Jump to content

Mormonism Influence On Romney


why me

Recommended Posts

I have never heard of "deseret" being used as an adjective instead of a noun. Is this a missionary thing?

If he has chosen so far to attend every Sunday no matter where he is, I think unless there are security concerns he will be more likely to atten the regular ward rather than there being a special White House branch for his convenience as such doesn't seem to be a factor in his choices now.

I do think they missed the point that alcohol is a covenant only for members and gambling, where it is legal, is an agency issue for the individual to decide outside of the Church as well.

And it would have been nice if they had phrased salvation as trying to follow or working to become more like Christ rather than purer because that captures more of the spirit of the behaviour for most LDS I know as well as the teachings.

"Elevated state" I may be nitpicking but I have never heard worthiness described that way nor do I believe we teach we wear white to show that we are worthy as that would symbolically mean we see ourselves as sinless as when we come out of the waters of baptismed redeemed by the Lord, rather white is about the purity of the temple and our attempts to be purified through receiving the gifts of God he gives us there.

I hadn't thought of the temple recommend as gold and white, it looks brown to me.

Overall though a good article.

Link to comment

I have never heard of "deseret" being used as an adjective instead of a noun. Is this a missionary thing?

If he has chosen so far to attend every Sunday no matter where he is, I think unless there are security concerns he will be more likely to atten the regular ward rather than there being a special White House branch for his convenience as such doesn't seem to be a factor in his choices now.

I do think they missed the point that alcohol is a covenant only for members and gambling, where it is legal, is an agency issue for the individual to decide outside of the Church as well.

I guess that would all depend on how one looks at several of the TRWQs.

Link to comment

I guess that would all depend on how one looks at several of the TRWQs.

What are TRWQs? If temple recommend questions, those are relevant to lds but only some would be relevant to all good people including those who have not made covenants to forego certain activities.
Link to comment

What are TRWQs? If temple recommend questions, those are relevant to lds but only some would be relevant to all good people including those who have not made covenants to forego certain activities.

Correct. Temple Recommend Worthiness Questions.
Link to comment

Nice article about Romney and the Mormons.

It will be interesting if he becomes president. I think that his wife, Ann would make a great first lady. And the church could gain or lose depending on how well he could keep Americans on his side. The article gives a pretty positive picture of Romney and his faith and how his faith has made him what and who he is today.

Link to comment

I search news articles about the church on a regular basis. A year ago, there would be an article at least once/week that was either about mormonism or mentioned them in passing. The content was almost always derogatory or demonstrably false. Currently, there are 4 or 5 new articles every day in prominent journals and by and large they are very positive. What a change. As do others, I have serious reservations about Romney and republicans in general but as a Mormon, I think it would be great for the church to have him in office.

When I read the subtle or blatant errors in articles about the church, a subject of which I am relatively well informed, it reminds me of how careful I must be when reading articles of subjects outside my expertise. We set a double standard if we find fault with articles about our own faith but hold up critical articles of other religions as evidence of their state of apostasy.

Link to comment

I know in the past people could consider the president a pretty nice guy even if incompetent in his job in their opinion (I heard such statements about Carter and Ford for example). Unfortunately nowadays it seems that all mistakes a politician makes are generally seen as intentional and malicious by a hefty segment of those disagreeing with them. Simply believing that someone means well but is still wrong isn't as common as an approach.

If I am correct in my observations it would seem likely if Romney is elected and isn't viewed as a decent president that will be seen as reflecting poorly on the Church which seems very strange to me. No one considered condemning Quakers for instance Nixon's offences and I don't recall much ridicule of Carter for his religious approach.....but Bush was.

Link to comment

I search news articles about the church on a regular basis. A year ago, there would be an article at least once/week that was either about mormonism or mentioned them in passing. The content was almost always derogatory or demonstrably false. Currently, there are 4 or 5 new articles every day in prominent journals and by and large they are very positive. What a change. As do others, I have serious reservations about Romney and republicans in general but as a Mormon, I think it would be great for the church to have him in office.

When I read the subtle or blatant errors in articles about the church, a subject of which I am relatively well informed, it reminds me of how careful I must be when reading articles of subjects outside my expertise. We set a double standard if we find fault with articles about our own faith but hold up critical articles of other religions as evidence of their state of apostasy.

Indeed. This reminds me of Krister Stendahl's "three rules of religious understanding." From Wikipedia:

Stendahl is credited with creating Stendahl's three rules of religious understanding, which he presented in a 1985 press conference in Stockholm, Sweden, in response to vocal opposition to the building of a temple there by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. His rules are as follows:

  1. When you are trying to understand another religion, you should ask the adherents of that religion and not its enemies.
  2. Don't compare your best to their worst.
  3. Leave room for "holy envy." (By this Stendahl meant that you should be willing to recognize elements in the other religious tradition or faith that you admire and wish could, in some way, be reflected in your own religious tradition or faith.)

Link to comment

No one considered condemning Quakers for instance Nixon's offences and I don't recall much ridicule of Carter for his religious approach.....but Bush was.

It's almost pointless to point this out, but I will anyway: Carter had the advantage of being a Democrat and therefore a darling of the mainstream media. Bush was Republican, and thus fair game for them. They wink at religiosity on their own side; it's highly questionable otherwise. In my humble observation.

As to Nixon, he was not visibly religious. Carter and Bush were.

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...