| Author |
Topic:
Mormonism
|
Espaldapalabras
Registered:
Aug '05
|
Date Posted:
10/26/07 9:14pm
Subject:
RE: Mormonism
|
I am working for a non-partisan campaign for a mayoral candidate of Salt Lake City. The LDS church would probably very much like to see the active LDS church member I am working for get elected. The current mayor has used his office to carry out his personal vendetta against the church and has done much create divisions between those who are LDS and those who aren't. The LDS church is also the largest developer in downtown, with a new plan to revitalize it by spending over 2 billion dollars on a new shopping area. For this development to succeed they need approval to build a skybridge over main street. The same street that a block north the church bought to turn into a great park in front of the temple, which the current mayor fought for "free speech" rights because while the LDS church owned it, there was an easement that meant that people would have to be able to walk through it 24 hours a day. The church eventually spent twice the amount to make sure people couldn't protest directly in front of the temple, but my whole point is that even though the LDS church would love to have someone who doesn't try to antagonize them at every turn, they do absolutely nothing for our campaign.
Many Mormons don't even want lawn signs because they think that because they are in charge of the little children in the primary program people will think that it is offical church policy that they vote for our candidate. The only prohibition is that Stake Presidents can't have them. In contrast, a Baptist church has invited him to go the Sunday before the election and introduce himself and ask them for their vote. I was in the office when they got this call, and he told us he wished he could do that in Sacrament meeting.
-----signature-----
A vote is like a rifle: its usefulness depends upon the character of the user.
Theodore Roosevelt
We should be eternally vigilant against attempts to check the expression of opinions that we loathe.
Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
yuna_kenobi
Registered:
Aug '06
|
Date Posted:
10/28/07 12:09pm
Subject:
RE: Mormonism
|
|
I hope your canidate wins, he sounds better that the current mayor
-----signature-----
Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori.
Vi veri veniversum vivus vici.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Darth-Horax
Registered:
Aug '01
|
Date Posted:
11/8/07 11:19am
Subject:
RE: Mormonism
|
Jedi_Keiran_Halcyon posted:
*hands Mr44 a Halls cough drop*
My point is that, thanks to the recent example of Bush, it shouldn't be news to anyone that a significant number of voters care about a candidate's religion or religious views. And so it could very well become a big issue whether or not Romney would tithe his earnings as President (wrong though that may be). This tithe, of course, being a part of Romney's responsibility to Mormonism.
Ta-da!
Why would it be 'wrong' for Romney to tithe his SALARY (1/10 of it, anyway) to the church? His salary belongs to him and he can do whatever he wants with it. How would it be any different if Kennedy gave some of his salary to the Catholics?
-----signature-----
CREATOR and ORIGINATOR of the Jedi Draft Series
Founding High Councilman: SWC Jedi Trials Council
Master of Vaapad (Form VII), Form I, and Form III
Proud founding member of the Fecal Force
*Sir Trailer Link*-Sarcasm Knights of the YJCC
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Jedi_Keiran_Halcyon
Registered:
Dec '00
|
Date Posted:
11/9/07 9:43pm
Subject:
RE: Mormonism
|
|
I meant it would be wrong for Romney's tithing or not tithing to become a major issue in the election.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Obi-Zahn Kenobi
Registered:
Aug '99
|
Date Posted:
11/9/07 11:59pm
Subject:
RE: Mormonism
|
Jedi_Keiran_Halcyon posted:
I meant it would be wrong for Romney's tithing or not tithing to become a major issue in the election.
I disagree. Now, if Romney were not tithing, I would consider that an issue. It would make him look like a hypocrite (more so than already).
-----signature-----
Even God has a Mommy.
Are we all to you lost causes?
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Lord_NoONE
Registered:
Dec '01
|
Date Posted:
11/12/07 9:38am
Subject:
RE: Mormonism
- Date Edited:
11/12/07 9:39am (1 edits total)
Edited By:
Lord_NoONE
|
Bigger question: What does everyone here think about the recently announced change to the Book of Mormon?
For those interested, here's a LINK
Personally, I think it's a non-issue. The message of the Book of Mormon has not changed; all that has changed is the presentation.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Lane_Winree
Registered:
Mar '06
|
Date Posted:
11/12/07 10:24am
Subject:
RE: Mormonism
|
|
Since it is a change in the introduction message, and not the actual doctrine, I'd have to agree that it is a non-issue. Of course, the Salt Lake Tribune is going to do everything in their power to make it an issue.
-----signature-----
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
ShaneP
Registered:
Mar '01
|
Date Posted:
11/12/07 1:21pm
Subject:
RE: Mormonism
- Date Edited:
11/12/07 1:23pm (1 edits total)
Edited By:
ShaneP
|
It's an issue because they now say the Lamanites make up part of the origins of the American-Indian, not the whole? This is something Mormon research and scholarship has recognized for years now. Frankly, the SL Tribune is behind the ball.
Who cares what the Tribune thinks. More and more people are leaving newspapers behind because of agenda-driven articles.
-----signature-----
It was as if a million middle-aged virgins just farted with rage and were suddenly silenced.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Kimball_Kinnison
Registered:
Oct '01
|
Date Posted:
11/12/07 1:42pm
Subject:
RE: Mormonism
|
ShaneP posted:
It's an issue because they now say the Lamanites make up part of the origins of the American-Indian, not the whole?
Actually, the Church has never claimed that the Lamanites make up the whole of the origins for the American-Indians. For example, the previous wording was that they were the "principle" ancestors (which implies the main ancestors, with others also among the ancestors of that group).
Kimball Kinnison
-----signature-----
You deserve the wrath of Kimball...- OWM
Why, Kimball... I didn't know you had it in you.- KW
I think that Kimball just made a joke, and a funny joke at that.- Raven
Stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Darth-Horax
Registered:
Aug '01
|
Date Posted:
11/13/07 8:27am
Subject:
RE: Mormonism
|
I agree that it's a non-issue.
Like KK said, the word "principle" is not the same as "all" or "only." It's not like they are taking out the entire book of 2 Nephi.
-----signature-----
CREATOR and ORIGINATOR of the Jedi Draft Series
Founding High Councilman: SWC Jedi Trials Council
Master of Vaapad (Form VII), Form I, and Form III
Proud founding member of the Fecal Force
*Sir Trailer Link*-Sarcasm Knights of the YJCC
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
ShaneP
Registered:
Mar '01
|
Date Posted:
11/13/07 10:50am
Subject:
RE: Mormonism
|
KK
Actually, the Church has never claimed that the Lamanites make up the whole of the origins for the American-Indians. For example, the previous wording was that they were the "principle" ancestors (which implies the main ancestors, with others also among the ancestors of that group).
Then how is this new wording any different? Why the hubbub?
-----signature-----
It was as if a million middle-aged virgins just farted with rage and were suddenly silenced.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Lane_Winree
Registered:
Mar '06
|
Date Posted:
11/13/07 11:09am
Subject:
RE: Mormonism
|
ShaneP posted:
Then how is this new wording any different? Why the hubbub?
It really shouldn't cause a fuss, but the SLT likes to create a fuss when it comes to the LDS church. It's another one of those completely inconsequential things that certain people will latch on to in order to "prove" that the "Mormons r a cult!!!!111oneoneone"
-----signature-----
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Lord_NoONE
Registered:
Dec '01
|
Date Posted:
11/13/07 11:15am
Subject:
RE: Mormonism
|
You can't dismiss the change to the introduction as "not being doctrine." It has been the approved introduction of a canonized book of scripture. It was drafted by an apostle and approved by the First Presidency. The book, as a whole, was adopted by the law of common consent. The introduction is as much a doctrinal statement as anything written in the actual book itself.
That being said, I think the change is inconsequential and I find it interesting that the church elected to alter the wording.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Kimball_Kinnison
Registered:
Oct '01
|
Date Posted:
11/13/07 4:22pm
Subject:
RE: Mormonism
|
Lord_NoONE posted:
You can't dismiss the change to the introduction as "not being doctrine." It has been the approved introduction of a canonized book of scripture. It was drafted by an apostle and approved by the First Presidency. The book, as a whole, was adopted by the law of common consent. The introduction is as much a doctrinal statement as anything written in the actual book itself.
Yes, it was written by an apostle, but that doesn't mean that it cannot be edited or revised at the direction of the First Presidency. Remember, that same apostle (Bruce R. McConkie) wrote the book Mormon Doctrine, and the First Presidency had him recall the first edition of that book to make corrections in it. He also wrote the Bible Dictionary, as well as the various chapter headings, but that doesn't bar the First Presidency from having them revised. After all, the previous chapter headings were also written by an apostle, and yet there was no problem having them changed.
Moreover, this is a change in the Doubleday trade printing of the Book of Mormon, not the edition published by the Church. I haven't seen any sources that say one way or the other whether they are changing the Church-published edition.
Kimball Kinnison
-----signature-----
You deserve the wrath of Kimball...- OWM
Why, Kimball... I didn't know you had it in you.- KW
I think that Kimball just made a joke, and a funny joke at that.- Raven
Stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Espaldapalabras
Registered:
Aug '05
|
Date Posted:
11/13/07 4:48pm
Subject:
RE: Mormonism
|
|
According to the Trib, the change will be made in future Church-Published editions. For members, this isn't a big deal.
-----signature-----
A vote is like a rifle: its usefulness depends upon the character of the user.
Theodore Roosevelt
We should be eternally vigilant against attempts to check the expression of opinions that we loathe.
Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
