If you're leaning toward voting for Governor Romney...

[Wizard Mentor]

Nixon was a quaker.

I attend a Quaker church, and Nixon, sir, is no quaker. His grandmother was apparently a very fine quaker - not Tricky Dicky,
regardless of his listed religion.

 

[Wizard Mentor]

Yet somehow those who are active in the LDS faith generally seem to do pretty well in life despite their impaired judgment. They also serve in local, state, and federal government, join the armed forces, volunteer huge amounts of time, resources, and money to the community and other countries, run 3 universities at ridiculously subsidized costs (BYU non member undergraduate tuition is $2280 a semester, law school for non-members is only $5300 a semester - beats the $15,000+ I paid at Gonzaga), teach self-reliance and staying out of and getting out of debt as soon as possible (the general standard is try not to get into debt for anything but a house, education and maybe a car, and even in those things, you're told to live within your means and be economical), they work in tandem with the Boy Scouts of America in developing positive traits and skills in young boys, etc.

Disagree with the theology all you want, but don't pretend making Mormonism a part of your (the universal you) decision for choosing a political candidate is anything but religious bigotry unless you're saying that Mormonism has helped Mitt be charitable, frugal, responsible, and many other positive characteristics. The real life principles endorsed and taught in the Mormon church, if lived and applied, would make any person a good candidate for political office.

On a religious note, what makes the founding of the Mormon church any more insane than the stories in the Bible? An ark with 2 of every animal, a talking burning bush, water into wine, walking on water, raising the dead, people turning to pillars of salt, washing in a river to cure leprosy, river turning to blood, raining frogs? Is someone having a vision (much like Paul, or more accurately, Saul) really that much less believable? Or is it just that it happened more recently than 2000 years ago that makes it less plausible?

Politically speaking, I don't care for the healthcare reform. I like some aspects of it, but this is not a great plan for reforming healthcare. I approve of Mitt's statement that he would repeal it. I'd like to see Congress go back to the drawing board on it. I too think that Mitt has credentials as a business person to help improve the economy and balance the budget (his job was to keep businesses afloat for goodness sakes!). Whether either of things would actually happen if Mitt were elected, obviously remains to be seen. I thought the stimulus was a huge waste of money. It could have been a positive thing if it had been used differently, but whatever. Those are two big issues that I think Mitt would improve over what's been done under Obama.

good stuff.

 

[drexlersdad]

I realize you're not saying that, but what are they things you've heard that prompted the comment about women? I assume you've heard or observed something or you wouldn't have mentioned it.

we have gone round and round about this before drock, i quote all sorts of stuff from members and ex members, you say thats not how it really is, rinse, repeat

like i said, mormonism is only looked at as kooky because we were all raised mostly christian/catholic, they are all kooky in their own way

 

[barfo]

You're certainly entitled to your preferences, but I doubt there would be much difference (positive or negative) in the performance of the President if he or she was an atheist or agnostic.

We've probably already had some atheist/agnostic presidents, just not ones that could admit it in public.

Sure, religion impacts the way people lien on certain policies, but there are still plenty of religious people that are pro-choice and support gay rights (as a couple examples) and the opposite is true as well.

Sure. In reality, religious belief doesn't actually matter. It's just that I suspect people who can be convinced to believe in that can probably be convinced to believe in absolutely anything, so I trust them a bit less.

barfo

 

[VanillaGorilla]

I think all religious are ridiculous to believe in, but I also think it's fair to say Mormonism is more ridiculous than most.

 

[VanillaGorilla]

Just to be clear, you're not voting for President Obama, right? He has declared himself a Christian and has attended a church that largely followed Black Liberation theology. Therefore, his belief system is equivalent to Gov. Romney's by your definition.

 

[VanillaGorilla]

 

[D-Rock]

we have gone round and round about this before drock, i quote all sorts of stuff from members and ex members, you say thats not how it really is, rinse, repeat

like i said, mormonism is only looked at as kooky because we were all raised mostly christian/catholic, they are all kooky in their own way

I admit that I'm the forum champion for fair depiction of the LDS faith and people. I make no apologies for that. And people can choose to take the information I provide however they want it. In this instance, however, I wasn't looking to debate the issue, although there's a good chance I might have commented on it. That's why I didn't ask for specifics about the people of color issue. I'm familiar with the arguments on that issue, but not on this one. I was honestly just interested in what's out there and what people's perceptions are. I've heard the statements that women are oppressed in the LDS church, but I haven't heard of any specific reasons why this label is given.

 

[D-Rock]

Nice unbiased juxtaposition there...

 

[D-Rock]

We've probably already had some atheist/agnostic presidents, just not ones that could admit it in public.



Sure. In reality, religious belief doesn't actually matter. It's just that I suspect people who can be convinced to believe in that can probably be convinced to believe in absolutely anything, so I trust them a bit less.

barfo

Fair enough. But you'd like to think that people who have made it the point where they're being considered as POTUS, would have pretty reasoned decision making abilities. You'd like to think...

 

[barfo]

Fair enough. But you'd like to think that people who have made it the point where they're being considered as POTUS, would have pretty reasoned decision making abilities. You'd like to think...

I'd like to, but the tequila makes it difficult.

barfo

 

[barfo]

I admit that I'm the forum champion for fair depiction of the LDS faith and people. I make no apologies for that.

Nor should you. I think it is great to have you as the forum champion.

barfo

 

[drexlersdad]

I've heard the statements that women are oppressed in the LDS church, but I haven't heard of any specific reasons why this label is given.

to an outsider it is insulting to women to think they are relegated to a lifetime and then an eternity in a harem

men seem to have the much better deal no?

 

[D-Rock]

to an outsider it is insulting to women to think they are relegated to a lifetime and then an eternity in a harem

men seem to have the much better deal no?

That's not how it is. If you want the concept explained I'd be happy to. If you've heard this explained and still characterize it as a harem, then...ok.

As a side note, what other religion tells women that they can be Godesses? Sounds to me like that other religions are stifling the potential of women.

 

[barfo]

If you want the concept explained I'd be happy to. If you've heard this explained and still characterize it as a harem, then...ok.

I'd like to hear it, even if he does already know about it, I don't.

barfo

 

[maxiep]

So what does it say to you when Barack Obama went from a largely agnostic upbringing and embraced the preachings of Jeremiah Wright at Trinity United Church, while Mitt Romney remained in the religion in which he was raised? One is an active act and the other one is passive. It seems to me President Obama made a choice while Mitt Romney does what he always has.

 

[drexlersdad]

So what does it say to you when Barack Obama went from a largely agnostic upbringing and embraced the preachings of Jeremiah Wright at Trinity United Church, while Mitt Romney remained in the religion in which he was raised? One is an active act and the other one is passive. It seems to me President Obama made a choice while Mitt Romney does what he always has.

exactly

obama used his brain, while willard just did as he was told

thanks for making that point

 

[maxiep]

exactly

obama used his brain, while willard just did as he was told

thanks for making that point

What do you think of President Obama's decision to join Trinity United? Do you think it was a smart choice? What about Mormonism do you find galling enough for him to leave his faith?

My point was that Barack Obama has told us he has deep religious faith, yet people here have said they won't vote for Mitt Romney because of his faith. Are Christianity and Mormonism all that different?

 

[drexlersdad]

My point was that Barack Obama has told us he has deep religious faith, yet people here have said they won't vote for Mitt Romney because of his faith. Are Christianity and Mormonism all that different?

not sure who has said that his religion will be the deciding factor of their voting, not me though

and yeah, they are very different

 

[MickZagger]

I did a Momo girl in the butt once.

 

[barfo]

My point was that Barack Obama has told us he has deep religious faith, yet people here have said they won't vote for Mitt Romney because of his faith.

Obama is a flip flopper on religion. Romney is a flip flopper on everything but religion.

barfo

 

[D-Rock]

I'd like to hear it, even if he does already know about it, I don't.

barfo

I'm assuming drexlersdad is referring to polygamy. Most importantly, the plural marriage practiced by Mormons from 1852 to 1890 has little resemblance to what you see today with people living in compounds and such. I'm just going to quote some stuff so it doesn't take me forever to type it in my own words.

In the families that practiced polygamy, each wife, with her children, occupied a separate house, or, if the wives lived in the same house, as was sometimes the case, in separate quarters. No distinction was made between either of the wives or the children. The husband provided for each family, was responsible for the education of the children, and gave both the children and their mothers the same advantages he would have given to his family under a monogamous relationship. If it was thought he could not do this, he was not permitted to enter into plural marriage. Furthermore, only a small minority of the families were involved.

https://www.lds.org/manual/truth-re...-of-endurance?lang=eng&query=history+polygamy

Nineteenth-century Mormon women, in both plural and monogamous marriages, were not just interested in raising families and blindly following their husbands. They were politically active and participated in territorial elections. Many were well connected with national women's organizations. These women also taught school and were active in publishing and literary activities. Some even served their communities by going to medical school and becoming skilled physicians. Because of their competence and level of self-reliance, they did not have to resort to public assistance.

Unlike the contemporary practice of polygamy in Eldorado, Texas, 19th century plural marriage among members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was not controlled by the arbitrary authority of one individual. On the contrary, decisions related to marriage were settled by consideration of the feelings of all interested parties. Furthermore, the consent of individual women was always honored in any marriage proposal. Though there was some social and cultural pressure, it was not determinative. Both men and women were free to refuse offers of marriage they found unacceptable.

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/commentary/polygamy-then-and-now

As for for claims of pedophilia and sexual manipulation, a historical context is necessary. Admittedly, I can't tell you how often teenage girls were included in the practice, but here's some food for thought:

Men and women often married at a much younger age in the 19th century than we find acceptable today. Historian Kathryn Daynes, who has studied the subject in depth, says that although the female average age at marriage in the United States during the nineteenth century was twenty or older, a girl marrying at age 15 was not uncommon and certainly was not considered abused. The common-law marriage age for women was 12. Historically, outside of northwestern Europe, women at 14 to 16 were assumed to be ready for marriage.

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/commentary/polygamy-then-and-now

Obviously marriage at 14 for a much older man leaves a bad taste in our collective mouths now, but it wasn't uncommon at the time.

In sum, to refer to Mormon's practice of plural marriage as a harem is disingenuous. To say that it denigrated women shows a lack of historical knowledge, perspective and context.

Any other reasons people have for why Mormons disrespect women?

 

[D-Rock]

not sure who has said that his religion will be the deciding factor of their voting, not me though

and yeah, they are very different

Define Christianity for me. Then tell me how Mormon theology differs from that definition.

 

[D-Rock]

I did a Momo girl in the butt once.

I had a friend in high school once tell me that Mormon girls were the horniest girls he knew. I'm not sure how he came to that conclusion since I knew all the Mormon girls in my high school and none of them were giving him the time of day...

 

[drexlersdad]

drock, you forgot to address the harems in heaven part

 

[MickZagger]

I had a friend in high school once tell me that Mormon girls were the horniest girls he knew. I'm not sure how he came to that conclusion since I knew all the Mormon girls in my high school and none of them were giving him the time of day...

Mormon girls can suck the chrome off a bumper.

 

[VanillaGorilla]

Are Christianity and Mormonism all that different?

Yes. If you know how Mormonism started and the basis of beliefs they have, it is much more ridiculous than Christianity. If people actually understand the basis of beliefs in Christianity and actually believe them, that's ridiculous too.

 

[D-Rock]

drock, you forgot to address the harems in heaven part

Whoops! Well, I'll give you what I know, but there isn't much. It's not exactly a common Sunday School subject. We believe the family unit continues on after death and that marriage is a requirement for exhaltation for both men and women. So in order for there to be exhaltation for everyone, everyone needs to be married. I don't mean that they have to be married during their life-time, but that's another topic. Also, and this is mostly speculation, there will be more women in heaven than men (see, we do think highly of women). Ergo, if everyone has to be married and there will be more women than men in heaven, then it stands to reason that a man would need to be married to more than one woman in order for all the women to be exhalted. Here's a scriptural reference alluding to this idea.

Isaiah 4:1 -

And in that day seven women shall take hold of one man, saying, We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel: only let us be called by thy name, to take away our reproach.

Is that what you were looking for, drexlersdad?

 

[Haakzilla]

I did a Momo girl in the butt once.

 

[The Professional Fan]

I did a Momo girl in the butt once.

Dude, so did I. And I'm totally not joking. What was her name? Just give me her initials. If it's the same "Momo" I want to know who did it first.

Now that the important shit is out of the way (pun intended) - the dude that said I "backed down" on my stance against mormons should rethink himself. I originally attacked mormonism but through thought and process I realized attacking only mormonism was idiotic. As kooky as I think mormonism is it's indefensible to stand up for any religion under the same premise. Unlike a lot of people in this world I have no problem shifting and changing my opinion as information and realization combine for a new perspective. As I also stated in a previous post, if I had to do it all over again I would have not voted for Bush both times for the same reason I will not vote for Romney.

Can someone explain to me the whole Romney/Off Shoring thing? What's the truth?