Certain News Outlets Relentless On Mormonism

[Darren10]

Certain news outlets will not touch Harry Reaid's religon but Mitt Romney's religion, now that's a different story. Despite the bias and inequality, why not take a moment or two to share with others "what Mormons believe"?

While it’s no secret that Mitt Romney is a member of the Church of Latter-Day Saints, the fact that he is now officially past the number of delegates required to be the Republican nominee for president means that his faith has once again come under scrutiny, and that his silence on the matter has led many to wild speculation on what the faith actually believes. On her program this afternoon, Tamron Hall interviewed Politico‘s Edward-Isaac Dovere, who had been attempting to contact the Romney campaign and the LDS church for more info on debunked prophecies once again in the headlines.

Mitt Romney has been very wise in avoiding making this campaign NOT a Mormon campaign. I would not return requests on this questioning neither. I'd stay focused on betteringthe economy through supporting solid ecocomic policies. policies which have proven good and effective despite the ecomnomic hurdles which naturally occure.

“Because he hasn’t talked much about his faith, people have gone online,” Hall notes of Romney, and they have found things like the “White Horse” prophecy, which have concerned many. Dovere explained that the Church does not officially endorse that line of thinking, that they have repudiated it and found it untrustworthy, as it came from someone who said he was near Joseph Smith when he said it but waited decades to reveal it. “What it predicts is that there would be a time when the Constitution is hanging by a thread and at that point a wealthy Mormon would rise up and raise the Republican,” explained Dovere of the White Horse prophecy, which concludes with “and Armageddon-style war against Russia.”

Even if this 'Wihte Horse' prophesy had an ounce of validity to it, I do not think this is the time it'll come to fruition. MSNBC obviously has much better topics to cover than non-official LDS prophecies but that would require to make "their guy" look bad and that just seems undesirable. So, get on the mormon instead. Not the Reid Mormon; the Romney Mormon.

I'd like to know any experiences anyone may have had in dealing with efforts to misportray "what Mormons believe" or to focus on something which really is not relevent to LDS faith and worship.

Tamron Hall And Guest: Romney’s Silence Leading To Concerns With Mormon ‘White Horse’ Prophecy

Edited May 31, 2012 by Darren10

[Avatar4321]

If the WH prophecy was accurate, I dont see that meaning Mitt Romney being President fulfills that prophecy. Though It would be nice if he did restore the Constitution.

[Darren10]

I dont see that meaning Mitt Romney being President fulfills that prophecy. Though It would be nice if he did restore the Constitution.

Neither do I see it reflecting Mitt Romney. He's a mere man who has sought the presidency and has thus far stepped real close to getting it. I too would love to see restoration of the Constitution, at least parts of it via a Mitt Romnet presidency. Don't forget Congress as well. They have a say-so on constitutional matters.

[The Nehor]

Though It would be nice if he did restore the Constitution.

Which part did we lose?

http://www.theonion.com/articles/area-man-passionate-defender-of-what-he-imagines-c,2849/

ESCONDIDO, CA—Spurred by an administration he believes to be guilty of numerous transgressions, self-described American patriot Kyle Mortensen, 47, is a vehement defender of ideas he seems to think are enshrined in the U.S. Constitution and principles that brave men have fought and died for solely in his head. Kyle Mortensen would gladly give his life to protect what he says is the Constitution's very clear stance against birth control.

"Our very way of life is under siege," said Mortensen, whose understanding of the Constitution derives not from a close reading of the document but from talk-show pundits, books by television personalities, and the limitless expanse of his own colorful imagination. "It's time for true Americans to stand up and protect the values that make us who we are."

According to Mortensen—an otherwise mild-mannered husband, father, and small-business owner—the most serious threat to his fanciful version of the 222-year-old Constitution is the attempt by far-left "traitors" to strip it of its religious foundation. "Right there in the preamble, the authors make their priorities clear: 'one nation under God,'" said Mortensen, attributing to the Constitution a line from the Pledge of Allegiance, which itself did not include any reference to a deity until 1954. "Well, there's a reason they put that right at the top."

"Men like Madison and Jefferson were moved by the ideals of Christianity, and wanted the United States to reflect those values as a Christian nation," continued Mortensen, referring to the "Father of the Constitution," James Madison, considered by many historians to be an atheist, and Thomas Jefferson, an Enlightenment-era thinker who rejected the divinity of Christ and was in France at the time the document was written. "The words on the page speak for themselves."

According to sources who have read the nation's charter, the U.S. Constitution and its 27 amendments do not contain the word "God" or "Christ."

Mortensen said his admiration for the loose assemblage of vague half-notions he calls the Constitution has only grown over time. He believes that each detail he has pulled from thin air—from prohibitions on sodomy and flag-burning, to mandatory crackdowns on immigrants, to the right of citizens not to have their hard-earned income confiscated in the form of taxes—has contributed to making it the best framework for governance "since the Ten Commandments."

"And let's not forget that when the Constitution was ratified it brought freedom to every single American," Mortensen said.

Mortensen's passion for safeguarding the elaborate fantasy world in which his conception of the Constitution resides is greatly respected by his likeminded friends and relatives, many of whom have been known to repeat his unfounded assertions verbatim when angered. Still, some friends and family members remain critical.

"Dad's great, but listening to all that talk radio has put some weird ideas into his head," said daughter Samantha, a freshman at Reed College in Portland, OR. "He believes the Constitution allows the government to torture people and ban gay marriage, yet he doesn't even know that it guarantees universal health care."

Mortensen told reporters that he'll fight until the bitter end for what he roughly supposes the Constitution to be. He acknowledged, however, that it might already be too late to win the battle. "The freedoms our Founding Fathers spilled their blood for are vanishing before our eyes," Mortensen said. "In under a year, a fascist, socialist regime has turned a proud democracy into a totalitarian state that will soon control every facet of American life."

"Don't just take my word for it," Mortensen added. "Try reading a newspaper or watching the news sometime."

[Storm Rider]

Romney should address the White Horse prophesey? Give me a break. If he did talk about his religion more people would not be forced into finding "facts" on the internet...particularly from highly reputable sources that MSNBC would use? This is just so much mental tripe.

This caliber of shallow journalism will haunt Romney and any other LDS that becomes a public figure. The Church and its resources should become the first resource for anyone interested in learning about what it teaches. However, thanks to our Christ-like friends in other "Christian" churches there will always be misinformation and stupidity. It really will depend upon the integrity of the journalist. If they are serious they will talk to the Church; if not, they will talk to their local Evangelist, etc. After all, going to a Southern Baptist to learn about Mormonism makes perfect sense. I am sure they feel the same about learning about Catholicism, Islam, and Jainism (take your pick of world religions); after all, Evangelicals are THE source for religious truth in the world.

[Darren10]

Romney should address the White Horse prophesey? Give me a break. If he did talk about his religion more people would not be forced into finding "facts" on the internet...particularly from highly reputable sources that MSNBC would use? This is just so much mental tripe.

This caliber of shallow journalism will haunt Romney and any other LDS that becomes a public figure. The Church and its resources should become the first resource for anyone interested in learning about what it teaches.

I completely agree that Romney should continue to avoid making this campaign a "Mormon campaign". He's not running to be the "Mormon leader" of the nation; he's running to be the President of the United States. Personallly, I'm not out to elect a Mormon; but a president. You're also correct in the cathch 22 nature of questioning his Mormonism. Journalists and ther pundits want opt ask Romney a Mormon question, get an issue riled up, and make tat the issue of the campaign. This "white horse prophecy" is ridiculous. Did you catch the part where those asking the question fully know it is not an accepted doctrine in the LDS Church? That makes their questioning Romney about it a bit asinine. Instead, they should point out that many things have be attributed to Joseph Smith by individuals decades after his death. Instead of tryng to make Mormons to look silly, point the laser at these accusatory folks.

Edited May 31, 2012 by Darren10

[Darren10]

Nehor #4;

If you at all realize that The Onion is a purely satirical website you need to at least make that disclaimer before using their site and pass it along as if it were news and information. Otherwise it appears that you are using their satire as something authentic which you may or ay not be doing.

Religious liberty is one area where the constitution is being forsaken. There are many others I'd gladly list for you and reasons behind them but not on this website. I realize that my post is perhaps broaching the limits the website's administrators of getting politcal so I want my comments (and all others) to limit themselves to Mormon-based arguments.

Edited May 31, 2012 by Darren10

[KevinG]

LDS.org newsroom just won't leave Mormonism alone.

[Darren10]

LDS.org newsroom just won't leave Mormonism alone.

LOL!!!

Edited May 31, 2012 by Darren10

[thesometimesaint]

Just exactly where, and how, in the US is freedom of religion under threat?

[Darren10]

Just exactly where, and how, in the US is freedom of religion under threat?

100% of Catholic Bishops Oppose Obama’s Contraceptive Mandate

Christian Photographers Fined $6,000 For Refusing to Shoot Lesbian Commitment Ceremony

Ten Commandments plaque ordered out of Pennsylvania courthouse

Edited May 31, 2012 by Darren10

[thesometimesaint]

And American Catholic Nuns support it. Seems to me an intra-faith squabble, and not an attack on freedom of religion at all.

A business who serves the public has no right to discriminate on the basis of race, creed, color, religion, national origin, sex, or sexual orientation.

The Ten Commandments have no business in a court of law in the US. We are a secular state.

Mormons, because of their history with polygamy, in particular should be extra wary anytime religion is used to enforce public law.

[Lightbearer]

I do see this prophecy being fulfilled:

"Now it is not common that the voice of the people desireth anything contrary to that which is right; but it is common for the lesser part of the people to desire that which is not right; therefore this shall ye observe and make it your law—to do your business by the voice of the people. And if the time comes that the voice of the people doth choose iniquity, then is the time that the judgments of God will come upon you; yea, then is the time he will visit you with great destruction even as he has hitherto visited this land." (Book of Mormon | Mosiah 29:26 - 27)

I hope that the people will repent of their iniquity, and choose a righteous man to lead this nation,... because if they do not they will be very sorry and I have little hope for this nation. So choose wisely America or you destruction is sure. Anybody who does not see the jeopardy that this nation is standing in right now is totally blind our very freedom is at stake, I think the following is appropriate:

"And whatsoever nation shall uphold such secret combinations, to get power and gain, until they shall spread over the nation, behold, they shall be destroyed; for the Lord will not suffer that the blood of his saints, which shall be shed by them, shall always cry unto him from the ground for vengeance upon them and yet he avenge them not. Wherefore, O ye Gentiles, it is wisdom in God that these things should be shown unto you, that thereby ye may repent of your sins, and suffer not that these murderous combinations shall get above you, which are built up to get power and gain—and the work, yea, even the work of destruction come upon you, yea, even the sword of the justice of the Eternal God shall fall upon you, to your overthrow and destruction if ye shall suffer these things to be. Wherefore, the Lord commandeth you, when ye shall see these things come among you that ye shall awake to a sense of your awful situation, because of this secret combination which shall be among you; or wo be unto it, because of the blood of them who have been slain; for they cry from the dust for vengeance upon it, and also upon those who built it up. For it cometh to pass that whoso buildeth it up seeketh to overthrow the freedom of all lands, nations, and countries; and it bringeth to pass the destruction of all people, for it is built up by the devil, who is the father of all lies; even that same liar who beguiled our first parents, yea, even that same liar who hath caused man to commit murder from the beginning; who hath hardened the hearts of men that they have murdered the prophets, and stoned them, and cast them out from the beginning."(Book of Mormon | Ether 8:22 - 25)

This is also being fulfilled as well. Why else would the Lord warn us of these things?

I am sure my comments will be a thread closer... but somebody has to say it.

[The Nehor]

If you at all realize that The Onion is a purely satirical website you need to at least make that disclaimer before using their site and pass it along as if it were news and information. Otherwise it appears that you are using their satire as something authentic which you may or ay not be doing.

I assumed it was so blatantly obvious that it is satire that I didn't have to issue a disclaimer. Nevertheless the Onion is at its best when mostly accurate. I've met 'constitution defenders' like that guy.

Religious liberty is one area where the constitution is being forsaken. There are many others I'd gladly list for you and reasons behind them but not on this website. I realize that my post is perhaps broaching the limits the website's administrators of getting politcal so I want my comments (and all others) to limit themselves to Mormon-based arguments.

I disagree completely that constitutional religious liberty is currently under attack (assuming you mean the 1st Amendment).

[The Nehor]

I hope that the people will repent of their iniquity, and choose a righteous man to lead this nation,... because if they do not they will be very sorry and I have little hope for this nation. So choose wisely America or you destruction is sure. Anybody who does not see the jeopardy that this nation is standing in right now is totally blind our very freedom is at stake, I think the following is appropriate:

I don't think so.

This is also being fulfilled as well. Why else would the Lord warn us of these things?

So that when murderous organizations seeking power and wealth show up we will not support them. I think you can make this argument about both parties though......

Vote Ron Paul!!!!!

[thesometimesaint]

Last time I looked Ron Paul is a member of a political party.

[The Nehor]

Last time I looked Ron Paul is a member of a political party.

Yes, but while I can tie the Republicans and the Democrats to people dying I can't do the same with Ron Paul.

[Buzzard]

Mormons, because of their history with polygamy, in particular should be extra wary anytime religion is used to enforce public law.

I personally think it would be a hoot if the Reynolds decision was cited as precedent in a decison not to allow gay marriage. If I recall the language the court used, it was to the effect that marriage was so important to society that Congress had every right to regulate it.

[Darren10]

And American Catholic Nuns support it. Seems to me an intra-faith squabble, and not an attack on freedom of religion at all.

First off, there are *certain* nuns who support the healt mandate. These nuns tend to be first and foremost, pro-abortion and openly support the abortion efforts of organizations such as Planned Parenthood. Second, even if all nuns supported this mandate, which is hardly the case to begin with, then, "so what?" Nuns have no authority to speak on behalf of the Catholic Church. Furthermore, if all nuns supported of the health mandate, what right or power is the government have to mandate an action from any church which the church deems as immoral? This has NEVER before been supported in the US. Certain religious groups may refuse schooling for their children, refuse drafts, and may pick up poisonous snakes if they desire to. These group's freedom to do so has always been recognize in the US. Never before have they been forced to comply with a mandate they deem immoral.

A business who serves the public has no right to discriminate on the basis of race, creed, color, religion, national origin, sex, or sexual orientation.

The question is what law did they violate? If the gay couple wanted a photographer, the they can find one. Heck, they can even go to a friend and ask thim or her to take pictures. Sexual orientation is not a standard frame from which to prohibit discrimination. That's like saying a restaurant may get sued for insisting that females use the female restroom and males use only the male restroom. There have always been discrimination of gender and sexual orientation. Rights of sexual orientation is very new in this country and the Founders clearly had no intention of granting any such rights upon homosexuals.

As for me, it really does not bother me so much that there are homosexuals as there are gay activists. The logical end of their efforts, as far as I see, is to empower the state to force churches to comply to their demands of "equality". Freedom of religion is explicitly enumerated in the Constitution. Discrimination agaist sexual orientation is nowhere to be found in the same document. The former, as per how the Constitution has evolved, is granted to all the latter should be left to the states. Personally, i'm against granting any such right bt it's up to each state to do so.

The Ten Commandments have no business in a court of law in the US. We are a secular state.

When individuals voluntarily place a plaque of the Ten Commandments, they should not be prohibited by ther state to do so. Same goes for crosses. The prohibition against making laws which establish a state religion applies to atheism as much as it does to any other religion. By outright prohibiting the Ten Commandments being displayed in courthouses or any other publicly-funded institution, establishes atheism.

Mormons, because of their history with polygamy, in particular should be extra wary anytime religion is used to enforce public law.

The government had no business prohibiting polygamy in the first place. Mormons violated no law by practicing it. In addition, the government was outright malicious in attempting to enforce anti-polygamy laws. They relied upon lies and even used the US military to enforce these laws. But, in the end, the laws were upheld by the US Supreme Court (in my opion the court wascorrect so long as it applied to Utah which at the time was a federal territory) and, more importantly, the people upheld it. Done deal in my book.

[Darren10]

I don't think so.

Vote Ron Paul!!!!!

This is the type of political partisanship not allowed here, correct?

[The Nehor]

This is the type of political partisanship not allowed here, correct?

To be partisanship I'd actually have to support Ron Paul and not just be mocking him.

[Darren10]

To be partisanship I'd actually have to support Ron Paul and not just be mocking him.

I'm all for mocking Dr. Paul but still, you need to stop this on ths website. It's against policy.

[The Nehor]

I'm all for mocking Dr. Paul but still, you need to stop this on ths website. It's against policy.

I find it hard to stop blatantly propagandizing for the Rhinoceros Party.

Edited May 31, 2012 by The Nehor

[Stargazer]

I disagree completely that constitutional religious liberty is currently under attack (assuming you mean the 1st Amendment).

So the efforts of the Obama administration to force Catholic church institutions to fund birth control and abortion isn't such an attack?

What would constitute such an attack in your opinion, then? Or are you being sarcastic again?

Edited May 31, 2012 by Stargazer

[The Nehor]

So the efforts of the Obama administration to force Catholic church institutions to fund birth control and abortion isn't such an attack?

Yes, exactly.

It is actually forcing their insurance to abide by current laws. Jehovah's Witnesses have for years had insurance that allows blood transfusions. Note that the Catholics also want this exemption to apply to any business owned by a Catholic. In other words they want to selectively decide which laws they obey and don't obey. Note that no one is actually forcing their employees to use these services.

If this Catholic exemption were to be allowed the result would be that insurance legislation would quickly become worthless. If I were a CEO and this was allowed I'd consider joining the Homeopathic Nutters faith (which I would found) and insist that all modern medicine is against my religion and that the cure for everything is a statistically insignificant amount of arsenic diluted in water. Think of how much we could save if that is all we ever had to fund.

What would constitute such an attack in your opinion, then?

Denying their right to assemble and worship, confiscating their buildings, mandating that Catholics could not hold public office, etc.