Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Romney Won't Spill the Beans on His Mormon Faith

By Lawrence O'Donnell, AlterNet. Posted December 17, 2007.


The more Mitt Romney evades speaking about his Mormon beliefs the more you want to ask him questions about it.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Lawrence O'Donnell

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

After the Today Show used video clips of me talking (ranting, to some) about the racist history of the Church of Latter Day Saints as a lead-in to Matt Lauer's interview of Mitt Romney, I feel compelled to clarify the obvious: religious affiliation is not a good reason to vote for or against a candidate for president. I mean any religious affiliation, including Scientology (if that's a religion). I know at least one Scientologist who would be a better president than many of the current candidates. I might know more, but they tend to be a bit secretive about being Scientologists, so ...

I don't hate Mormons. Some of my best friends are Mormons. Well, okay, one of my best friends is Mormon. Or used to be. He's not sure anymore. He's glad he grew up Mormon, likes the values he learned, the respect for family, etc. He's just not sure about some of the crazy beliefs of the religion. He would like to distance himself from some of that stuff and still be a Mormon -- the way Rudy Giuliani can be pro-abortion and very fond of divorce and sequential marriage and still be, or at least call himself, a Catholic. But Mormonism isn't as flexible as Catholicism. It's a hook, line and sinker deal. You buy it all -- every word of the Book of Mormon and its supplement, the Book of Abraham -- or you're not a Mormon. My friend is a surgeon. He says the Mormon doctors he knows are like him. They have doubts about some things in the books and there are some things in the books that they simply can no longer believe. He can't imagine any Mormon who graduates from medical school or Harvard Business School like Mitt Romney thinking any other way. But if Romney were to admit to such doubts and reservations, the Church of Latter Day Saints would be forced to say he is no longer a Mormon. And a candidate for president without a religion ... well, that could only happen on The West Wing.

When I created the West Wing's Republican candidate for president played brilliantly by Alan Alda, I wanted for dramatic purposes to give him the worst problem I could think of. Sex with the interns being a bit dated, I chose to make him a closet atheist. When the press started to close in on him with questions about when he last went to church, he refused to answer. He said he would answer any question about government, "but if you have questions about religion, please, go to church." Mitt Romney has chosen a different course. He said: "Some question whether there are any questions regarding an aspiring candidate's religion that are appropriate. I believe there are. And I will answer them today." And then he left the podium without taking any questions.

The media thought this was a perfectly sensible approach. TV pundits of all stripes fell all over themselves to praise the speech. They gushed at how admirable it was for Romney to stand up for what he called "the faith of my fathers." The cable news networks seemed ready to cut straight to Romney inauguration coverage. No one thought to ask what is or was the faith of his fathers?

Romney felt politically forced to give the speech specifically because evangelical Christians seem to know a little too much about the faith of his fathers. Many evangelicals believe and have said publicly that Mormonism -- contrary to Romney's assertions -- is not a Christian religion but an abomination of Christianity. Here's a sampling of why: Mormons believe that the Garden of Eden was in Missouri; that Jews were the first people in America; that Indians descended from Jews and are a lost tribe of Israel; that Jesus came to America; that after the next coming of Christ (which will be the second or third, depending on how you count his trip to America), the world will be ruled for a thousand years from Jerusalem and Missouri; and to answer Mike Huckabee's now famous question, yes, they believe "Jesus and Lucifer were brothers, in the sense of both being spiritually begotten by the Father."

When Matt Lauer asked Romney the Huckabee question about Jesus and the devil being brothers, Romney refused to answer and handed the question off to the Church of Latter Day Saints. The Church issued a deceptively worded statement that most reporters incorrectly read as a denial of the brotherhood of Jesus and Satan. In fact, the Church could not and did not deny it. The Church did correctly point out that attackers (meaning critics) of Mormonism often use the brother bit. Critics also use the Church's 70 year delight in polygamy and sex with very young girls, which also happens to be true. Critics of Mormonism have plenty to work with without inventing anything.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: mitt romney, mormonism

Lawrence O'Donnell is executive producer of the "The West Wing," a frequent panelist on the "The McLaughlin Group" and

former Chief of Staff for the U.S. Senate Committee on Finance.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Romney Can't Have His Cake and Eat It Too
Posted by: AlexLawyer on Dec 17, 2007 1:02 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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 Crap
Posted by: bboston33 on Dec 17, 2007 2:38 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]

» RE: Why do you believe this is true? Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: Why do you believe this is true? Posted by: theshadowknows
» NICE SELECTIVE AMNESIA... Posted by: HistArch
» RE: This Article is Crap Posted by: Cicely
Mormons have nothing to hide
Posted by: chelsea22 on Dec 17, 2007 3:24 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]

» RE: Mormons have nothing to hide Posted by: retiredbiker
» RE: Mormons have nothing to hide Posted by: Mormon_Man
» The Mormon Church Hides Everything Posted by: Tim Behrend
Liberty does NOT require Religion
Posted by: UnEasyOne on Dec 17, 2007 4:18 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]

retiredbiker
Posted by: retiredbiker on Dec 17, 2007 4:46 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]

» RE: retiredbiker Posted by: jswift
In the name of His Noodley Appendage I respectfully ask..
Posted by: reval on Dec 17, 2007 5:13 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]

Romney, the Curse of Cain, and Mormon eschatology
Posted by: Tim Behrend on Dec 17, 2007 5:20 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]

Romney, the Curse of Cain, and Mormon eschatology [cont'd]
Posted by: Tim Behrend on Dec 17, 2007 5:21 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]

» Twisted truths Posted by: Glowman
» Truthful twists Posted by: Tim Behrend
» RE: Truthful twists Posted by: YaBabyYa
» RE: Truthful twists Posted by: YaBabyYa
» RE: Truthful twists Posted by: YaBabyYa
Mormon/schmormon...
Posted by: jefhadist on Dec 17, 2007 5:26 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]

» Sacred underwear Posted by: Tim Behrend
More anti-Mormon rhetoric
Posted by: floppydog on Dec 17, 2007 5:29 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]

» RE: More anti-Mormon rhetoric Posted by: Tim Behrend
» RE: More anti-Mormon rhetoric Posted by: thinkingformyself
» Meaning of "anti-Mormon" Posted by: Tim Behrend
Religiosity Should Disqualify for Higher Office
Posted by: Nidieux on Dec 17, 2007 5:33 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]

What Would Gordon B. Hinckley Do?
Posted by: jmmartin on Dec 17, 2007 6:08 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]

» RE: What Would Gordon B. Hinckley Do? Posted by: farmer's daughter
» Is Hinkley family? Posted by: Tim Behrend
Yes, but... don't Catholics worship statues?
Posted by: defrag on Dec 17, 2007 6:24 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]

fun d' mental!
Posted by: particle61 on Dec 17, 2007 6:36 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]

Eleanor Clift was correct
Posted by: LeeAnnG on Dec 17, 2007 7:07 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]

» RE: Not disprovable Posted by: oregoncharles
» Are you freaking kidding me??? Posted by: theswedes
Illogical
Posted by: number6 on Dec 17, 2007 7:36 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]

» '...sequitor (sic)!' Posted by: baatin.ruler
» RE: Illogical Posted by: tap17x
Roger
Posted by: rogeralexander on Dec 17, 2007 7:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]

One of the many lies in the story.
Posted by: dkajkrw on Dec 17, 2007 8:05 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]

» Doesn't sound like a lie... Posted by: Tim Behrend
Consult the source
Posted by: jswift on Dec 17, 2007 8:08 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]

Inquiring Minds Want to Know
Posted by: Badger1492 on Dec 17, 2007 8:18 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]

» RE: Why do you care? Posted by: flyfish
» RE: Why do you care? Posted by: atheistcable
» RE: Why do you care? Posted by: flyfish
» RE: Why do you care? Posted by: Tim Behrend
» RE: Why do you care? Posted by: Badger1492
Can I get an Amen!
Posted by: Ski on Dec 17, 2007 8:43 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]

Why Should He?
Posted by: wmjaz on Dec 17, 2007 8:52 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]

» because HE made this an issue. Posted by: baatin.ruler
"It's all lies!" - the last resort of the desperate
Posted by: thinkingformyself on Dec 17, 2007 10:15 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]

What is a "true religion"
Posted by: bigbleen on Dec 17, 2007 10:33 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]

Misunderstanding
Posted by: tdog on Dec 17, 2007 10:43 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]

» RE: Misunderstanding Posted by: tap17x
» RE: Misunderstanding Posted by: tdog
» RE: Misunderstanding Posted by: y_hat
» RE: Misunderstanding Posted by: tdog
» RE: Misunderstanding Posted by: YaBabyYa
» Are you freaking kidding me??? Posted by: theswedes
Let's say he wasn't a prophet...
Posted by: bigbleen on Dec 17, 2007 11:00 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]

» RE: Let's say he wasn't a prophet... Posted by: thinkingformyself
» Jesus wasn't white Posted by: gary_7vn
Oh My God!
Posted by: DanoM on Dec 17, 2007 11:00 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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.)

[