JFK gave his famous speech affirming secularism and convinced Americans that his faith didn't disqualify him. Romney chose the opposite tack by trying to convince the BARN (born again redneck) voters that he is a theocrat and every bit as bigoted toward gays, undocumented immigrants and abortion as they are while expecting their usual religious bigotry to be waived for him. He can't have his cake and eat it too, and he's choking on his sour recipe. The master chef in the BARN kitchen is Mike Huckabee, whose theocratic credentials are unassailable, even if he's lying about his theology degree. Sure, there were a few odd moments of compassion in the past, but he has effectively disavowed them with a hateful immigration policy now. Romney made a political calculation to ditch the pro-choice, gay-friendly positions so useful in Massachusetts and pander to the far right. His speech failed to convince them, but it convinced me. If there is to be an American Ayatollah, it will be Huckster.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This article is the biggest shovel-full of crap I have ever read. Another 'HOLLYWIERD' author. You can't read 7 words without finding a lie in this. I am a physician, and a practicing, believing, Mormon, and MOST LDS scholars, scientists and physicians feel as I do - that the Church is true. That its doctrines and practices are revealed by God, and its teachings calculated to lead to happiness and peace. And all the lies, squabbling and diatribe in the limited vocabulary of the deep south will not make it otherwise. Shame on you, for this distasteful, offensive, anti-Mormon article.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It is really rare when you find a relegion where the people whole heartedly want to live it. That is how it is with mormons, they live what they believe. I am really amazed when people berate them for that.

Also I thought we lived in the United States of America where people could believe in what they want too! I am beginning to think this place is the MidEast where people tell you what you can and can[t believe.

The mormon relegion is very pro family, so there are a few (MAYBE MR. ODONNELL) who have an agenda and want to attack it constantly. Seriously it is full of great looking men who actually live their relegion. They are men's men. They are true to their women and children and their God. And there are people out there who hate them for it!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Romney is a panderer who was doing his very best to present himself as a slightly different flavor of evangelical, loudly proclaiming his support for his beliefs while doing his level best to hide what they are. When he wrongly asserted that liberty DOES require religion, he made his demonstrably untrue beliefs fair game.

Another poster claimed O'Donnell's article was full of lies - without even a feeble attempt to prove it. Perhaps someone can link me to the DNA evidence that American Indians ARE a lost Jewish tribe? That Joseph Smith wasn't convicted of fraud? That he was monogamous all his life? That the "Divine Revelations" didn't just happen to come at politically convenient times?

The faith of Romney's fathers is theocratic. They practiced it in the past and preach it for the future. When a candidate for president of the United States claims that I am somehow diminished because of my sanity he is begging for the exposure of the stupidity of his beliefs!

If Mormons don't like that, they should tell Romney to get the hell out of politics.

Same goes for Mr "I ain't related to no primate" Huckabee.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

For anyone who would like to explore Mormon beliefs, there are many sites online, including a number established by former Mormons. See www.realmormonhistory.com, or "Google" "YouTube:The Bible vs.The Book of Mormon. Or "Google" The Skeptic's Annotated Book of Mormon.

These sites use the Book of Mormon and the documents of the Mormon church itself to explore these beliefs. Let's see previous posters refer to these sources as "lies".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

As a member of the Church of the FSM and a devout Pastaferian I have only one concern about a Romney administration: will it extend the school voucher program to Pastafarian children?

If he will publicly commit to insuring that the children of our Church receive the same advantage as LDS children, he's got my vote.

Rev. El
Pastor, WVCSR

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Despite what partly truthful Mormon contributors have posted and will post here, O'Donnell's simplistic survey is an accurate representation of the status and understanding of blacks before 1979. He does not note, however, that there was a widespread movement within "the Dialogue crowd" to resist and reject the explicit racism of the policy and the Mormon scriptures. He doesn't note this because he has a simplistic view of Mormonism that doesn't comport with the realities of LDS society in the US. His knowledge is patchy. But he is spot on here.

This is the point: if Romney had the moral courage he could have been part of this movement, either with its "loyal opposition" elements (represented by at least one apostle of the day) or with the "swearing elder" types led by University of Utah and Salt Lake Valley intellectuals. He may indeed have been part of this movement - his family has had well known liberals in it. If so, he would probably be loathe to mention it for the negative focus it would bring to the issue of black exclusion the priesthood.

Beyond racism -- which was as virulent against First Nations peoples as against Africans, though "Lamanites" could receive the priesthood, as could "good" black-skinned people like Melanesians and Papuans, all of whom were expected to slowly become "white and delightsome" as they lived righteously -- there are other reasons that Romney's Mormonism is properly a matter of attention. Mormon eschatology is the most significant and troubling.

The prophets have taught since the early troubles in the midwest about the Constitution and American/World destiny. Mormons assert that the U.S. constitution was inspired directly by god as part of a celestial plan to keep the lands of the Nephites (read: New World) hidden from the world (read: Europe; the Mormon god was an Orientalist avant le mot). One Mormon folk belief even has angelic assistance breaking a deadlock at the Constitutional Convention.

According to Mormons, at a pre-determined point in history, Columbus was led to 'discover' the New World because god wanted a place and a people free from Papal authority to establish his church, which was meant to play a special role in the end days. It's of interest (perhaps worthy of a question or two in its own right) that Catholicism is called the Great and Abominable Church in Mormon scripture. Missionaries like to shorten it to just "G&A", or to call it by its other scriptural moniker: The Mother of All Whores. It's an even more deceived and devil-inspired faith than Protestantism, which god got rolling in preparation for the restoration of Mormonism.

Back to the worrisome stuff. Mormon prophecy says that in the last days the Constitution will "hang by a thread" but at the last minute be saved by "the Elders of Israel" (Mormon priesthood holders like Mitt). Questions on this matter need to be addressed to Romney. Does he feel that he is leading the way for the Elders of Israel, for the Mormon Zion, to save the Constitution and usher in the End of Days?

Romney, like all adult initiates, has also taken secret blood oaths promising allegiance to the Church and its leaders and amerta concerning esoteric teachings. Drawing his right hand, thumb extended, across his throat and belly in slicing motions he chanted "I would rather my life [slice here] be taken" than reveal the oaths and secrets taught in the temple.

[cont'd]

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I think this gives rise to valid worries. If the Mormon prophet and apostles interpret some event as being the moment of Constitutional crisis, the moment when the Elders of Zion must act to save the government and the country from disaster, they might call on Elder Romney to play a role. Romney has taken a blood oath to obey his priesthood leaders in all things. Someone has to ask, what will you do, Mitt, what will you do.

Prophecy also projects a world theocracy headquartered in Jerusalem and Iowa under these same Elders after the great cataclysm. Does Romney believe that America will transform into a theocracy under the Mormon prophet when the fateful moment arives? Does he think he will have a role there as both elder and president?

Lawrence, there's more work for you to do.

Tim Behrend, Auckland NZ

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

And dont't forget about the sacred underwear....oh my gawd. Theologically, this is a total farce, except mormons actually believe this stuff. Don't even try to question it. They just dig in even harder. And good luck getting out of their "cult" once you are in. The higher up you are the more vicious are the lies, threats and innuendos on your good name... to coerce you into staying and to avoid any further examination of their b.s. They just don't want to lose your 10% tithe...required of everyone. Now that's the exercise of a "free" religion. Great article!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

As a member of the church I am deeply offended by this article. It is not in the least bit factual, and only serves to further inflame the discussion about the church. Oh, where to begin… The name of the church is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Whether or not Mormon’s believe in Christ has nothing to do with the evidence suggested in this article. These are separate issues – and incidentally are not portrayed accurately. Yes, Jesus and Satan are brothers, just like you and I are brothers. In fact all churches teach this concept – we are all spirit children of our Heavenly Father. This is biblical. Polygamy was officially sanctioned by the church for 59 years, not 70. (It’s when little things like this are missed that one begins to question the credibility of the author). I think if you dug into any religion you’d find quite a bit of questionable history to write about. Did you know that Martin Luther sanctioned polygamy? The history of African Americans in the church is old, old stuff. Fact is, given the times and the geography, the LDS church was far ahead of churches in the south. Brigham Young was not the most revered president of the Church. They left the United States because of persecution. Mobs burned their homes and killed their people.

I could go on, but it would take pages and pages to describe the facts that Mr. O’Donnell has twisted, or has just outright lied about. The fact is that Mr. O’Donnell has not done his homework. For someone who doesn’t “hate Mormons,” I’m perplexed. It certainly feels like he has an axe to grind. It is interesting that AlterNet posts this requirement of people who want to comment on articles, “racist, sexist or other discriminatory or hateful language.” But they seem to allow contributing writers this privilege. I have watched and read so much anti-Mormon stuff; it doesn’t even bother me any more that these folks do this sort of thing. Bottom line, I know that Jesus Christ lives. He is my Savior. I have personally witnessed the miracle of His forgiveness many, many times. That’s all I need. I only hope that more of our members take the time to study the issues, decide for themselves, and live their lives so they can witness the Atonement work as I have.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I beg to differ with the assertion, ". . . religious affiliation is not a good reason to vote for or against a candidate for president." As all religions are nothing more than primitive superstition, adherents should be disqualified from office by dint of sheer stupidity. If a candidate doesn't believe but claims to for the purpose of currying favor with the booboisie, he or she should be disqualified for sheer hypocrisy. Unfortunately, stupidity and hypocrisy have never disqualified anyone for president; in fact, they seem to be requisite.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Lawrence, Lawrence, Lawrence! You concentrated on the wrong interview. You wrote about Romney's comments in a Matt Lauer interview, when the only thing we need to know about Romney came across loud and clear on Meet the Press, Sunday, 12-16-07. Tim Russert asked The Suit if he consulted with Gordon B. Hinckley and the other Mormon bigwigs before deciding to run for prez, and, typically, Romney non-sequitured the question by saying he'd only consulted with his family.

When Russert pressed on, asking if Romney's decision to run would have been any different had Hinckley, the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter-Day Saints, advised against it, saying it would be bad for Mormonism, Romney again dodged the question and answered he'd made his decision for himself after consultation with family and friends.

Let's face it, the man is hiding his true intentions, which probably include pushing his faith to the forefront and taking his marching orders (as leader of the Free World) from his Salt Lake City handlers. Remember, these are the guys send their youth out to go door to door proselytizing their faith. You could make a lot of conversions as prez.

Hinckley himself is a Dangerous Lunatic; not only does he believe that mankind has been on earth for only 6,000 years and walked with dinosaurs, he hates African-Americans, Jews and homosexuals, e.g. saying that the latter "have a problem." (Yes, gays do have a problem, Mr. Hinckley: homophobes like you!)

Romney will take his marching orders from his handlers in Salt Lake City.
Unlike John F. Kennedy, whose famous speech on his Catholicism both explained the religion and effectively distanced the candidate from any idea he would be beholden to the Vatican, Romney did neither (vis-a-vis S.L.C. and the Mormon leadership). I knew John F. Kennedy, Governor, and you're no John F. Kennedy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I saw O'Donnell's amusing meltdown on "The McLaughlin Group" - hey, isn't John McL. an ex-priest? - and Eleanor Clift's retort that "every religion is full of crazy beliefs."

He's right but... why exactly DO "American Catholics" get a pass and essentially get to disagree with their church about practically everything? I never quite understood that either. He seems to think he has explained that here, but I still don't get it. Nobody's been asking O'Donnell if he believes the Apostles' Creed and the Nicene Creed are literally true.

I do get the point that Romney dug his own hole here by insisting that he literally believes all the Mormon stuff, as if the qualifier "literally" alone is going to impress the fundies who think it's a dangerous cult.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Remember friends, Christians speak of the bodily assumption into their 'heaven' of the virgin mother of the prophet they believe to be divine (among other teachings that the xian faithful take as revealed word). When it comes to matters of faith, us humans have come up with many beautiful, fanciful and downright weird ways to describe that which we cannot know- what can be fully understood, however, is the danger of mixing religion and government.

Thomas Jefferson was right almost 200 years ago when he warned, "History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes." Note the TJ didn’t single out Christianity here, although he is known for doing just that in other writings. Romney, Huckabee, and even the dem candidates have all bowed down and made confessions of faith over the course of this long, long election season-with all of the attendent geo-political brinksmanship that comes along with it...pretty scary stuff in what seems to quickly be turning into the Theocratic States of America. G Singlaub said it best, “I don’t know what’s worse, a preacher fooling with politics or a politician fooling with religion"-

www.redstateupdate.net has covered everything from 'rapture ready militaristic messiahs' and bigoted bishops to fulminating fundamentalists and preachy politicians (and the wars they think they need) since 2005 with both humor and prescience-see stories-

Militant Ministers Concoct Combat Christ to Tempt Teenagers,
Lawmakers Certify Single Military Messiah,
Neighbors Wary of American Theocracy,
Pastor Delivers Unusually Inciteful Sermon,

visit redstateupdate.net's fun 'd mental archive for many, many true examples of xian bully boy bigots clamping down for christ...
http://www.redstateupdate.net/fun-d-mental/fundmental.html

...and a new gwbush comic every week!

www.redstateupdate.net
funny, frightening, free
and 'it's all true'

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

that, "Every religion is full of crazy beliefs."

It's no more nutty to think Jesus was in America than it is to believe that he performed miracles as the son of god in Israel 2000 years ago or that god used to talk to people personally and then stopped doing so at some point.

God in a burning bush? Immaculate conception? Two of each animal on an ark the size of a football field for 40 days and nights? Adam and Eve being the only humans created by god, but then a wife appears for Cain? God demanding that every living thing be murdered by "his" people? Walking on water? Lot's wife turned into a pillar of salt for looking back at her home?

This is just the tip of the iceberg. Southerners used to cite the Bible for proof that slavery was sanctioned by god - and it is if one believes the Bible. So are polygamy and adultery as long as they are practiced by men. Should Southern Baptists be condemned for their adherence to a belief that condoned slavery until it was outlawed and black inferiority until at least the 1960s?

And what about the Jewish prayer that begins "thank God I am not a woman"? My sister, married to a Jew, had that one on her refrigerator, not because she believed it but to indicate her indignation that it existed. Do we condemn all Jews because that was a facet of their belief?

In fact, many Christians still firmly believe that men are supposed to be dominant over women - Huckabee said so recently. Do we rake all Christians over the coals for male chauvinism?

I'm not a fan of the Mormon faith, although I also have some very dear practicing Mormon friends. They know I think their religion, along with all other dogmatic religions, is farfetched and consists of made-up stories. We just agree to not make our differences in belief part of our friendship.

I have no doubt that much of, or perhaps even all of, what is in this article is true. But it's presented in a "can you believe this nonsense" tone that could be used for virtually any religion from the Greek or Roman mythologies to the Old Testament to the modern versions of evangelical Christianity and beyond.

Almost all religions have belief systems that sound pretty outrageous and loopy when they are presented out of context or even as individual aspects of dogma.

In addition, many religions have done an about-face when society or culture demands it. For example:

the Catholic church, after hundreds of years, suddenly decided that eating meat on Friday was no longer a sin. (Even school cafeterias at one time respected the "no meat on Friday" rule and served fish in the cafeteria.)

Babies used to go to Limbo. Now the Pope has declared that this wasn't exactly right. Limbo ceased to exist (or some such notion).

Most mainstream churches refused to have women ministers. Now they are allowed in many cases.

Religions are all about believing things that cannot be proven. That's what faith is. That Mormon beliefs are or may have been full of prejudice, evolving or shifting beliefs when it becomes convenient, rules that shut out certain elements of the population, or other unfortunate aspects does not make Mormonism subtantially more crazy than any other religion. It's simply not as mainstream or widely observed.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This article is so full of hypocrisy it is utterly amazing. The sole intent of the article is to insult - that point is very clear.



This article is very illogical; the author argues that Romney must be a racist because he belongs to a Church that once prohibited Blacks from being priests (just like every single Christian faith in America, at one point in time or another). Then he proceeds to argue that he believes that Romney is a liberal that is just afraid to be liberal because of his Church. So he conveniently argues that he is a racist using an associational argument, but also concedes that he believes that Romney is a closet abortionist – both arguments are clearly designed to sway voters away from Romney, but they are utterly inconsistent in their assumptions and conclusions. Why would he instantly be a racist by association - with no reference to the fact that Romney has never even said anthing racist in his life, but at the same time not be pro-life for the same reasons? Can you say Non Sequitor! The author is a certifiable bigoted idiot. At least that point is VERY clear. And that's no insult to the author, it's just the plain simple reality of the situation.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Living here in India, the debate on Mitt's Mormon belief is meaningless. Nevertheless, why in the world should that be the lietmotif for the next US President? Mormonism, as far as I'm concerned, is as pathetic as Hindutva (local jihadi Hindu belief)and the jargon in the presidential debates is at the basest that I've ever heard.

Good luck to you guys who'll have to suffer an asshole (after another 100 years)as your President.

Rgds

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The writer states, "I don't hate Mormons." However, it is obvious from the article that he does. His multiple friends that are Mormon turn out to be one who "used to be". 98.5% of the time a used to be Mormon is one who decided that one of the commandments of God shouldn't be there. In other words they convince themselves that sin is OK. By the way: The Church has asked repeatedly that you use it's full name, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, at least on the first reference.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

If one is interested in Mormon theology, practice, and belief, I would suggest checking out this LA Times article, the LDS homepage, This source of careful researched answers to criticisms of the Church, and this site outlining the basic beliefs of members of the Church.

My experience with this church has led me to believe that it isn't a horrible institution. I have learned what it teaches, I have thought about the implications of those teachings and I have even gone so far as to pray about them. My faith in Jesus Christ has made me a better and stronger person that I personally would have been otherwise and comes largely from the teachings and practices of the Mormon religion. If anyone is truly interested in learning more about this church, please feel free to visit these websites to see for yourselves what it has to offer.

Don't trust one side of an issue to give you straight answers on the other side's beliefs, please. (I wouldn't consult an openly Republican webpage to learn about the Democrats.) There is always a bit of truth, but it is usually distorted at worst or negatively stated at best. True research includes primary source studies, not just perusal of secondary opposition.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I want to ask Romney, and find out once and for all, if it's true they have to wear special underwear.

JFK didn't wear special underwear. Well, at least as far as we know.

Badger

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hmmmm, except for those great Mormon husbands I ran into in the bars when I lived in the Southwest who were a likkerin' it up and whorin' it up. Jeepers, I guess the bar waitresses and women I knew were lying when they used tell me Moromon men used to grab ass and make such lovely, family-value statements such as, " Married? I'm not, but my wife is..."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

OK – you got me. I just had to go through the bother to register and respond, something that I have only felt compelled to do once before. And I have to ask; Why should Romney “spill the beans” on the tenets of his faith when there are so many others that are willing to do it for him? O’Donnell here goes into great detail, at least from a certain perspective. And many others have done it from similar perspectives. Of course I do find it curiously funny that some people feel compelled to first go into several assurances that they don’t hate Mormons and are not “anti” at the beginning of a very anti-Mormon diatribe that includes a very slanted picture of Mormon history and events.

I also find it curious that O’Donnell’s several best, no wait, one Mormon friend, whom he uses to demonstrate his unbiased feelings toward all Mormons, is very complimentary of and is greatly enjoying the fruit of his parents’ faith, while rejecting the roots, the trunk, and the branches, that give both foundation and nourishment to the highly desirable fruit.

There are two things that I do agree with O’Donnell on: First, the Mormon faith is somewhat unique because generally one accepts it all or rejects it all, and second, that Mormon leaders are human and have been subject to the same weaknesses and failings of all mortal men save one – Jesus Christ. But I do disagree with O’Donnell on the significance. First off, if you don’t believe most, if not all, of your religion’s foundational doctrine, you would be a hypocrite professing a hollow faith and what good is it? And secondly, the personal weaknesses and failings of the leaders and members of the Church demonstrate the divine guidance and intervention, not the lack thereof.

Nearly 180 years ago, when the Mormon prophet, Joseph Smith, was yet a boy, he relates having been told by one of the heavenly messengers (angels) that appeared to him, that one day his name would be had for both good and evil among all nations and people of the earth. That was quite an ambitious claim coming from a young, obscure, uneducated, poor, and back-wood country boy. Mr. O’Donnell can be thanked for helping to fulfill that prophecy and becoming part of the testimony (however unwillingly and unwittingly) of truth of the divine revelation given to the boy prophet.

As with any other politician, Romney can certainly be praised or criticized for where he does or doesn’t stand on the issues, or what he has or hasn’t done whether in public or private life, but to criticize him for not going tenet by tenet and doctrine by doctrine through his Mormon faith to announce which ones he believes and to what extent is without justification. Romney clearly stated that he does believe the tenets of the Mormon faith and that he strives to live accordingly. And he has consistently suggested that anyone interested in learning about the Mormon faith do so by reading one of the many available books or going to one of the many websites on the subject. That should be enough. It is already more than has been required of the other candidates, which all have their own faith with many examples of strange and questionable doctrines and practices when looked at with the same suspicious eye that O’Donnell applies to Mormonism.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

When religious zealots are called to task on the irrationality of their beliefs, they often resort to the defense of "It's all lies!"

A previous post said: "You can't read 7 words without finding a lie in this."

I reply with two words, applicable to all religions and religious beliefs: "Prove it."

All religions have weird and irrational tenets and beliefs. But Mormonism is particularly creepy and infamous.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I would like mr. jasonix to describe to me what exactly makes a religion "true" and, if he has the guts, to tell me what denomination he belongs to and we'll see if your denomination can stand up to some examination...if you have the guts.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Let me point out as a Mormon, graduate student, and son of a Surgeon that your asessment of what Mormons have to swallow in order to be faithful is overly simplistic and paints an innacurate picture. I am very active in the church and so is my father that supposedly is supposed to have reservation about his beliefs. Regarding the preisthood ban, I view this very much the same way I view Peter of the New Testament who was told to take the gospel to the Gentiles and yet he didn't because he viewed them as being inferior. I believe the preisthood ban was part of the church members not being sufficiently ready, humble, or tolerant. Is it fair to simply quote authorities in the church who were wrong on this issue when there where other authorities who never believed it was a policy that ought to be changed when the church members were sufficiently humble, tolerant, and ready?

I don't believe in infallibility in any sense; not in modern or past prophets. Furthermore, I don't think you understand that there are a whole variety of ways that faithful Mormons understand their own doctrine. You questions about Jesus coming back to America are something I don't think about as being central to my theology any more than particular miracles of the Bible. It's not that I don't believe them because I do or that I'm anxious to deny them, it's just more abstract that the central belief that are more pragmatic and work for me on a daily basis.

Why aren't people asking Guiliani if he believes that someone can actually be resurrected and ascend into heaven? Why aren't people asking McCain if Noah fit 2 animals of every kind into a boat to save mankind? Why aren't people asking Huckabee why he thinks he has to be so literal in thinking the earth was created in 6 days?

If I were as disrespectful as many journalists seem to be, I would personally ask Huckabee about his own theology. Huckabee's theology says God created everything out of nothing with absolute foreknowledge and absolute power. For him, God created Satan knowing full well what the result would be and having full power to make it otherwise. He created Satan's will and future desires. Would a perfectly good God do such a thing?

But, Of course, I wouldn't ask a politician to account for his religious beliefs even if I disagree with them. Doesn't every religion believe things that seems weird to an outsider? And a better question, are there not different ways for people within a religion to see and understand various beliefs in different ways?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Ok, let's assume Joseph Smith wasn't a prophet. If he wasn't, then he was quite possibly the greatest archaeologist to ever live. In the early 19th century he said he found golden plates that we inscribed by the ancient inhabitants of America. Everyone thought he was crazy, nobody writes on metal plates! Oh wait, now in the 21st century we have several examples of metal plates being used and inscribed upon by ancient peoples.

Or how about this, he said, in the early 19th century, that he found them in a box that was sealed with cement. Crazy! "Savages" don't know how to make cement. Oh wait, now in the 21st century we have several examples of the ancient inhabitants of America using cement.

Or how about this, he said, in the early 19th century, before much of anything was known about the aztecs and olmecs and incas that Christ came and visited his "other sheep" (John 10), taught them, and promised to come again. (As a side note, why is that so crazy to believe that Jesus visited other people on this earth, doesn't he love everyone or just Jews?) Anyway, crazy! We have no evidence of Christ coming to the America's.

Oh wait, now in the 21st century we know of the ancient tradition of Quetzalcoatl, the white God who came down from heaven, taught the people, and promised to come again.

Or how about this, that crazy guy Joseph Smith said that the ancient inhabitants of America got in a big war in about 400AD and an entire civilization was wiped out. Crazy! Oh wait, now in the 21st century we can go just north of Mexico City and find the ruins of a great civilization who built amazing temples to their God who promised to return and what do we find there? Oh, the people all mysteriously vanished without a trace. When? About 400AD.

Well, none of this proves the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon or of Joseph Smith as a prophet, but it does prove that if he wasn't a prophet he was quite an archaeologist.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

That's not the beginning of a prayer, but really think about a few things here...

Christianity generally believes that God made all of this, all of us, for a test. A test to see if we will remain loyal to his teachings. He starts off by tutoring Adam & Eve, who he made with his own power, then those teachings are handed down generation after generation until someone, possibly Moses, writes them down. God couldn't be bothered to make a written law for the benefit of all the world, just for the Israelites.

This same God then knows everything bad you ever did in your life, and because of that he just can't forgive you for the mistakes or bad things you have done. You can beg for forgiveness and change all you want, but you just can get God to completely forgive you. UNLESS he provides a blood sacrifice, and not just any blood sacrifice, but the sacrifice of his own bloodline.

So now God himself or his offspring Jesus, depending on your beliefs, comes to earth via a miraculous VIRGIN birth. Jesus's job is to teach people more about God, his rules and ultimately to die at the hands of the people he's there to help. It's the only way we can all be saved, is to kill Jesus in cold blood for sins he didn't commit, thereby allowing him to take on the burden of our sins.

Now once we get the Jews of long ago to kill Jesus we'll be back in God's good graces again, and when we die we can go back to live with him again.

So along comes Joseph Smith, a boy with a checkered past - but people can change, and he starts a new church because God, Jesus and some angels appear to him telling him the other churches just don't get it all right, or they lost their rights.

It's really not much different than the rest of the Christian Bible. And if you want to bring up racism, well just look at the Old Testament. It's full of prejudice, racism and other horrible human failures.

If you are a believer in any of these religions then you might want to consider taking a good look at your own religious and dogmatic history before condemning those that deviate from your religion only slightly. We usually notice faults in others that are actually close to our own without even realizing it. (I'm an ex-christian myself, and although it was difficult to reverse years of brainwashing I made it out in one piece! I chose not to believe in what I consider fairy tales, and don't believe that going to church "just in case" will save anyone from damnation if I am wrong.)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's my opinion that anybody who "hears" God's voice
with his ears or inside his head or has a "conversation" with God in which God answers him, is at best delusional and at worst schizophrenic.
Surly Old Man
Denver

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

In that they seemed to be a form of "science fiction" for their times. I happen to believe that earthly accomplishments tend to reveal a validity in religion, and the Mormons have built a great city and civilization in Utah.

Problem is that this religion can't evolve. The power of Christianity is that it's always a work in progress. But any religion based exclusively on "revealed truth" and prophets can't be a work in progress. It's locked into it's past. Its founders never expected DNA or other scientific evidence could undermine their stories.

On the other hand, Scientology could be "a work in progress" as are many other religions. These tend to correct past errors.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Mitt is crying because Ron Paul raised $6 million yesterday. Unfortunately it took segregationist Governor Wallace to reveal the truth that "there's not a dime's worth of difference between" Republicans and Democrats. The Democrats willingly went along with the War in Iraq, suspension of Habeas Corpus, detaining protesters, banning books like America Deceived (book) from Amazon, stealing private lands (Kelo decision), warrant-less wiretapping and refusing to investigate 9/11 properly. They are both guilty of treason.
Support Dr. Ron Paul and save this great nation.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I'm saddened by this (additional) rant. The writer might be shocked to know that many (if not most) Mormons who complete their higher education remain faithful. The problem with his critiques, as they relate to doctors and such, is this: Questions about the ancient Americas, the pre-Babylonian-exile Israelite world, and the attitudes of ALL nineteenth century Christian faiths are not questions that doctors are qualified to answer.

So, let's look at them quickly.

(1) Mormonism is simplistic and false because it believes that Semites came to the Americas before Columbus. This is demonstrably untrue because the Indians are all from Asia. We know this because...

WHOA!!! First, the Book of Mormon makes not claims that all the people of the Americas descend from Semites. In fact, it clearly states that the oldest civilization it records comes from a different, more ancient source. Any idea that EVERY man, woman, and child in the Americas prior to Columbus must be Semitic has no basis in the text.
But what about the DNA? Think beyond the simpleton I-watch-the-people's-court-so-I-know-about-DNA-tests point of view. The Book of Mormon claims that a very small group comprised of two families and one freeman made landfall in the Americas about 600 years before Christ's birth in Bethlehem. The patriarch of the group claimed to be of the tribe of Joseph. Once you realize that the Book of Mormon makes no sweeping claims that this small family is the beginning of every living soul in the Americas, you must answer a very different question: How does one find the DNA evidence for a Semitic man of 600 BC who claims to be of the tribe of Joseph? The Samaritans claim to be of Joseph, but the Jews insist they're the mixed offspring of pagan invaders. What to do?
Now, even if one were able to unambiguously prove that DNA for a Josephite man of 600 BC looks like such and such, there is still a huge problem. What are the chances that the DNA of one man would survive 2600 years among a mixed population (one which was largely wiped out 500 years ago)?
My spouse is a card carrying American Indian. Her tribe recognizes this because her father is one. The tribe recognizes him because his mother was one, and so on. At this stage my spouse might have NO DNA that could prove her Indian ancestry. The mitochondrial DNA only works from mother to mother. And the alternative (the one Ashkenazi scientists used to prove the "semiticness" of their cohenim) only works from father to father. THE DNA CRITIQUE IS A RED HERRING.

Now, what about the Book of Mormon's claims in regards to the Middle East? These should be clearly testable, right? In fact, they are. The Book of Mormon claims that the prophet Lehi and his family fled Jerusalem and walked along the Red See till turning east across the wilderness until they found a land they called Bountiful. This land, which the Book of Mormon (published by Joseph Smith in 1830) clearly places in the Arabian desert, is a land of bees and trees and water. WHAT?!!! Old Joe Smith must have really messed up here, right? NOPE! There are two locations, which are EAST of the old spice trail route (which goes along the Red Sea), and at least one of these has timber, wild bees, fresh water and a humid tropical climate. In addition to this, there is a place name mentioned in the Book of Mormon text, Nahom, and along the same route there is an ancient town known as Nihm. In the Semitic languages all roots are tri-consonantal. Thus NHM is the root. The inscription that contains the ancient name of modern-day Nihm is written in a dead South Arabian alphabet that did not use vowels. Thus, the oldest known reference to Nihm is written NHM. Wow! How'd that crazy Mormon prophet pull that one, huh?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

After I suspect that fewer people would have voted for GWB if they knew that he exibited classic symptoms of schizophrenia with a peculiar medieval religious twist. God told him to go to war against the Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan (why do people not realize that these are two peas in a pod?).

Schizophrenia: a severe mental disorder characterized by some, but not necessarily all, of the following features: emotional blunting, intellectual deterioration, social isolation, disorganized speech and behavior, delusions, and hallucinations.

George has the bolded symptoms and they seem to be in high gear most of the time.

All we need is another religious nutter who is busy trying to be a god rather than trying to help (there are two other branches of government - yes I know it is hard to tell) govern a nation that most people now consider a rogue state and a real danger to itself and others - as it GWB.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Although I am labeled by society as an atheist (someone who hasn’t yet seen the evidence of a creator as depicted in any of the planet’s religions), I believe we are not alone in the universe. Therefore I have a belief too. Only difference is that in my claim, I don’t impose or proclaim my belief as the “truth” as most religionists and argue and nitpick about all the little details about what my belief system says about your belief system. This is all utter nonsense. As Christopher Hitchens notes, "What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof." And there is a lot of asserting going on here.

The point which I see is being made in this article is that religion always manages to interfere in too many things in our lives, politics being foremost and obfuscating some of the real issues; as in how Americans can go about living their lives with dignity and in as fair and just a manner as possible without stepping on the toes of our fellow citizens. Mitt doesn’t stand a chance in hell of explaining to America a religion even most the followers of his own sect do not fully understand because the magic they are describing is impossible to explain much less prove; unless they are unbiased historians of theology. If you go to Google Scholar you will find a more unbiased explanation of this religion. Going to a Mormon website would be the last place to get your information. It would be like visiting the official White House site to get the true story of this administration’s agenda.

Pointless

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Wow, I was taught in high school not to accept 3rd hand information, and the author bases his whole article on it.

Please, get an education. You are adding to the ever growing ignorance and stupidity of the world. I thought the internet would make people smarter, but you will always get monkeys writing articles along with the intelligent. It will just take intelligence to tell the difference between the two.

I hope for all of your sakes you take his article, along with the other articles alike, with a grain of salt. If you do believe it, well, have fun on your way back to the stone age of thought. :)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Most versions of Christianity tell people that God loves them, that there is something better, that they just have to endure this life, that it's not their fault that things aren't perfect, that they don't have to work for a better world, that they just have to do what they're told, that someday they'll be like God, that you're a special child of God, and this life is just a short stop on a long journey.

Compare that to atheism, or even to some non-Christian religions, which say that this is the only life we know, or that we must be responsible to others in this life and make it the best possible.

Which is the easier one to live? Obviously, the idea that one day you can be an angel or a god by obeying the rules is a lot more attractive to the average person willing to shut down the critical thinking process in exchange for assurances of righteousness and superiority.

Mitt Romney's religion tells him that not only can he go to heaven, but that he is a priest, a prophet, and a potential god. Wouldn't most people like that idea? Well, the Mormon men like the idea, the women aren't necessarily as happy with it, especially as it requires the men to have at least three wives before they can attain godhood. That's why the Mormons have such in-depth genealogical records. They're baptizing the dead and marrying the dead to up the god numbers and fill up Hell.

As to why so many educated Mormons remain in the religion? You get to be a god! What's the downside? Besides, they grow up in communities of other Mormons, often go back to these communities, or, if they move away, immediately become involved in local communities or establish new communities. You seldom see individual families of Mormons in any town. It's very difficult to maintain that type of religious belief in a solitary situation.

Some others have been harping on the Catholic church. Yes, they have some crazy beliefs. That's because they took what was essentially a decent outlook on life (the Golden Rule), and turned it into an empire (catholic is from the Greek word for universal), and no empire succeeds without destruction and assimilation. It had to build a bureaucracy, gain the support of and eventually control the government, and it had to gain the support of the people it contacted and wanted to control by absorbing their beliefs into its own (all the Pagan trappings in the church holidays). If you compare Jesus' reported beliefs and behavior to the Catholic church, well, actually, there's really nothing you can compare.

As I've said before, I'm not an atheist, but I'd definitely vote for an atheist rather than for any member of a religious group that condones racism or sexism, or believes that this life is just something to be suffered (that somehow the death of a child can be a good thing) before moving on to a better one.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I saw Larry rant on the McLaughlin Group about Mormonism. He is entitled to his belief that it is an "abomination", but that is somewhat beside the point. Many religious notions can be viewed as "abominable". All organized religions carry baggage, from the Inquisition to allowing slavery, to insisting on literal interpretations of ancient texts which were written before mankind had significant scientific understanding. He might call my mother's denomination, Christian Science, an abomination because she didn't believe I should be taken to doctors, since "knowing the Truth" could heal her children. I know quite certainly that she was sincere. I find it abominable that Christian Scientists are persecuted for their belief in using prayer to confront human problems. I found Romney's speech "abominable" because he tied religiosity to belief in human freedom, which is exclusionary and doesn't respect the views of nonbelievers. Bertrand Russell showed that an atheist can believe in human dignity in his essays "Why I Am Not A Christian" - particularly the essay called "A Free Man's Worship". But Mr. O'Donnell didn't couch his arguments in objective terms, by simply pointing out the things in Mormonism that have been socially objectionable to many. He made a wholesale condemnation of a religious organization that, even if it has espoused odd beliefs, like the Garden of Eden being in Missouri, is entitled to exist within our pluralistic society. He made it sound as though he was totally intolerant of beliefs which he would personally not accept. So his diatribe came across as religious intolerance, instead of as a rational critique. And for that, he will not get a lot of sympathy from those who respect freedom of thought and freedom of religion.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

How can this so-called alternative site be so bigoted to allow such prejudice against Mormons? I am not a Mormon but you can’t escape the stench of bigotry that permeates most of the comments here. Hey you damn progressives, why don’t you do same on blacks, Jews, Islam (little or big Mo as in Mohamed) gays etc. This is nauseating because you guys here are hypocrites and bigoted!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why isn't Rudy asked about his Catholic practices? Does he have to explain his belief in transubstantiation? What about Huckabee? should his career as a preacher disqualify his from being the president? Why doesn't anyone ask Barrack Obama about all of his Muslim relatives? If his father and stepfather were both Muslim, he must have a ton of Muslim aunts, uncles, cousins etc... Shouldn't someone ask him if that might present a conflict of interest if we are at war with radical Muslims? To my knowledge the Mormons are a peaceful people and seem to do a lot for their communities and country. Until they are flying planes into buildings, their practices and their tenets are really not relevant. There should be no religious test for office. It is unconstitutional. It is bigotry and hatred that fuels this debate and it is unAmerican. The point is, I don't think any of the above metioned should have to answer such questions. But for some reason there is a double standard for Romney.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

As an atheist who thinks the social taboo against questioning one's religion has helped these collective delusions (known as religions) escape serious scrutiny in public discourse and accorded them undeserved respectability and influence in society, I am only too happy to see Romney spark this public discussion of his particular delusion. I could care less whether the focus of this discussion is Mormonism; it could just as well be any of the others. In a society in which all manner of opinions and views are freely subjected to rational examination and debate, why is it that we are cautioned to give these unfounded, illogical, often wacky beliefs a free pass--and even pretend that they are somehow due even higher respect than ordinary views founded solidly on fact, experience, and rationality? I am all for civility, politeness, and respect toward each other in our public discourse (and, frankly, lament that we commonly see too little of that), but that does not require that we refrain from pointing out that something is ridiculous when it plainly is. There should be no taboo against saying just that merely because the ridiculous thing happens to be a religion.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

First they came for the Communists, and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Jew(Mormon)?.
Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn’t speak up,
because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left
to speak up for me.

Berlin pastor, Martin Niemoeller, who was sent to Dachau by the Nazis from 1939 to 1945.

All Mr. O'Donnell needed to complete is coming out celebration as the "Son of Hitler" was the little mustache. That was real religious hatred! Congratulations Lawrence!

Where should we build the 1st concentration camp, gas chambers & ovens? Tell us Lawrence--you can be the new Fuhrer.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I, personally, believe that a person should have their own internal moral code. The idea that wearing a garment such as "Sacred Undergarments" rather questionable.

Why? If you need demonstrable PROOF of your committment to ethics, is that a true committment? In other words, do you need to be told your ethics (I was for state paid contraception and abortions services and then I realized, with prayer, that I was wrong), etc. Can he CHOOSE to go to a movie or is he told what movie he cannot go to by his church?

I have my own moral compass. I don't need to wear anything demonstrative to let people know my ethics, I live them, I speak out. "I don't go to movies like that." "What makes you think Homosexuals don't love like other children of God? Do you not believe God made everyone perfectly in his own image?

I may learn from listening to friends and others but to be forced to think a specific way due to church dogma? No, I will choose my ethics and principles and be guided by the church I belong to, but not forced into any thought process.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Marriott Hotel Chain and its lower cost hotels receive more money from PORN than x-rated porn rental stores.

Marriott Hotels, owned by the VERY Morman Marriott Family discovered that they were making Mega-BUCKS off of in-room pay-per-view X-RATED VIDEOs. They did a study and found out that they were making more money off of the porn they were selling as an "in room service" than the porn video rental stores were bringing in for their rental fees.

That's what you call Smart. Or is that Smut? Do you think this fits in with the principles of Joseph Smith? Or maybe they tithe this money or could be it's now supporting a presidential campaign.

Who knows? As I stated previously, it seems all is fair in Morman ethics and principles until someone puts on their sacred undergarments and has the ETHICS OF MORMANISM brought to their attention.

Probably Good ole Joe Smith didn't know about X-rated movies, Video and Pay-per-view so he didn't make any rules against it in the book of Morman.

Geesh! Sorry! I shouldn't have been so hard on a religion who lives on "revealed truths."

Say! What did ole Joe say about MRAP purchases, ICBMs, Cluster Bombs, Negotiating with Dictatorships with NUKES, Restoring Civil Rights (oops! sorry, forgot about that bit where blacks got made that way for disobeying God, sorry. . .), and did he think Water-boarding was torture?

Just wondering, the Book of Morman is hard to find in a Library, so, ya know, just thought I'd ask.

Waif

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

If Romney really said that, its reason enough not to vote for him.

War, starvation, slavery, the last 12 Grammy Awards shows... and he can't think of anything worse than polygamy?

How about 4 more years of a Republican presidency? Thats pretty close to the top of my list.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I have been a proud member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for 24 years. I am a mechanical engineer by degree and profession. Unlike the author of this article, my job requires that I perform a COMPLETE, LOGICAL and TECHNICAL analysis of ALL the data. If I don't do this, the equipment I design blows up and hurts people. I have heard every argument in this article so many times that I can recite them in my sleep.

Each point that the author makes is completely refutable from a technical, engineering standpoint. I'll just take one of his points as an example: The author claims that it has been proven that there is no DNA connection between the Native Americans and the Jews and as such, he believes no intelligent person can believe the Book of Mormon to be true. This "proof" and the study that he refers to did not follow the scientific method & it was full technical holes that make it inconclusive. These so-called DNA studies are based on the Book of Mormon's claim that a prophet name Lehi, who was a descendent of Joseph (and thus Jewish in one sense of the word) came to the Americas in 600 BC. The Book of Mormon does indeed say this. What the study neglects to mention is that the Book of Mormon speaks of other groups of people (including the Mulekites) who came to the Americas also. The Book of Mormon makes no mention of the lineage of these other people so there is no way to know what their DNA would have been. The Native American DNA that the study was using could easily have been from these other "non-Jewish" Book of Mormon people. THEREFORE, THE SCIENTIFIC CONCLUSION IS THAT THE STUDY IS INCONCLUSIVE. If I used a study like this to design a gas compressor at my job, the compressor either wouldn't work or it would blow up and kill some poor bystander. This is just one example of the shallow research of ALL anti-Mormon rhetoric that I have encountered in my 22 years of TRULY, COMPLETELY studying the religion.

EVERY TIME I DO REAL, COMPLETE RESEARCH INTO AN ANTI-MORMON CLAIM, THE RESULT IS ALWAYS ONE OF THE FOLLOWING:

1.) THE CLAIM IS BASED ON INCONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE, or
2.) THE CLAIM IS JUST A FLAT OUT LIE INTENDED TO DECIEVE.

To give the author the benefit of the doubt here, he is probably a good person who doesn't have time to get into all the accurate, complete details for each and every one of the anti-Mormon claims. If you don't get into the complete details, the anti-Mormon claims can sound convincing. My example above shows this. My example above also shows that the complete, accurate details cannot be explained in a concise, short 3-sentence paragraph.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

a brilliant article full of things all need to know before voting, that should be brought out in public, with questions answered honestly but, as o'donnell notes, won't be...

as for religion:

Pseudo-Sanctorum

Excusing all wrongs done unto one another via various and sundry supposedly deity-given dicta is the most human of humankind's unique traits. And the most ineradicable, it seems. Wars are waged, lands are usurped, science is advanced, nations and races are eradicated, all under the aegis of this god or that's demands.

Somebody wants to work the nice, fertile farmland of a neighboring tribe? God'll say it's okay to just take it over and wipe out any resistance, 'cause the folks there don't follow his rules 'n regs to the letter.

Someone wants to shut up the voice of truth and reason that's exposing perfidy most foul? Torture all who speak it till they confess to 'heresy' and then burn the miserable miscreants at the stake publicly, so nobody else'll dare. It's okay, 'cause your god said they'll burn in hell anyway, right?

A mighty nation needs oil or gold or uranium with which to finance/support its top dog status? Invade the backward countries who have the stuff and you'll control who gets to use it. It's okay, 'cause all the weird-looking/living folks there stupidly believe in the wrong god, and yours doesn't stand for such uppity-ness, does he?

Want to control all who live in your great land of the free? Just invoke your one-and-only 'approved' god at every opportunity and intrude his supposed wishes on all laws and such, whether or not everyone else believes the same. That's more than okay, 'cause those who stole the land from the ones who were here when they arrived, founded their ill-gotten nation on 'godly' principles, right?

And hey, don't let that little bit about separation of church and state hold you back. All you have to do is call anyone who won't go along with your personal god's dictates 'unpatriotic'...it always works!

Now you know why they put 'In god we trust' on all that money.

Autoerotica

It wasn’t God made man in His image,
but man who fashioned God in his own,
bestowing on Him powers so great...
knowing he’d never assume such a state...
and gave to his proxy a heavenly throne,
dominion o’er all, just His alone.

Every flaw that you’ll find in God’s perfection
is something to which you’ll find man is prone...
like delusions of grandeur, vanity,
conceit bordering on insanity...
insisting that proper respect be shown,
to bow heads, bend knees, and prayers intone.

In any version of mankind’s Maker,
all the way back to those scratched in stone,
the ones resembling man the least...
gods depicted as some sort of beast...
the worst of his own aspects have been sown,
so his evil, his evil God will condone!

Murder, rape, genocide,
incest, war, a purchased bride,
looted cities and stolen lands,
bartered souls, bloodied hands,
denying sons, betraying brothers,
corrupting children, slaying mothers...
all that and worse, is purported to be
sanctioned by this or that deity,
whose face in the mirror, His makers see.

Why is it, do you suppose, that nowhere in this great big, 6 billion+ human-populated world of ours, does any religion today worship a female God???
----------

love and hugs, maia
www.saysmom.com
for 100% free writing help: maia3maia@hotmail.com

"You must BE the change you wish to see in the world." Gandhi

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This is such a distraction. Who cares what religion he is? What are his ideas for this country? That is what should be important.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What's notable about Joseph Smith history is the relative dearth of accusations against him for someone who had 29 wives and lived his life surrounded by people; he constantly let visitors stay in his home. Then there's the 100's of people who said he was the most honest man they had ever met. Yet, what dominates the thinking of Mr. O'Donnell is the conspiracey theories obtained from the worst enemies of the Church; the kind of people who painted their faces black to go kill Joseph because he was anti-slavery and was threatening the livelihood of local preachers by taking their dues paying members away.

What this slanderer leaves out about polygamy AND "sex with young girls" is that there was NO SEX OUTSIDE OF MARRIAGE for Joseph. It was not extremely uncommon for a 14 year old girl to marry an older man at the time. Not even his worst enemy's accused him of it at the time - because it was common. He was committed to these woman for life; not a casual relationship for sex as our contemporaries often imagine.

If you want know the truth about the historical point-by-point accusations against Mormons, go to this church-owned website
at http://farms.byu.edu/ or this private member website at http://www.fairlds.org/

For the ONLY currently accepted doctrine of the Church, go to http://lds.org or
http://mormon.org

For more about my own views on the poligamy that is so hard to comprehend in our contemporary culture, go to http://poligamytruth.blogspot.com/

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Similar arguments could be used to attack any religion. Have you seen what the Atheists are saying these days about Evangelicals, Jews and Muslims?

Why Lawrence has chosen to direct his venom on the good LDS people is beyond me. Most people in this country are sick about the economy. Have you seen the reports this week. There are many of us who worry about finances. The bottom line is Romney is a genius wizard wen it comes to business and economics. We need him in the Oval Office, now.

Furthermore, I just can't imagine Huckabee or Obama sitting across a table from Ahmadinejad or Hugo Chavez.

Forget Mormonism. As far as Americans should be concerned it a BONUS for Mitt. Take it from a happy, fulfilled, life long Mormon. It is a BONUS for this country. Forget the peripheral 1800's trivia that bog down the reality that Romney's LDS values are exactly waht this country could use.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Please see this website on race issues: http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences

Think of the fact that this bigotry accusation against the Church is coming because of Huckabee, a Southern Baptist Convention preacher - the most bigoted religion of all. The SBC was created expressly for the purpose of segregating from the other Baptists who were anti-slavery (see wikipedia). The SBC only appologized for its bigotry in 1995. The bigotry of the SBC was pure, unlike the LDS.

Joseph Smith actually baptized and ordained blacks to the priesthood and tought that we are all equal in the sight of God. He forced people to free slaves before they could be baptized. It was Brigham Young, who later in 1852 forbade blacks from the priesthood, BUT NOT FROM MEMBERSHIP, unlike any other white religion of its time! Even he was very progressive toward blacks for his time. Brigham allowed slavery, a maintream position for the time, for only 10 years in the state.

Even the most progressive white church didn't start accepting blacks as members until the 60's. Even prophets in the Bible were not immune to thinking the earth was flat. The Mormon doctrine had to have a unanimous vote from 15 prophets of the Church (unlike other more rapidly shifting churches), which took until 1978 to get, and remember, this was to allow ordinations to priesthood LEADERSHIP (membership was ALWAYS allowed ). There were not many white churches allowing black ministers at the time still.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I wonder if the good people of the Evangelical persuasion will give a rat's a** about mythological references to Jesus' brother or something Brigham Young said in "eighteen forty what the crap" when their houses are being foreclosed and their kids have to attend Ju. Co. because daddy's account doesn't have enough dough to get them into the other schools, all because an economically challenged pres. is voted in based on his underwear selection. Are you freaking kidding me?

Let's talk about recession, Lawrence. Let's look at the numbers. Can we please get Romney into the Oval Office...NOW.

Seriously, Romney has a ridiculous record of fixing things, especially in the business and economics dept. Get off of your high horse and start talking with Iowans who are sick about job layoffs and foreclosure.

Get real, mythology doesn't pay the bills.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I found many falacious claims in this article, one inpaticular is a book of mormon passage about the changing of the color of skin. if the author would have done some research or read the context of the passage he would have found it to be talking about indiginous north american people to whom the book is about and had has nothing to do with african americans or especially not the revered Dr. Martin Luther King to whom he degrades the name of.
Also it apears to be a witch hunt for things wrong with a faith. There are historical problems, social problems, and scientific problems with all faiths, denominations, and creeds. and science is not always perfect. i hear often from christians about how mormons claim there were horses in the book of mormon. these people say science says there werent horses in north america until europeans. yet the state fossil of idaho is a horse species that lived there before.
mitt means well. i dont need a run down of every candidates religious beliefs, i just need to know that they are God fearing people. it would be nice to hear from Mr. B. Hussein Obama how religion will bring this country together or any other canidates for that matter

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

'cause I'm not voting for his punk ass anyway.

plur

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Think about what the ACLU would say about a similar comment about Judiasm. Yes Mormons are peculiar, however, by definition, religion is. Considering faith is a belief in something that cannot be proven, it is easy, and terribly fun to take pot shots at any religion. The fact of the matter is that is the same bigotted mentality which has been the cause for countless wars throughout history. The ACLU is not just for Jews, it is there to condemn defamation everywhere, and a lot of it is happening on this Comment Blog.

Yes, Mormon priests wear white underwear, Catholic priests wear collars (show me in the Bible wear it says to do that?), some Imams grow beards, some Jews wear skull caps, and so on.

What's important is will Mitt take orders from Salt Lake City. The answer is, no. Harry Reid doesn't. No Mormon Senator or Cabinet Member ever has. The LDS Church has a strict position of political neutrality (if only every religion took this position!) The reason most Mormons are Republicans is a matter of geography, not religion (Utah being in the middle of Red America.)

With that aside, if you don't like Mormons, don't let the kids with ties on in your house. You don't have to produce Saturday Morning Cartoons which are slanderous to the level of German cartoons of the 1930s. There is no reason to tear down another's faith. let's focus on the issues. Let's not defame any religion.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Christianity, let us not forget, pretty much began when a sly emperor, searching for a single god for his people to worship, created a god, called Hesu Krishna, later to become Jesus Christ, out of a celtic god (Hesu) and an Eastern god (Krishna), then had a council develop the "gospels" and all the New Testament from existing treatises about 100's of god, then destroyed all treatises that did not support his newly invented god. Christianity is an invention, its gods, triune or whatever, pure fictions. So, Mormonism is also a pure invention of a con man. As is Judaism, an invention of adowntroden people. No one who believes this nonsense should be given serious consideration for political office--except in America, the land of a thousand sects and a thousand religious scams.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

O'Donnell could have done a good job on this issue. He could have cited quotes. He could have opened a primary source. He might have actually found out what the Mormon beliefs are on so many of the, "facts" he has gotten from the anti-Mormon machine, but he didn't.
If he had gotten off his duff, we might have had hard facts to look at, but he didn't.
And it's too bad, because an unbiased discussion could have been interesting, rather than just annoying.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I can't believe all of the bullshit I am reading on this blog.

SCARY THOUGHT FOR THE DAY #26:
Huckabee and Guiliani have nothing for the economy compared with Romney's business and economic acumen. Will you still be complaining about Romney's faith when they lay you off and foreclose your home? Get real, and don't get me started about Huckabee as a foreign policy disaster. Huckabee and Ahmadinejad sitting across at a table???? That's classic, what a nightmare.

Take all of the t-shirts mocking Bush you see at the mall and insert Huckabee's face. That's what college kids may be wearing until 2012. Bush haters are going to LOVE Huckabee, what a goober...there's a good image for the Republican stigma. Are you kidding me??

Why don't we all vote for an inferior candidate merely because he's not LDS. Evangelicals are going to ruin this nation...Piss off!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Our LDS friends keep assuring us with umbrage that this article is untrue. So let's give them some point-by-point facts about their church and race, so they can more easily explain why these quotes by their own church leaders aren't genuine expressions of the beliefs of their own church leaders.

Ready?

"It does not matter if they are one-sixth Negro or one-one hundred and sixth, the curse of no Priesthood is still the same” (Wilford Woodruff, in Lund, 1967, The Church and the Negro 55--this is an OFFICIAL LDS publication. Keep that in mind as you see it cited again).

"Negroes, we see, were not denied the privilege of receiving the second state [mortality] but were permitted to come to the earth life with some restrictions placed upon them. That the Negro race, for instance, had been placed under restrictions because of their attitude in the world of spirits, few will doubt...The Negro is thus denied the Priesthood because of his own behavior in the pre-existence” (LDS President McKay, quoted by Joseph Fielding Smith, The Way to Perfection; p43-44, cited in Lund,1967, The Church and the Negro, 43).

"The evidence seems to be clear that Cain's descendants have a skin of black and are prevented from holding the Priesthood because of their own pre-existent behavior...Negroes are not being restricted for Cain's sins but for their own acts in the pre-existence” (Joseph Fielding Smith, quoted in Lund, 44).

Apostle Orson Hyde taught that blacks "were not considered bad enough to be cast down into hell and never have bodies...[But they were not] considered worthy of an honorable [white] body on this earth as were those who had fought for God...[These spirits, therefore,] were required...to take bodies in the accursed lineage of Canaan; hence the Negro or African race” (Bringhurst, Newell G. Saints, Slaves, and Blacks. Greenwood press. 1981. page 87). This same Orson Hyde published a now-infamous church tract which implied a similar curse of dark skins upon all dissident Mormons. Such doubting individuals should take a lesson from "the accursed lineage of Canaan...the Negro or African race” (Bringhurst, 94).

Apostle George A. Smith taught that blacks, “in a consequence of their corruptions, their murders, their wickedness, or the wickedness of their fathers, had the priesthood taken from them, and the curse that was upon them was decreed should descend upon their posterity after them, it was decreed that they should not bear rule” (Deseret News, 10 October 1855). Other church editorials referred coarsely to the “Negro’s’ deformity,” and Apostles Hyde and Pratt suggested that the “spirits” of blacks were obligated “to take bodies or tabernacles cursed with bondage and blackness” (Bringhurst, 125).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

come on.

people, do some homework.

what's creepier than a virtual Vatican of weird old dudes who throw their weight around Utah's business & political arena?

... there's PLENTY to root out if you put your noses to the Utah **free** press.

Lots to tell... & lots of *social intimidation*...

because if Xian churches know anything, its how to wind up women into hysterical frenzies based on social exclusion... enough to drive any man into an intimidating hulk of aggression.

There was a REASON that Hoover was so hot to stuff Mormons into the FBI & it wasn't the sexy knickers or secret smiles

Mormons are *compliant*, their social structure builds that into their community.

~~

BlueBerry Pick'n
can be found @
ThisCanadian
~~~
"We, two, form a Multitude" ~ Ovid.
~~~
"Silent Freedom is Freedom Silenced"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Just listening to Romney and Huckabee make me feel like I'm in OZ or Catch 22. The world now knows the truth about them, yet, in their delusional states, they continue to pretend they are something they are not. It's the same with George Bush... he knows we know the truth, and that he lies every time he opens his mouth, yet he just doesn't seem to care that we know...so he keeps on lying... like a madman.

I'm sick of all religious radicals, especially Christo-Fascists like Bush, or anyone else who will commit atrocities like the MASS MURDER FOR PROFIT OF ONE MILLION IRAQIs, or torture, or loot out nation and Iraq ... in the name of God (or any diety for that matter). it's a complete and utter blasphemy in any religion, and it's an obscenity for any religious person to turn their eyes, ears and hearts away from the truth.

I never believed in Satan, the Anti-Christ, or Armageddon until these psychopaths got a foothold in the White House. Now I'm beginning to believe that Satan or the Anti-Christ resides there and are attempting to create and force Armageddon so they can fulfill their fantasy of being the chosen ones who will ascend into heaven (or be given 40 virgins), leaving the rest of us behind to burn. Unfortunately, like Jim Jones, millions upon millions in this world have not drunk the COOLAIDE!

AMERICANS AND CONGRESS MUST GET A GRIP...SHAKE OFF THE TRANCE.... AND IMPEACH AND IMPRISON THESE PSYCHOPATHS...BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE!

And keep your 'propaganda radar' in working order!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I have rarely heard so much spinning around the truth in such a foul manner. This guy truly does not like Mormons.

I want to tell you why you should go to lds.org for the source about what Mormons believe and how it influences them and thus our Mormon leaders. I also want to tell you how I know this and how you can know it. Mormonism is the 4th largest religious body in the U.S. at 6 Million. It is uniform in doctrine to a degree that non-Mormons cannot imagine because they have never seen anything like it. Besides what is on lds.org, there is nothing else taught in the Church, period. Mormons go to church more consistently than any other major church. Sixty percent (60%) of all Mormons go every Sunday for 3hrs. The doctrine is so solid and unchanging that every active Mormon has studied every doctrine of the Church many times. The index of the scriptures and topical guide was created in 1978 and has remained the standard ever since. No other Church has such a thing. Now there is the Guide to the Scriptures which lays out the map to the doctrine even more comprehensively and showing support for each topic from the Bible.

There is a degree of uniformity unknown to the Christian world at large. Every one of the 24,000 congregations worldwide teaches from the same manual on the same Sunday in 170 countries and they are all found on lds.org. Members are invited to accept or reject the whole thing. About 40% of the membership are temple-going. Among these members, there are no differences in doctrine. I can’t tell you how I constantly hear in sunday school the answer to a question when someone else answers the question exactly as I would have almost word for word.

The most important prophet is the most recent one. The only approved doctrine is the officially approved doctrine approved by the First Presidency of the Church. These are all of the materials on lds.org. There is nothing else. I promise you, this 40-60% that makes up the core of the Church, its leadership, and the people who give its name a good reputation buy the whole thing, not in parts, as we are taught.

Non-members are free to accept it or reject it. Non-members are asked to only join if they have received confirmation through prayer from God (revelation) that Joseph Smith was a true prophet and that the Book of Mormon is true. If they do not receive such an answer, then they are not asked to join. We members are asked not to pick and choose which of the revelations from modern-day prophets we are going to live by. It is either all true or all false, just like the Savior himself. There is no in-between. Either Jesus is the Christ or he is not. Either it is true or it is not. The claims of the Church are extensive and unmatched by any other Church. Either heaven has opened up and poured out the truth or it hasn’t.

The point you should take away is that what you read on lds.org ONLY is what Mormons are tought, believe, and live by. Of course, add to this the fact that the Church does not do politics. As an active member, I have not heard a single endorsement for Romney or any mention of politics. The Church sets out the doctrine, which is not up for discussion, but then allows the people to decide for themselves and is never intrusive into people's lives.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]