Irritating NY Times article.


As is usually the case when media outlets touch Mormonism, what they say in this article is not untrue, but they do a terrible job of making the distinction between the opinions of some Mormons with the beliefs of all Mormons.


And why is it that when someone releases a book that openly attacks Mormons it's just considered debate, but if someone were to write a book openly attacking Blacks, Jews, Hispanics or other minorities it is considered hate speech.

THAT...is the question of the year. Generally speaking, minorities have raised such hell about it that it became a "politically sensitive issue" to attack, negatively comment on, or even allude to a dislike of a minority. Truth is...it should be that way. However, to attack a religious institution is fair game because it's an accepted practice. The only religious organization that raises hell to any meaningful degree when attacked are the Islamic organizations. They kind of shoot themselves in the foot when they pull out the "Death to everyone" poster boards and are discounted for that and many other reasons.

The Mormons have been attacked since Joseph Smith organized the LDS. The attacks were typical of Bible thumping dumbasses of the age then and continue today. Those attacks were and will continue to be done by anyone who places themselves in a judgement position. Strange that the very saying, "judge not lest ye be judged" gets put on the sideline so that the "right minded and right hearted" folks can spew their hatred because God needs to be helped.

It's strange, but I don't actually find it that slanted. But then again, I'm not a Mormon.
I think it paints a fairly vivid and clear picture of a formative Mitt Romney, as he begins thrusting towards the bright lights of leadership. It's a writing style which is maybe a bit "dry", but I think as an article to introduce the background around the man, before hearing him talk, or plunging into the official propag...er, press releases, it's pretty good.

Same here. He talked about what Romney did, and the reactions he got. I didn't see much about the Mormon church or Mormons generally in the article.

Is it possible, that considering the history as Abell mentions, that many Mormons, even those not devout, might be just a wee bit sensitive to anything that might seem to disparage the Mormon faith, in much the same way as Jews get all rattled anytime anyone says anything vaguely anti-Jew?

I was mostly referring to the stuff about the Vietnam War, but it I won't deny I'm probably a little sensitive to things like this.


And on a side note, I don't like Mitt much.

The mayor of Salt Lake City, and Elizabeth Smart's father, also of Salt Lake, are both men I would sooner have for president than any of the Republican candidates, not to mention Bush/Cheney. I didn't know quite what to think about Mormons (not knowing any), til they came along.