The Lower Depths of Higher Ed
Universities that promote queer studies are complicit in driving unstable personalities into the moral abysses from which some of them can never emerge. →
New on the Daily Mail.
Listen to Dr Fleming and Paul Youngblood discuss presidential candidates and the Iranian plot from October 14th here:
I listened to this for a while but this is one chore I can't spend my time on, even as much as I enjoy Dr Fleming and his clear and honest vision.
I just wanted to point out that, the last I heard, even the liberal National Council of Churches does NOT consider Mormonism (LDS) to be a Christian denomination. This may have changed in the last 20 or 30 years and, if so, I would like to be corrected, but even if they are now included, that does not speak to Mormonism truly being Christian; rather it would just once again reiterate the heresy that besets the NCC.
I grew up in Michigan in the 1960s when George Romney was governor. He was a Rockefeller Republican, as it was called in those days. George more than doubled the state budget in just 6 years, multiplying state welfare and other programs. He imposed the first state income tax. He wrecked a good deal of Detroit's housing stock with urban renewal. Then he became Nixon's Dud from HUD, and wrecked much of the nation's housing stock.
But after politics, he rose to near the top of the Mormon hierarchy.
Mitt's similar. He also was a Mormon missionary for 2 years in Catholic France. That sticks with you. He also got his wife to convert from nominal Episcopalianism. So I think Mitt is serious about his religion.
Politically, Mitt's a shrewder and more malleable version of his father. His appeal is that he's smart and adaptable, a kind of Mormon Bill Clinton. He'll keep Obamacare, but tame it into a national version of his own Romneycare from Massachusetts. He'll keep the Empire, but trim it and make it less quixotic. He'll regularize and rationalize the anti-business attacks of the Bush-Obama years. He'll make taxes more sensible. He'll make monetary policy more rational. To use Harding's term, he'll bring about a return to Normalcy, in this case c. 1999.
I'm completely against him and support Ron Paul. But I can see the persona Romney is pitching and why he might get the nomination.
John, you may be right, but I still have trouble believing that intelligent and educated Mormons swallow this nonsense. I much prefer to think they are hypocrites and liars. It helps me to sleep.
I used to know a Mormon scholar and lawyer who is now one of the "12 Apostles." He always claimed to believe the whole thing. I suppose when one makes a good living out of a lie, it is easier to accept it. We humans are such compounds of knavery and idiocy, it is not always possible to distinguish our motives.
By the way, have you done any analysis of Cain's 9-9-9 plan?
Since comments are no longer being accepted on the Mail web site, I couldn't help but highlight this particular gem:
How Christian of you to decide that I am not Christian. I am a proud Latter Day Saint (Mormon) and I am Christian. I believe that Christ was my Saviour.
There is something about the psychology of people who have been raised not only in lies but in egregious lies. They cannot understand a clear argument when it is presented before them.
Many Mormons may on the surface look like decent people, but there is something fundamentally nihilistic about any person who denies basic truths about things such as meanings of words. In this case, the definition of "Christian" in ALL languages, whatever early uncertainties and controversies may have existed, has been settled for many many centuries and it is one who has received the saving grace of the Sacrament of Baptism. To openly deny the divinity of Christ would be to deny the very possibility of His soteriological mission, and this level of disbelief would certainly destroy the intention to properly receive the Sacrament.
And I can't believe that such utter rubbish has been allowed to pushied in a respected news resource.
Quite obviously the reader has never looked at the rubbish pushed in the likes of the New York Times.
I anticipated the "how unChristian" you are to define Christianity. But Mormons apparently cannot read. I have no animus against Mormons being Mormons. It is only when they claim to be something they are not that they must be rebutted. Romney, by the way, also lies about what his cult teaches.
You have to be fast with a major newspaper website. For them, news goes stale in about 36 hours.
If the GOP wants a candidate that represents the GOP, I think Mr. Romney is their man. He supports the Neo-conservative line on foreign policy -- war in the Islamic deserts yesterday, today and forever!! He supports the Wall Street line for American economic policy--- entitlements for the sick, lame and lazy? NO!, Bail outs for a working plutocracy? Yes !! -- And he stands for reactionary decency of the Ralph Reed variety -- Married once, inherited a fortune, doesn't think immorality is very nice but believes public servants should not allow it to get get in the way of their politics. The only hitch in his gitty-up for the nomination is that Mormons are today what the old WASP were a hundred years ago.
MRANDREW, thank you for posting that link.
If you think dealing with internet Mormons is tough, try it with Mormon family members. My grandmother became irate when I told her no, in fact she has never been baptized (she had an LDS 'baptism') and could not be called a Christian, no matter what her former church tells her. Telling her the cold, honest truth was the most charitable thing I could do.
"I still have trouble believing that intelligent and educated Mormons swallow this nonsense. I much prefer to think they are hypocrites and liars."
I think another factor, as Mr. Maxwell intimates, is family/community pressure. No one wants to be the first to say the emperor has no clothes and suffer the risk of community ostracism. Although one would think that if anyone could break with this, it would be a man who has spent his entire life outside Utah except for two years at BYU (only two because he transferred from Stanford) and three years running the Olympics.
Ted Chan,you are welcome. You can find the previous week here: