John,

I have most of the problems with Romney that the NYT article (dubiously) ascribes to most Mormons.

I see him as overly-pandering to the lunatic right. Stem cells? Yeah he’s gone overboard there in my book. Polygamy? I actually do think he’s overcompensating. I respect polygamy’s place in our history and I see no reason to be embarrassed about the practice per se, while I find Romney’s overwrought response irritating. New Jerusalem? While I appreciate your exposition of doctrinal subtleties, I still think Romney was being evasive. Abortion? Again, I find Romney to be going over the top, and given his stance in Massachusetts, and his own Church’s more moderate position, I have a hard time believing that Romney himself believes his own rhetoric. The abortion thing is just a blatant attempt to grab votes.

Do I like the way our religious ethos has been handcuffed to the GOP? Absolutely not. I think it completely rejects and ignores a deep history of political liberalism in Mormon culture.

I also think it’s utterly moronic that our entire religious political destiny is being determined by this dumb abortion question. Romney seems quite willing to drag us all back there, as do many Mormons.

I see Romney as representing some of the worst impulse of mainstream Mormon pandering in the the US. A lot of Mormons are so desperate to be popular in America, that I think they’d willingly spit on any unpopular group, compromise their religious precepts, and sell their own grandmother for a shot at a favorable news spot on 60 Minutes.

It’s part of the persecution complex where a picked-on unpopular kid allies himself with the schoolyard bully and starts mocking and harassing other vulnerable kids. Mormons are almost tripping over themselves to gain admittance into the privileged club of wealthy American conservative Protestants. If that means jettisoning a few quirky doctrines, so be it.

But I find it rather disgusting.

Did you read the Dushku interview linked to on the BCC sidebar? Terrible interviewer, but some interesting stuff from Dushku, including the claim that Romney took a pro-choice stance in Mass. because “the brethren” told him that was the only way to win. Stuff like that doesn’t go down well. Who knows what the truth is.

John D. is quoted as a politically liberal Mormon, not as representative of all Mormons.

I agree with most of Seth’s comments, but on the specific issue of the Second Coming (the topic, after all, of the original post), I am inclined to give Romney a break. As I understand Mormon doctrine, when the newspaper headline is written after the Second Coming, it will read “Christ Returns to Mount of Olives.” At that point, nobody will say “Aha. Mitt was being evasive.”

If it’s an apartment just outside the Vatican, there will be questions.

He glossed over the question, John. What would have been so bad about him just saying, “why, yes, we do believe that. How is that relevant to my qualifications as president? How do you suppose that might affect my presidency?” For heaven’s sake, it’s a stupid question. Glossing over it makes it important.

Oh, my Lord. If Mitt Romney is the best we can produce, we are so screwed.

I agree with Seth, except I don’t think John Dehlin represents a group is all that fringe. Perhaps less and less fringe with each passing day. Sure is quiet down here in so. Utah on the “defend GWB” front these days.

Mitt Romney just isn’t all that smart. He’s going to shoot himself in the foot, just watch. He looks like Dudley Do-Right, if he looked more like oh, Joe ordinary guy, he wouldn’t be in the running right now. Looks and money, that’s all he’s got.

As an aside, though, John, I have a friend who’s a precinct head or whatever it’s called of a district in Iowa. I’m murdering whatever it is, but she and her husband are devout evangelical Christians and they absolutely love Mitt Romney.

I’m disappointed that Ken Godfrey is quoted as saying Romney “represents the best of what the church can produce.” I’ve known Ken for a long time. I also know his wonderful wife, Audrey, who is quoted more sensibly in the article (saying she’d be upset at Romney’s polygamy comment, if she was one of his relatives).

Does Romney really represent “the best of what the church can produce?” Somehow, I don’t think that’s much of a compliment to the LDS church. It seems to reflect a high value placed on Romney’s material success as a measure of Mormonism’s worth.

While (as most of you know) I’m no longer a member of the LDS church, I’m rather protective of its early history and heritage. Romney’s comments really irritate me, and would have done so even more back when I was active in the church. I don’t think they reflect honesty on his part. Coupled with his clear and repeated policy changes, depending on which electorate he’s running for, I don’t feel like I can trust the man.

As for the whole Jerusalem vs. Independence thing, Romney’s comment may have been correct in a very narrow sense (i.e., the “world premier of Jesus the Sequel), but it was also misleading. Mormonism clearly teaches of two world “capitals,” with Jesus ruling from both. Smacks of “depends on what your definition of ‘is’ is.”

I think Ken Godfrey really missed the mark on this one, and I’m disappointed that he would say such an ill-considered thing. But then again, I’ve seen Ken Godfrey teach a student that Joseph Smith’s last words had nothing to do with Freemasonry, and that they were the result of Joseph having a last-second vision of Jesus “coming to take him home.” Ugh.

ECS, I absolutely agree. Mormonism can be so amorphous and personal religious views so contrary that a politician should not be its representative. I mean, look at the discussion we have on the bloggernacle every day! We can’t even at times agree on the fundimentals. Romney shouldn’t be asked questions about his Church because no other politician has ever been or currently is. At least not in such a direct and specific way.

No, Elizabeth we’re not required to support him just because he’s a Mormon.
I mean, why? Should all Catholics support a Catholic president? What’s up with that logic.

If he were so proud to be a Mormon, he should tell the truth. It’s a simple yes or no question, for heaven’s sake.

He could say, “Yes, but it’s more complicated than that. Are we here to discuss the presidency or Mormonism? Because I could come back and do another show, bringing some of my Mormon friends and we can all learn about Mormonism together. How about the prophet? No? Well, I would like to talk about the immigration problem and I don’t think it matters where I think the second coming of Christ is going to be in relationship to our monumental illegal immigration problem. Let’s talk about immigration….”

Or ask, “Yes, how does my answer to that affect my stance on immigration or abortion, or the rampant drug problem in America, or the war in Iraq? I’ll answer that. It doesn’t. I don’t mind discussing my religion, but we only have 45 minutes and I’d like to discuss my candidacy. Since you didn’t ask, I will. What do I think about the problem of immigration, this is what I think….”

I should be his campaign manager. The first candidate in history to have a campaign manager who hates him. well, hate is a strong word.

He can change the subject, politicians to it all the time. So do missionaries.

ECS, I just realized who you are. I thought you were a guy. Where’ve you been?

john f:
I sincerely apologize if you felt “mocked.” My comment was only intended as a good-natured joke. It frankly never entered my mind that someone would take offense, until you suggested otherwise. I’m sure nobody took PDoE’s hair comment seriously–it was hyperbole. My comment was intended in the same vein.

Since you’ve brought it up, however, I served as a stake executive secretary my last two and a half years in the LDS church. I literally saw members of the stake presidency express serious concern over the spirituality of the priesthood in the stake, because they saw “brethren wearing different colored shirts” in church meetings around the stake.

Also, John, while I was joking in this particular comment, please don’t try to publicly dismiss anything I say with your “Nick is just saying this because for some reason he is bitter against ______.” It’s rude, as well as inaccurate. I could just as well respond to your post with “john f.’s just saying this because for some reason he is bitter againts people who choose not to remain members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.”

Jettboy (15) writes:

Romney shouldn’t be asked questions about his Church because no other politician has ever been or currently is. At least not in such a direct and specific way.

Wow. The level of historical ignorance in that comment is mind-boggling.

john f. #16:
I just noticed that when my comment posted, it did not include the “winking face” that I had typed at the end of it. Perhaps that’s why you took it as a serious statement?

Is there something about this blog’s software that just ignores/deletes emoticons?

Nick,

FWIW, I thought your comment was funny.

Anne # 11 — I agree that part of his answer should have been “why on earth, George S., do you think that will affect my presidency?” But as to the other part of your question, What would have been so bad about him just saying, “why, yes, we do believe that,” my response would be that Latter-day Saints don’t really believe what George S. either intentionally or unintentionally implied, as I noted over at BCC.

Romney seems to have thought that Stephanopoulos was implying that Latter-day Saints do not believe that Jesus will appear at the Mount of Olives but rather in America. It is clearly not the case that Latter-day Saints believe that Jesus will appear in America rather than at the Mount of Olives. Latter-day Saints believe that he will appear at the Mount of Olives, just like creedal Christians do, and also that he will play a role in the New Jerusalem that Latter-day Saints believe will be located in America during the Millenium. In other words, Romney was answering what Stephanopoulos was really asking: “But don’t Mormons believe that Jesus will come to America instead of the Holy Land in the Second Coming?”

In other words, with only a few seconds of time, Romney had to diffuse the mischaracterization that Stephanopoulos, whether intentionally or unintentionally, was creating with the question. With only a few seconds, Romney cannot explain the broader belief system of Latter-day Saints as to Jesus’ activities in the Second Coming and the Millenium.

When he said “That is not a doctrine of my church”, the most reasonable reading of the statement, given that we all know that we believe that Jesus will play a role on the American continent during the Millenium, and we know that Romney knows this, is that Romney was saying that with reference to the idea underlying Stephanopoulos’s question that Latter-day Saints don’t believe as “other Christians” do that Jesus will appear in the Holy Land at the Second Coming.

Mitt Romney just isn’t all that smart. He’s going to shoot himself in the foot, just watch. He looks like Dudley Do-Right, if he looked more like oh, Joe ordinary guy, he wouldn’t be in the running right now. Looks and money, that’s all he’s got.

Then what is everyone worrying about? His opponents can rest easy; the media can forget his Mormonism; people can stop ridiculously calling him a liar (I don’t see why people don’t seem to see how severe of a charge this is). He’ll croak anyway and people can drill the next Mormon candidate on his religion. I shudder to think of what would happen if a Hindu ran for President:

Mr. Gandhi, don’t you believe there will be no Second Coming of Jesus Christ at all?

You’re right, I lack context.

You know, I just don’t like Mitt Romney. That’s my problem.

But I bet Ghandi would answer, “of course we don’t believe in Christ. Get on with it.”

Nick, I didn’t take offense at it; I saw it as a cheap shot; didn’t want it to go unaddressed and so addressed it (probably would have been better to ignore it altogether); and didn’t see any reason this thread should devolve into a mockery of aspects of LDS church life or practice. Other threads provide ample platform for it. It has nothing to do with being offended.

Nick -

(I’m responding here because of some of the back-and-forth between Nick and John F.)

You’ve made sarcastic or edged comments in the past about the Church or its leaders – and been called on it. We know that you have left the church, that you are gay, etc. and etc. At this point, because of your past record, the burden is on you to be extra careful not to make any comments that might be construed in that light.

danithew,
Whether or not that may be true (and yes, I can see your point), the fact remains that once john f. made his umbrage known, I moved quickly to clarify that I had never intended to mock or upset anyone (and I still don’t know what happened to my emoticon, which should have made it clear that I was joking). john f. responded to this with two posts, both coming just short of calling me a liar, and more or less expressing his wish that I wouldn’t participate here.

I’ve actually tried to be rather careful since our earlier exchange, danithew. I enjoy this blog, and most of the participants. I’ve tried to be respectful in tone, even where I may disagree with the majority of posters here. In this case, I really think john f. was looking for offense, and imposed his own reality on my comment, no matter what I had to say about it. If he was any kind of gentleman, he would acknowledge this, and apologize.

danithew:
By the way…what does my being gay (which you brought up, I didn’t) have to do with me making a joke about white ties and shirts?

I learned the above response format from annegb! (I’m grinning and chuckling now, in case anyone can’t tell!)

In light of Nick’s # 34, I make one more change to my # 16 as follows:

For Google searchers who stumble on this: very few Latter-day Saints, if any at all, believe that Jesus will be clean shaven, wearing a white shirt and a tie when he returns. [It is unclear why Nick is saying this] but it is true that many Latter-day Saint men dress in business suits with white shirts and ties and are clean-shaven when they attend Church. [Of course] many Latter-day Saint men also wear shirts of every other color and often are not clean-shaven at Church — but it is true that perhaps the majority do wear the suit and white shirt and are clean shaven. Also, Church leaders uniformly wear business suits, white shirts and ties, and since the 1960s or so have been uniformly clean-shaven. Some have found this to be a point of criticism of the Church.

Nick says he was joking when he implied that Latter-day Saints believe that Jesus will appear clean-shaven with a white shirt and tie in the Second Coming. He was poking fun at the fact that Latter-day Saints often wear business attire at Church and that while he was in local Church leadership, he overheard other local leaders voicing concern that people in the locality weren’t wearing enough business attire to Church.

“He overheard?” Sheesh, john. You just can’t take ANYTHING at face value from us evil former LDS, can you? I didn’t “overhear” anything. I was part of the meeting, and part of the intended audience/discussion. Don’t imply that I was somehow lurking outside the door, listening in.

Guys, is this the “Nick Show?”

Why does someone saying Mitt is the ‘best we can produce’ make me think they’re talking about his financial success? I can’t see any other explanation, though I’m in complete agreement with annegb concerning Romney, so maybe I’m biased.

Re # 34:

1. it seems to me that you have a rather overactive paranoia. You see PBS as the anti-LDS bogeyman.

This is not true. I made very clear on the thread you are referring to that I very much enjoyed the PBS documentary and thought it was very well done. You seemed to comprehend that (finally) at the time on that thread but now you are again saying I found it to be an “anti-Mormon bogeyman”.

2. You see anyone who leaves the LDS church as the anti-LDS bogeyman.

I am not sure what you are basing this on. There can be little argument, however, that many people who leave the Church become anti-Mormons. But I do not believe that anything I have written requires the conclusion that I believe anyone who leaves the Church to be an anti-Mormon bogeyman.

3. It seems you believe that anything said or done by someone outside your little LDS circle must always be “attacking” the LDS church.

My little LDS circle? I don’t know what you know about me or think you know about me, but, whatever. I don’t think that every negative comment about Mormons and their beliefs is attacking the Church but there’s also no reason to let people think there was something accurate behind your statement implying that Latter-day Saints believe that Jesus will be clean-shaven and wear a white shirt and tie when he comes again.

4. Suppose I had chosen another joke, “Nonsense! Jesus will come bearing lime jello!” I can just imagine your lengthy post, warning potential Googlers that Nick is just an anti-LDS, and that LDS really don’t believe Jesus will bring lime Jello at the Second Coming.

I never said Nick was anti-LDS but I did make an assumption that the reason behind your statement implying that Jesus would be clean shaven and wear a white shirt and tie at the Second Coming was some kind of bitter feelings or negative view on your part of the practice of many LDS men to wear business attire to Church. You have explained that my assumption was unwarranted and that you harbor no such feelings. I have now incorporated that into my edit of comment # 16 (see comment # 41).

5. Why must you feel that an innocent giggle is “mockery,” even to the point of twice suggesting that I leave this blog? Grow up!

a. I never said you should leave the blog although I did say that you could make pejorative statements about the beliefs and lifestyle of many Latter-day Saints on other threads, which includes other threads on this blog.

b. Mockery of an aspect of LDS “culture” (for better or worse) of wearing business attire to Church informed your joke; it might be funny coming from an insider, as Geoff J. has suggested (although I have argued with Ronan about this as well) but coming from an outsider, it is hard to overlook the mocking undertone.

c. Yes, I need to grow up. We all do.

how about we delete 80% of this thread and start over?

I tend to agree with ECS. I think Romney is doing an ok job of representing our religion. I certainly wouldn’t want the task or having to have sit down interviews about both my politics and my religion at the same time. Obviously some of the commenters here feel they would do a better job than Romney. I challenge them to run for president and do a better job.

I don’t care for Romney as a candidate, but I also don’t think he is doing our religion major harm.

arj,

I challenge them to run for president and do a better job.

I honestly believe it is easier for a Mormon to become president as a Democrat than a Republican. The reason why Romney’s religious beliefs are continually brought up is because of the complex relationship between Protestants, the Republican party, and Mormonism. There really is no debate about a candidate’s religious belief on the left.

I don’t care for Romney as a candidate, but I also don’t think he is doing our religion major harm.

I don’t think he has either. I think most people’s views about Mormonism won’t really change that much because of him. I think he fits the stereotype of the Republican Mormon Christian.

ECS is right on. Romney isn’t a public figure because he’s a church leader. He’s a public figure because he’s a political leader. It just so happens that he’s Mormon. He’s entitled to believe whatever he wants and articulate those beliefs as clearly as he’s able. Mormons who evaluate Romney on anything other than his effectiveness as a political leader encourage the world to believe that we Mormons expect him to address our needs over those of other constituents. I wrote a post arguing along these lines some time ago, entitled, “Who Do Romney and Ried Represent Anyway?“

Anne, it’s two lawyers arguing with each other. Can’t you see where that is going to lead?

By the way, Anne, I never took offense. I am unsure why responding to Nick’s comment is considered taking offense. I asked him not to mock Mormons on this thread but that is not the same thing as saying I took offense at anything he did.

Nick,
I’m trying to understand what the second and third exerpts have to do with anything. I’m failing.

john f: Yes, I need to grow up. We all do.

NO! NO! NO! What would become of the Bloggernacle if we all grew up?!?

Tom,
The second excerpt, I simply found interesting, and thought others might. You could, however, extrapolate a certain familiarity between Romney and Gordon B. Hinckley, for Romney to (a) know what happened in a fairly personal/private moment for Hinckley, and (b) presumably get Hinckley’s permission to publish that moment.

I refrained from writing my own thoughts on the third excerpt, as I’d rather hear others’ impressions on it. Do you suppose this “surprise” experienced by Romney could have an influence on how he runs his presidential campaign? What does his special press conference, which he says was called in order to try to separate the LDS church from the games in public opinion, say to observers about how Romney treats his church membership in the public sphere?

Fair enough, BTD Greg.
I know I’ve certainly been quoted in media differently than what I intended to convey.

First there was Extreme Home Makeover, now it’s the NY Times.

Logan, Utah is finally on the map!

Nick,

From one multi-jurisdictional lawyer to another: congratulations. Perhaps you take inactive status in Illinios-makes CLE requirements easier to deal with.

I don’t mean to sidetrack the thread…I just wanted to add a clarification and an observation.

The clarification: My comments to the NYTimes were mostly in reference to Romney’s changes on political issues like abortion, stem cell stuff, gun control and gays (not his statements about Mormon doctrine). What made me excited about Romney at first (other than the fact that I, too, once was a Bain employee) was that he appeared to be of good character, successful, smart, and LDS — but that he also seemed to have his own moral compass (deviating from my impressions of the church’s position on abortion, gays, etc.). In other words, I saw him as principled, and progressive — simultaneously. This, to me, was exhilarating.

But when he started caving on all those issues to pander to the right for the primaries (that’s how I interpret it, anyway….and I’ll admit it’s just my opinion), then I became disillusioned. For those who agree that he was pandering — yes I know that this is just a reality in the U.S. political process. I’m just saying that it was disappointing to me.

Last week my feelings about all this hit a new low, when both Chris Matthews and the “Left, right and center” folks, when discussing Romney, kept saying, “Is he sincere? Can he be believed? How credible is he? Isn’t he just an opportunist?” Yes we Mormons are different, but I would hope that we could at least claim consistency, conviction and unquestioned integrity to our advantage. This Romney, this seems to be where he’s WEAKEST OF ALL, not strongest. Which, for me, is sad — since in many ways he is representing us right now — much more to the mainstream than any church leader has for a long time.

In my heart and mind, I wanted Romney + conviction and consistency. If he had shown this, I would have quit my job and joined his campaign as a volunteer — and I’m not kidding.

And the observation: Tom Grover is a very good friend of mine. In my opinion, he was just reflecting the comments made on his radio show by fellow Loganites, though I imagine that he shares these views as well. But to make this about Tom is to be a bit in denial. When LDS leaders or Romney back away from our historical doctrine, it makes traditional believing members uncomfortable. This is only natural, in my view. Again — to what extent are we, as Mormons, willing to stand up and be firm about what we believe in, vs. cave for expediency’s sake? On Mormon doctrine, over the past 10 years or so, it seems like we’re really retreating for expediency’s sake, and then trying to rewrite history as though we never really believed the things that we all knew then were true.

Just my 2 cents.

Wow, it looks like John Dehlin and I were posting the same clarification of his comments at the same time.

re # 73, JD wrote When LDS leaders or Romney back away from our historical doctrine, it makes traditional believing members uncomfortable.

This is not what was going on in the Tom Grover quotes. Mormon Doctrine has always included the belief, together with all creedal Christians, that Jesus will come to the Mount of Olives at the Second Coming. As I wrote in my post, in addition to this fantastic tale, Latter-day Saints believe and have always believed additional fantastic tales about Jesus coming to the American continent to play a role during the Millenium. The belief in this second fantastic tale does not negate, interfere with, or introduce any inconsistency with the belief in Jesus’ coming to the Mount of Olives.

Is there a doctrinal disagreement here, JD? Is it your view that Latter-day Saints at some point in the past have believed that Jesus would come to America instead of to the Mount of Olives at the Second Coming? It was in answer to this implied statement/question of George S. that Romney answered — in as expedient a way as could possibly be expected of a political candidate grilled about his religious beliefs — George S.’s question about Jesus coming to America at the Second Coming.

Hi there,

great article, i don’t know if you still remmember me but I am the Filipino guy who works in KSA and asked you to help me join the Mormon Archipelago. Im sorry it took me a while to be back online coz i have to bring my wife here with me in KSA. Anyway, sad to know my blogsite is not already in the link of the Mormon Archipelago, hope you can email me the reason why. Anyways, i am blogging too about Romney. Have a great day and keep in touch!

Kenji:

I remember you. Your blog was listed on the MA for a long time. If it is not there anymore, then it is probably because there were no new posts for a long time.

The dumb thing about it is, I don’t think the right wing of the Republican party is half as blindly ideological as most people (including Republican politicians) think they are.

I think, at their core, they are pragmatists. I mean, come on! They elected a pro-choice governor from California, right? They re-elected Bush, despite the fact that he has done next to nothing for them besides a couple court nominations (which I don’t wish to minimize of course…).

Christian right-wingers, like most people, want to back a winning horse. And, like most people, they are willing to compromise a few things to win. This is not necessarily a bad thing.

More than anything, the Christian right and GOP hardliners want a strong Presidential candidate. Not ideologically pure, not necessarily rabidly anti-abortion. Strong. Period.

McCain’s ideology isn’t half as big a deal as the fact that his campaign just seems anemic right now. Neither have Romney or Giulianni seized the reins in a commanding fashion. Sure, the extreme right would like someone with good ideological credentials, but they’ll rally behind an obvious winner in a heartbeat. Ideology or not.

The pathetic thing here is, Romney’s hard swing to the right actually makes him look weaker in the eyes of the conservative hardliners. Ironically, he probably would have been more attractive to them if he was espousing a more moderate conservative position, with a few MILD shifts toward the right. This would convey an image of a man who is still his own man, but offering the promise of “someone the ideologues can work with.”

He should have maintained his Massachusetts persona, with tantalizing indications of a hardening conservative position.

After all, the hardliners want a candidate who can win the moderates too.

Dan, Please.

Thompson has served two terms in the Senate.

Here’s how long the three leading demo candidates have served:

Clinton – 1 term
Edwards – 1 term
Obama – 1/3 of a term

So, what is your point, exactly?

This is my first time on this blog (re-directed from Andrew Sullivan’s blog) and I must profess to being fascinated. Bravo on a high level of discourse and, generally, civil tone. Congratulations to Nick (btw, I was perhaps most fascinated by your and john f.’s exchanges, very revealing to an outsider and not a waste of comment space at all) and thanks to John Dehlin for joining the discussion with clarifying remarks.

I could go on and on, but I wanted to echo Copedi’s concerns (see #82) regarding Mitt’s, at least in my opionon, pandering to the theocon right wing base regarding torture. Specifically,

I can accept that he has truly changed his mind on abortion. But when I hear him praise torture, talk about rounding up more terrorists without trial and doubling the number of prisoners at Guantanamo and that sort of thing, and cracking down on immigrants in a not-so-undersanding fashion, I think he’s pandering. In contrast with being the moderate he was as governor, it seems like he’s coming down on the right-wing end of things merely because he thinks that what will give him the election. And that, indeed, is disillusioning.

I, like many of the commenters on this thread, do not think it is fair that Mitt is put in a position to be the authority, or figurehead, to the MSM on all theological matters Mormon. And, as a non-Mormon, I do not really care what his spiritual beliefs are vis-a-vis his political beliefs. But I am deeply concerned about his politically expedient comments regarding torture. And I am very disappointed that the Republican party, and especially many religious people, of all creeds, within the Republican party, seem to cheer on vague sentiments such as “double the size of Gitmo.”

I’d be very interested to get some comments about how people of faith reconcile our government’s immoral conduct and the aforementioned ugly statement from Mitt with their support for his candidacy.

Thanks.

P.S. The only time that I get riled by Mitt’s Mormon faith is when says things like, “we need to have a person of faith lead the country.”

Note their fascination with Fred Thompson, who has done, what exactly?

A heckuva lot more than Dianne Wiest ever did!

OK, so Mormons believe that Christ will appear at the Mount of Olives AND America. When asked about the American part of this, Romney seemed to deny it. He was clearly being disengenous, and anyone who denies this is not being honest with themselves about him or his candidacy.

markroge,

This raises a question that is interesting to me. Do non-LDS Christians believe that Christ will appear at the Mount of Olives and then never appear at any other locations? He’ll show up for a few moments and then be gone? Would it be surprising to Christians in general if Christ were to visit different parts of the globe?

Honestly, I don’t think Mitt had time to go into a long explanation of Mormon thinking surrounding the Second Coming. I think that most Mormons would agree that his first public appearance will be at the Mount of Olives. Given that Mormons believe he has already appeared privately to Joseph Smith Jr I don’t see how a Mormon belief in future private appearances would make Romney’s statement inaccurate.

John Williams, I don’t think you get my point. As a group who was at one point living under an execution order from our government, it is the ultimate irony that we’re now, en masse, the most vocal cheerleaders for the brutalists in DC who condone and direct actual torture against potential innocents. Remember “innocent until proven guilty”? This administration skips that step, and simply declares their captives guilty. When did that become acceptable in this blessed land?

It doesn’t matter that the LDS execution order was long, long ago. It doesn’t matter that there’s no moral equivalence between us and the terrorists. As descendants of our pioneer brethren, we bear a responsibility to warn against government brutalism. As descendants of a persecuted people, we have the duty to stop it, but instead Utah is the last bastion of Bush, Cheney, and Romney fanboyism. It’s not right.

Sorry for the potential threadjack, this post was just my first exposure to this website, and at some point upstream the Romney support seemed to make my point relevant. Perhaps there’s some other post where this would make more sense. I’m just so upset about this, and have been keeping it inside for awhile. At one point, my people were champions of liberty. I wonder if we’ll ever be so again. And at the moment, I wonder if ‘my people’ really are who I grew up thinking they were.

KevMc,

If someone might have information that could prevent another terrorist attack, then I would support using torture to get this person to divulge this information. Torture for sadistic pleasure is immoral; I’m against that.

I don’t believe Romney, Bush, and Cheney get pleasure from torturing detainees.

John Williams,

I would rather that me and my family all die before our society uses torture to protect ourselves.

Never. No way. Not under any circumstances. Not to save a small child. Not to save a million Americans.

I am willing to die to uphold the higher values this nation represents. Are you?

annegb,

I don’t care so much what the torture does to the victim.

I am more concerned about what the torture is doing TO US.

Oh, also note that the Gestapo members who employed those “sharpened techniques” were punished by death.

arj,

torturing people that you know have information that could immediately save a substantial number of lives

Can I add a bit to this? How can any one of us actually even KNOW that someone has certain information about an event soon transpiring that would take out a whole bunch of people? We’re still just guesstimating.

I’m curious if we were to use enhanced interrogation techniques on Mitt Romney and ask him about whether or not Saddam let inspectors into his country, just what kind of answer will we actually get. Will he tell the truth, that Saddam did indeed let inspectors in, or will he continue Bush’s lie that Saddam never let the inspectors in?

Unfortunately the real rationale behind the employment of “enhanced interrogation techniques” is the building of a mosaic. The CIA and the President feel it is okay to torture individuals who really don’t know that much, because every little piece they can force out of one of their detainees adds to the mosaic, the larger picture.

Mark IV, I do understand history. But you can’t change the past, two wrongs don’t make a right, and your argument doesn’t justify current torture.

John Williams, you’re willfully ignorant. There is no process for determining who is and who isn’t a terrorist, that’s my point. 80% of the people in Gitmo were not arrested by US soldiers. They were handed over to us by impoverished locals in exchange for bounty money. And we never fact checked, in part because we didn’t have enough translators on the ground. We just bagged ‘em and flew them to Cuba, where we started to use torture methods on all of them.

AnneGB, we’re using methods that were banned in US military interrogation manuals pre-911. We literally are using the same methods used by the cold war Soviets, and by Pol Pot in Cambodia. If you think waterboarding, sleep deprivation, sensory overload, stress positions, mock executions, attack dogs, and sexual humiliation aren’t torture, then ask yourself this:

Are they things we should be doing to innocent men, women, and children? Because right now we are doing these things to people of all ages, (yes, children too) without making the effort to discover whether they are terrorists or not. And Romney endorses all of this, saying he thinks we should “Double Guantanimo!”

It sounds unbelievable, I understand. But that’s why I’m so outraged at the willful ignorance of Mormons who don’t educate themselves about the facts, and who choose to blindly support the leaders who do these things in our name.

I took an oath once, by taking on the name of
Christ. And every day since, I’ve hoped that my actions wouldn’t defile his good name. And I’m asking you to seek out the facts, and discover the things that are being done in yours.

Seth and Dan,

I’m honestly surprised. Do I understand you correctly, that it is better to kill somebody than to put them in a stress position or waterboard them?

You have stated that you would not use torture in the defense of your families. Would you use extreme physical force to restrain someone from harming your family? If so, in what sense does that differ from torture?

I’m trying to understand what you are saying.

Mark,

The difference between using extreme physical force (even to the point of death) against someone threatening your family and using these techniques on prisoners is the difference between a belligerent and a prisoner. One is actively threatening your family, while the other has given his life into your hands and is inoperative. Using unethical techniques on the inoperative prisoner is absolutely wrong. Using physical force against someone trying to harm your family, even to the point of killing him is justified.

I understand the argument that someone else out there might be threatening your family so you may feel justified taking the gloves off a prisoner in your hand, but you are not justified doing so. Better to spend your time and energy in finding the other man than in torturing the prisoner in your custody.

Furthermore, if you feel your family is threatened by someone and you don’t know where that individual is, remember, the Lord is on YOUR side. Ask Him! He knows all. He has promised to protect your family. Employ his help. Not only will you get more accurate information from the Lord than from some suspected terrorist, but you also do not lower your own standards, morals and ethics in the process. Instead you grow closer to the Lord. You don’t need to torture people to gather information about your enemy. Follow James’ counsel and Ask God.

It worked for Captain Moroni. Read Alma 43.

If it turns out that in Guantanamo we are using interrogation techniques on people who don’t know anything about the next al-Qaeda plans, then we should stop trying to get them to divulge anything.

Seth R. (108), I disagree. What you’re saying is that 3000 lives are not worth a few days of extreme discomfort (but not death) for one al-Qaeda operative. The ugly truth is that we have to engage in this sort of human calculus.

The FBI would find that I have zero ties to any terrorist organization, so not much.

John,

You’re living in a non-reality here.

The FBI screws up.

Regularly.

So does the CIA and NSA.

There have been multiple, repeated incidents of “getting the wrong guy.”

John Williams, the administration rounds people up and tortures them even if they truthfully say that they are not Al Queda affiliates. Please read this article describing the detention of 84 civilians, including children:

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/06/just_rounding_t.html

BTW, Lawrence Wilkerson (Colin Powell’s former chief of staff) says that we are detaining 30,000 to 50,000 individuals of all ages. He also says that 85% of them are clearly innocent.

Do you think the US government should arrest suspected terrorists?

Not if they are not ready to prosecute. It is against our very principles that we are supposedly fighting for to simply hold people without charging them, much less to torture them for information.

We’re NOT in a fight for our lives. Our nation is not threatened with annihilation. Al-Qaida does not have anywhere close to the power of a nation-state. We’re overstating their strength. They really are cave-dwellers. If you want to see real power, look back at World War II and the grand battles between Germany and Russia where millions obeyed the call to death in battle.

How do you define “evidence”?

John, I’d also point out that torture simply doesn’t work. It never has.

You simply tell your torturers whatever you think they want to hear, regardless of whether it’s true. Even ancient Roman generals sneered at the reliability of information given under duress. We’ve known the torture thing is a load of hogwash for centuries. But we continue to embrace it for the sick thrills.

And for this worthless information… this one in a million chance that we might hear something useful… we are willing to utterly abdicate any moral authority or credibility America ever had in the global community.

That moral authority ALONE is worth 10,000 American deaths, if not more. I’d argue it’s priceless. And Bush has sold our birthright for a mess of cold pottage.

“To be safe is better than to be right.”

The Bush administration.

John, you’re stating that prisoners should be considered guilty until proven innocent. That’s absurd and backwards.

Don’t you understand America, even just a little? What you propose is the exact opposite of what our Constitution declares to be the foundation of our country.

It’s ‘innocent until proven guilty’, John. And that’s because suspicion is not evidence, and assertion is not fact.

Until you understand that, you will never understand the difference between an innocent citizen and a terrorist. You’ll just keep believing that all our prisoners are terrorists, because Bush says so.

But I can call you all kinds of names, like un-American, evil, and cruel. I can say “John Williams is a big fat terrorist”. Or “John Williams is an enemy combatant”. And would it make these things facts, just because I said so? Of course not!

How about if I said it with an authoritative tone in my voice, wearing a fancy suit, in a big-time press conference? Would that be enough to make my assertions about you factual? Of course not!

But what if I had the power to enter your living room, abduct you, imprison and torture you, forever, simply because I asserted that you were a terrorist. Would you still believe that the standard should be ‘guilty until proven innocent’? Would you still believe that suspicion was the same thing as evidence? Would you still believe that assertions were the same thing as facts?

Of course not.

Because assertions are not facts. And without evidence, all the Bush administration offers about these prisoners is assertions. It’s nothing more than name-calling. And while you won’t believe the things I say about you, you’re more than happy to blindly accept the assertions Bush makes about our captives in Guantanimo.

And if 85% of current prisoners are innocent, then Guantanimo has plenty of wasted capacity at current levels. I have no problem incarcerating proven terrorists, but the administration works overtime to prevent prisoners from ever seeing a courtroom. They do their best to prevent prisoners from proving their own innocence.

It’s indefensible for any American. And since Romney sustains the whole thing, he’s indefensible as an American, much less as our next President.

Once again John, you are choosing to remain ignorant when faced with facts that you don’t like. Far from ‘simplistic liberal rhetoric’, I’ve given you two specific examples today with documentary evidence.

In one example, a woman describes her captivity, saying “there were many children among the detainees, including one seven-month-old infant”.

So tell me John, are the children terrorists, or does that sound random enough for you?

In my other example, John Ashcroft (former Attorney General) admitted that he transferred a suspect out of the justice system into military detention so he could be “more effectively interrogated”. Their transfer to military detention, for this stated reason, is proof that they did not have evidence worthy of a conviction in a court of law.

So I’ve offerred specific examples, and you’ve countered with vague platitudes. You’re the one with simplistic rhetoric.

And if you’re so determined to ignore evidence you don’t like, then you’re a true believer, and I don’t mean that as a compliment.

John Williams,

KevMc, If the US government apprehends a suspected terrorist who can them demonstrate that he is innocent, I’m all for letting him go.

That is NOT the way justice works. The burden of proof always lies on the accuser to prove guilt, not on the accused to prove innocence. I am leaning with KevMc and wondering if you even know how justice works here in America.

Seth R.

My point exactly. Let’s preserve human life against terrorists. They don’t care about moral authority.

By making a derogatory comment like this about George Bush, Mitt Romney, and people who support them, you appear to be unwittingly betraying your inability to thoughtfully approach the problems facing the United States.

As a non-mormon who has been studying your religion, I believe that if most Christians knew about some of your bizarre beliefs, you might be in trouble with the non-mormon populace again. You have a lot in common with Scientology, both religions made up by intelligent con-artists.

[...] pointing out the obvious that Christ will appear at the Mount of Olives at the Second Coming.    Fowles treats my quote on Jesus in Missouri as if it were mutually exclusive to His first appearance…: The scriptures read and believed by Latter-day Saints weigh against Tom Grover’s incredulous [...]

Hi, I’m not Mormon, so forgive my lack of information, but I don’t understand something. Out of curiosity, I read the 10th article. I understand about the “second coming” but how on earth was Independence, Missouri evolved from this article? Was this a prophecy? How did Missouri out of all states be transalated into this prophecy? Because I didn’t read anything about Missouri in article 10.
Thank You.

An insightful comment was left by Left Field at Mormon Matters on this issue:

I don’t know that Romney’s response is necessarily in conflict with Mormon teachings.

I’ve done some reading on the subject (even [literally] dusting off my copy of Mormon Doctrine) and I haven’t really found any indication that the second coming per se will be in Missouri. Malachi 3:1 and Doctrine and Covenants 36:8 state that the Lord will “suddenly come to his temple.” McConkie (pp. 694-4; 696) regards this to be at least partially fulfilled by Christ’s appearance in the Kirtland Temple, but also looks to a future fulfillment in the Temple in Jackson County. This appears to be a private appearance, and BRM specifically states that the appearance in the temple “does not have reference to his appearance at the great and dreadful day, for that coming will be when he sets his foot upon the Mount of Olives.”

There are also references to Christ appearing at the Grand Council at Adam-Ondi-Ahman (McConkie 694; Teachings 157) and receiving the keys from Adam, but this also appears to be a private appearance occurring *prior* to the second coming.

McConkie (pp. 696-7) quotes Zechariah 14:3-4 as a reference for the second coming on the Mount of Olives, and indicates that he will *subsequently* appear “upon the mighty ocean, even the great deep, and upon the islands of the sea and upon the land of Zion. And he shall utter his voice out of Zion and shall speak from Jerusalem, and his voice shall be heard among all people.” (Doctrine and Covenants 133:20-21)

The tenth Article of Faith doesn’t refer to the second coming, but to the establishment of the New Jerusalem.

What I get from all that is that the second coming as such will be on the Mount of Olives, but that there will be prior private appearances in Jackson County and elsewhere. After the second coming, he is expected to appear in various places throughout the world (including Missouri), and to reign during the millennium from both the Old and New Jerusalems.

In short, I don’t think Romney is incorrect in locating the second coming strictly on the Mount of Olives, although clearly it is taught that there will be appearances both before and after the second coming in Missouri and elsewhere.

Perhaps this provides some background for you, kat.

[...] 5. Romney and Mormon Doctrine, john f. (144) [...]

thanks

#146 needs to get his history straight. Getting the simple and well-known facts wrong just says so much about anti’s.