. More than 120 people were killed. As I said, they were instigators.

  Concerning Mitt Romney. I was a temple officiator and administering thousands of “endowments” (read secret ceremonies in the temple). As a practicing Mormon I know that Romney has covenanted to place Mormonism above everything else on earth. Prior to 1990, these were administered with death oaths, or a promise to have your life taken rather than repeat or divulge the oaths taken. I question the loyalty of a president who has taken an oath to put his religion over everything else in the world. Especially when the religion is Mormonism.

• 21 frjohnwhiteford // Dec 1, 2009 at 11:00 pm

  Speaking of Unitarians. There is an analogy here that you might want to ponder. Unitarianism is a big tent religion. You can believe whatever you want, or not believe it. Unitarianism used to have some definite beliefs, and when they did, they had a significant membership in this country. Today, most Unitarian Churches are empty, and there numbers have dwindled. If the “I’m OK, You’re OK” approach was the answer, they should have grown like weeds.

• 22 Prufrock // Dec 1, 2009 at 11:55 pm

  @grizelda — May I help you with some misinformation you seem to have picked up? Ecoptic pregnancies and life-threatening pregnancies are not “punished”. Please be more careful in the future when making such sensitive claims. A few moments’ research would have sufficed.

• 23 Prufrock // Dec 2, 2009 at 12:25 am

  @jhuston — Perhaps you were not as careful a student as you thought you were. Certainly the intellectual rigor of your post is lacking.

  Mormons are indeed told of Crooked Creek and the lead-up to Haun’s Mill, and of the Mountain Meadows massacre. It comes up a lot. I can’t speak to your experience, but I’ve lived in a lot of places and attended a number of wards, and can think of it being mentioned in every one. In four countries and a number of US states.

  “While Mormons suffered during their early history, they were instigators, not victims” is kind of a bald statement, don’t you think? Surely a careful student of history would be aware of the significant preponderance of cases where the LDS were not, in fact, the instigators — where they bore substantial persecution with patience?

  It can be argued that the Missouri Militia were ambushed and murdered (though other interpretations can be help by reasonable persons). I fail to understand, however, why this is a factor when judging the actions of a related mob who shot down unarmed men, women and children, and raped other women to death. I just don’t see it, and drawing that kind of moral equivalence…

  It also seems odd that you defend a blatant Constitutional violation based on this equivalence. There is no need to violate Equal Protection and the First Amendment to hunt down domestic lawbreakers in other situations, and even such lawbreakers are given presumption of innocence and habeas corpus rights. That’s a far cry from “… the Mormons must be treated as enemies, and must be exterminated or driven from the State if necessary for the public peace—their outrages are beyond all description.” (Mormon Extermination Order)

  Finally, as to taking oaths. Any member of the armed services takes binding oaths. Contracts are considered more binding than most oaths these days. Problems only arise when a conflict of interest occurs.

  The oath of Presidential office is: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

  The LDS church and theology consider the Constitution to be divinely inspired, without implying anything about originalism or framers’ intent. Likewise, members are enjoined that:

  “We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.” (Article of Faith 12)

  And lest someone be convinced that swearing loyalty to place God and His priorities over all things in life might somehow compromise a presidential candidate’s ability to be impartial to other religions, here’s what LDS believers think about religious freedom — not just governmentally, but individually:

  “We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.”

  An LDS politician can’t infringe another’s right to worship without reneging on one of the key points of his or her own.

  So I fail to see the conflict of interest. Rather, I see that a believing LDS candidate will strive to uphold the oath of Presidential office not just for its own sake but as an action deriving from several tenets of his or her religion.

• 24 Prufrock // Dec 2, 2009 at 12:47 am

  @jhuston — Peripheral comment — Rigdon was becoming a loose cannon around July 1838, and had certainly ceased to be a trusted representative. You have also confused the Salt Sermon with the July 4th 1838 speech, both of which were inflammatory… and both of which were off-reservation.

  And you really need to look up the Battle of Crooked River in a trusted resource. Heck, even Wikipedia will do:

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Crooked_River

  Your characterization of the event is inaccurate, other than that it did lead to the escalation of existing hostilities.

• 25 frjohnwhiteford // Dec 2, 2009 at 6:21 am

  Romney’s problem with Evangelicals is not so much that he is a Mormon, but that he has not been a particularly good one in the past. If you look at his debate with Ted Kennedy, it is difficult to see what changed his mind from the staunchly pro-choice position he espoused at that time: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAmCB0-E1GY Huckabee’s comment that Romney hit political puberty very late in life was a real zinger… and the sting in that zinger is the truth.

• 26 ability // Dec 2, 2009 at 12:14 pm

  jhuston,

  Just curious. What sexual transgression did you commit in order to be excommunicated?

• 27 jhuston7 // Dec 2, 2009 at 1:32 pm

  Ability – that is called ad homenim – look it up. I sent a letter of resignation to Greg Dodges office on Smithmas day (December 23) 2005. I thought it was fitting to resign on the birthday of the man that started it all.

  Prufrok, you are correct. It has been a number of years since I went through that. While both speeches were inflammatory, the Salt Sermon was delivered in June. Both were widely publicized.

  The oath take by Romney took is as follows:
  You and each of you covenant and promise before God, angels, and these witnesses at this altar, that you do accept the Law of Consecration as contained in, (The Officiator holds up a copy of the Doctrine and Covenants again.), the Doctrine and Covenants, in that you do consecrate yourselves, your time, talents, and everything with which the Lord has blessed you, or with which he may bless you, to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, for the building up of the Kingdom of God on the earth and for the establishment of Zion.

  This is a little more than a simple promise.

• 28 ability // Dec 2, 2009 at 2:39 pm

  Calling a simple question ‘ad homenim’ doesn’t change the fact that you failed to answer my question.

• 29 Prufrock // Dec 2, 2009 at 6:33 pm

  I’m aware of the precise wording. Your point? I am still failing to see the conflict of interest.

  One covenants to bear any individual, personal sacrifice. Now, if LDS theology demanded that political leaders render strict obedience to ecclesiastical leaders, or that LDS doctrine superseded civil law, or that it was an LDS duty to stamp out other faiths, or to pass government funds to religious leaders… there’d be a problem. Good thing the inverse is true, right?

  Your disaffection with the LDS church, it seems to me, is preventing you from thinking clearly about this topic. Just be aware of it — it’s a natural thing. Take the sanity test — do you really look upon Harry Reid, or Bill Marriott, or Jon Huntsman (who have all taken this same oath) as being potential traitors to other obligations they carry? Automatons in the hands of charismatic leaders?

  I should bring your quote back in, here — you state, above, that you “question the loyalty of a president who has taken an oath to put his religion over everything else in the world.”

  The oath you cite has no such implication, and its application is strictly personal. There exists no such oath in the LDS liturgy.

• 30 Prufrock // Dec 2, 2009 at 6:46 pm

  I should say, for clarity:

  “There exists no such oath in the LDS liturgy.”, meaning no oath that requires LDS members to put “his religion over everything else in the world.”

• 31 Prufrock // Dec 2, 2009 at 6:56 pm

  To the rest of the audience — some background. @jhuston is quoting from the temple ceremony for two reasons: to be offensive, and to support his point. LDS members who have been through the temple hold the things learned there to be sacred (as distinct from secret), and watching someone betray that trust is distressing.

  Many of you may not have a visceral understanding of this concept, since very little is sacred in our culture. It is, however, the privilege of all polite people to respect, if not revere, things that others consider holy.

• 32 Prufrock // Dec 2, 2009 at 7:08 pm

  Some more background — it is a common conceit in LDS society that members who have committed sexual transgressions that they do not wish to give up will look for some other, more legitimate-sounding reason to leave the church. This is the implication that @Ability seems to be pushing forward.

  This is a presumptuous statement, in every sense. There are indeed a number of people who do such things, but assuming that jhuston is one of them is not appropriate. @jhuston — it’s not ad hominem, in the strictest sense, but rather a personal attack (not designed to discredit your points tangentially by attacking you).

  I prefer to discredit your points directly, and assume that you are a man of goodwill, guilty only of careless scholarship and overgeneralizations, and assign the deeply impolite use of material from the temple ceremony to anger at @Ability’s impertinence.

  Also (to the audience) — this is the first time I have ever heard the term “Smithmas”. Just to be clear — Mormons don’t celebrate any such thing. The reverence we have for a prophet (of which there have been many) is quite different from the reverence we have for the Savior.

• 33 jhuston7 // Dec 2, 2009 at 9:09 pm

  First of all, an ad homenim attack is an attack on a person or their credibility, generally because the attacker does not have any way to refute what the person says. It is a cheap shot. Assuming I left Mormonism over a sexual “sin” is a cheap shot.

  For clarification for those who believe the only reason people leave the Mormon Church is because of excommunication (read Prufrock and Ability) over 100,000 Mormons resign for a variety of reasons each year. Mine was because of the discovery that Joseph Smith believed he was a medium as reported in his mother’s writings. He also believed he was a necromancer and he, and his family believed in a wide variety of folk magic including magic tokens, rocks, and instruments. Much of Mormon doctrine is based on folk magic and gnosticism. This is all very well documented if you are willing to dig into the history. I am a logical, critical thinker and am basically embarrassed that I did not see through Mormonism sooner. I wanted nothing to do with a belief system based on these things. You cannot resign from Mormonism if you have been excommunicated. That should have been clear to the obvious Mormons who are attempting to discredit my posts. I was a member in good standing as was my wife and children until my resignation.

  Since my departure my entire immediate family has left Mormonism. My wife and four adult children want nothing to do with Mormonism. One brother and three sisters want nothing to do with Mormonism. I sent a letter of resignation to Greg Dodge who manages resignations with his staff of 11 people (as of 2005). I did support my mother on a senior Mormon mission, because that is what she wanted to do and will die a Mormon. You can’t win them all. I know a former temple president, two former mission presidents, a former MTC president, a number of former stake presidents, former Bishops and other leaders who have come to the same conclusion as I have for similar reasons. I am not an isolated case.

  As far as Smithmas, the BYU campus replaced the standard nativity scenes displayed on campus in 2005 with cabin scenes of the birth of Joseph Smith. It was his 200 birthday December 23, 2005. I personally felt it was disgusting. A simple Google will give you ample articles and citations of Smithmas.

• 34 Prufrock // Dec 3, 2009 at 5:21 am

  You’re not reading carefully. Please note that I was castigating @Ability for presumption.

  I am also familiar with Quinn, and have drawn different conclusions. I also employ logic and critical thinking. I have to say that the intellectual carelessness you’ve displayed fails to convince me of your rigor.

  You can resign after excommunication. The mechanisms are completely different, and have divergent goals. And of course I am clear that you left rather than being excommunicated (since I read carefully).

  The Smithmas Google search is a joke — 8 relevant results in the first 60? All of them childish in their critiques? One small display in one building at BYU in 1996 suddenly invalidates massive, church-wide traditional Nativities, and the ones in most homes? This is your idea of rigor?

  I’m suddenly clear on why I’d never heard the term — it is only current among those who divert themselves with anti-Mormon bigotry. The concept is almost unrecognizable to practicing LDS members.

  I suppose it’s unacceptable that the President of the Church should give a talk on Joseph Smith’s birthday (Dec. 23) about his contributions. Once.

  Unimpressive.

  By the way — Ability’s attack would have been ad hominem if and only if it linked the validity of your statement to your personal characteristics. Ability (inappropriately) simply attacked you.

  Leaving the thread. Heat > light here, and I need to stop ignoring this room full of PhDs.

• 35 rbottoms // Dec 5, 2009 at 4:21 pm

  Romney excommunicated members of his congregation who had abortions, and their spouses if they let them.

  Sounds like just the man we need as president… if we decide to become a totalitarian regime.

You must log in to post a comment.