No, no, Mitt Romney’s not doing it personally. As far as I know, he’s never visited Trapped, and probably never will. But because of his candidacy, his recent “Christian” speech, and of course, his religion, angry Mormons are searching and finding Trapped by the Mormons. They are really UP IN ARMS about the whole Joseph Smith Nativity post from last year.
For example, essay Says:
“Joseph Smith Nativity”??? — Talk about grasping at straws, no where in the picture above is there anything that says “nativity”. What’s next, the Abraham Lincoln Nativity? The Mart Twain Nativity? And it’s nice to again see someone outside the LDS faith tell me what I believe.
Who the hell is Mart Twain? Mark’s evil twin?
Essay, essay, talk about grasping at straws…. I know, it’s so hard to explain Smith Worship, especially at Christmastime, when all the other “Christians” are worshiping Jesus….
But let’s cover this one by one.
1. It doesn’t have to SAY nativity to be a nativity. Christmastime is traditionally a time where we celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ, although my understanding is that he was not actually born at this time. Nonetheless, this is when the Christian world celebrates it. So, when the Zoobies put up a “birth scene” for Joseph Smith, well, the implications were obvious. At Christmastime, one can find re-creations of the Jesus birth scene all across the world. Only the Mormons chose to do one for Joseph Smith, as well. It is no different.
It IS a nativity scene. Nativity does not mean a manger, or straw, speaking of grasping at it….
Nativity means birth with reference to place or attendant circumstances. Thus, Joseph Smith Nativity!
2. Let’s just face it, it was another bad choice.
3. What does Abraham Lincoln have to do with Mormons OR Christmas?
4. Presuming you mean Mark Twain, and not his evil twin MART, I’m not sure it’s wise for Mormons to reference him, since he was quite vocal about his opinion on Mormonism. He thought the Book of Mormon was “chloroform in print.” He ain’t helping your case.
5. You should have done some research, and you would have discovered I am not someone “outside” of your church telling you what you believe. Been there, done that, got the CTR ring.
With Mitt Romney’s recent speech, more and more angry Mormons are visiting. Since we already had plenty, that’s not necessarily a good thing, but hey….
We’ll make room.
As for Mitt himself, I found some interesting information on his speech. A USA Today blog headline said: Romney’s cult of religious liberty.
It wasn’t a blog about cults, really, but it won’t make the Mormons happy. Little except rabid exclamations of how they HAVE TO BE right does, so we won’t worry too much about that.
This blog post noted that he left out the non-believers, or perhaps atheists, which could cause a problem for his candidacy.
In a big-tent speech clearly aimed at inclusiveness, Romney left himself open to criticism by leaving out non-believers. A single sentence recognizing that tolerance for all faiths also includes tolerance for the faithless seems an unwise oversight. As explained by someone close to Romney, however, there was never any planned tactic to exclude non-religious people. Implicit in the idea of religious liberty is that one freely chooses to be religious or not. Also assumed was that even non-believers would respect America’s tradition of religious pluralism.
The other weakness — just to get them both out of the way — was a single line that was unnecessarily confounding: “Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom.”
It does? It will be interesting to see how people react to that.