Nothing in GreenDreams’ post is true in any way. It just isn’t.

This and more neutral mellow mormon discussion linked above, but I still don’t know if I’d allow this topic; nor would I the discussion of anything anyone considers sacred. Again, all of your religions have garments, you just don’t know it. But if you read anti-Catholic or anti-Episcopalian or whatever books, you’d see a lot of the same stuff you see in anti-Mormon stuff… anyway…

Again, that’s just my hunch, but in any case it seems like a fair point to raise even if I don’t necessarily think it’s that significant. Religions are generally not democratic in their hierarchy, nor are they required to be, and most rational people can understand that a belief of what is right within the church hierarchy doesn’t mean that one believes that people should be restricted access from positions in general society.

You said “Ones that would have any relevance on their public policy decisions, or ones that have to do with private issues of morality or worship?”.

Should Romney be questioned on how his faith shaped his attitudes on race since until he was 31 the LDS faith forbade anyone who was known to have one drop of black blood from the priesthood?

Ones that would have any relevance on their public policy decisions, or ones that have to do with private issues of morality or worship?

And ones that you might learn about in a serious manner by reading in context about a religion from an unbiased source, or cherry picked instances of religious practice that (when depicted out of context) might seem odd?

I enjoyed your explanation for Shaun’s post. Please feel free to correct me, but I essentially understand you to be saying:

1. I know Mormons, so I’m the best judge of what is offensive.
2. I think religious sensitivity is dumb anyway.
3. Our comments policy only applies to Jews.
4. The picture is OK because I think it’s funny.
5. This is nothing compared to what the next guy is going to do.
6. Just be glad we didn’t do worse!

Thanks again for a very enlightening read.

Shaun, you must be astonished by the whole thing. FWIW I don’t think there’s anything wrong with your raising this issue, or posting the pic (bet you’ll be more careful in your comments, though). Still, all this made your point. Running for president invites very close scrutiny, and the more, uh, unusual aspects of the Mormon religion will be aired in public.

Someone who wants to run the country should not revere a man (that would be Joseph Smith, central figure in LDS lore) who married around 40 women, one of whom was 14 years old when Smith explained to her that God demanded she marry him or be eternally damned.

Smith wrote the Book of Mormon, or rather, he channeled it with his face buried in an old hat into which he had placed his “peepstone” (or “seerstone” as the church terms it). This was after he had already sold his services (and that of the stone) around the neighborhood to find treasure chests, lost objects and such with the peepstone in his old white tophat. He confidently found vast treasures with his mystical skills, but as workers were digging for it, it always ‘sunk deeper in the ground’. Read the story yourself. Now I’m sorry if it’s starting to sound like I’m mocking someone’s religion here. It’s the Mormon story. It’s relevant to me that someone running for national office reveres Joseph Smith and takes his words as gospel.

Uh, in my humble but registered voter opinion.

From what I can tell, the picture wasn’t used to critisize Romney for being a Mormon or make fun of him for it either. It was used as an EXAMPLE of the kinds of things we can expect in media with a Romney candidacy. There is a difference. Shaun wasn’t saying that the temple underware (I’m sure it has an appropriate name other than that) should be laughed at or that it has an iota of value for judging Romney, but that it, and all things Mormon would be placed into the less-than-flattering spotlight of 24-hour cable news and late-night television. He’s right too. If the LDS folks think that Shaun is bigoted, then they better start taking tranquilizing shots right about now.

An argument can be made about how critisizing/making fun of some religions is OK but others not. Islam especially gets special treatment, and people ask angrily “why??” when we all know the answer “because no one wants to die for a joke”. I don’t think that was the issue at hand here, though.