As predicted, there has been some upset among liberals and persons not of faith about Mitt Romney's recent speech on Faith in America. To be fair, there are a smattering conservative critiques, though the overwhelming positive response the speech received from conservative pundits and talk radio is pretty clear (see a sampling here).
Yet, Joel Connelly didn't like it. EJ Dionne, appearing in the Seattle Times, was impressed by parts, put off by others. Jim Geraghty over at the Campaign Spot sums up the whining well while Mary Katharine Ham covers why the speech miffed a lot of folks in the MSM.
Casey Corr always weighs in on the matter too, hitting two key points amidst other rhetoric:
1) Romney should have talked more about Mormonism because Corr is curious about it.
Wasn't this one of Romney's points? He's not a spokesperson for his faith, he's a person of faith running for President. And it's not like a doctrinal discussion of Mormonism is going to do much to help Romney - nor really would such a discussion of the particulars of one's own faith help any candidate in the long run for that matter.
2) Romney, in a speech about faith, didn't specifically speak to non-believers.
Oh, the horror. Even accepting that criticism, if that's the worst that can be said of the speech then it still remains superlative. More importantly, however, Romney's discussion of "civic religion" spoke to the fact our national creed espouses mention of an exceptionally ecumenical God. Mention of that more benign form of deity has been the target of legal action after legal action in recent years, bent on striking such talk from the public square.
In contrast to Corr's objection stands this passage from the speech itself:
Perhaps the most important question to ask a person of faith who seeks a political office, is this: does he share these American values: the equality of human kind, the obligation to serve one another, and a steadfast commitment to liberty?They are not unique to any one denomination. They belong to the great moral inheritance we hold in common. They are the firm ground on which Americans of different faiths meet and stand as a nation, united.
We believe that every single human being is a child of God -- we are all part of the human family. The conviction of the inherent and inalienable worth of every life is still the most revolutionary political proposition ever advanced. John Adams put it that we are 'thrown into the world all equal and alike.'
If that excerpt isn't speaking to and embracing all Americans I don't know what would.
Consequently, religious conservatives and others of like mind recognizing our nation's long-standing embrace of that "civic religion" do not react to objections like Corr's with a warm and fuzzy embrace for this continued insistence on political correctness. More succinctly, their response goes something like this:
Get over it.
UPDATE: the Seattle Times adds a mixed review on Sunday's editorial page.
UPDATE II: I almost forgot to mention this, but the Times editorial said this about Romney and Evangelicals:
His success will be calibrated by how many in the base believe he is sufficiently Christian to fit their checklist.
This is regrettably another example of where some folks in the MSM really don't understand some of the specific points in the speech or the dynamics at play here. There is no way any Mormon is going to to establish themselves as "sufficiently Christian" to the Evangelical community. Nor for that matter could a Muslim, a Jew, or even a devout Catholic if we're having any sort of discussion that approaches the theological. The purpose of the speech was for Romney to talk about shared American values and his perspective on a basic sense of faith as an integral part of them. If Evangelicals view that favorably and find some common ground with him, great, but "sufficiently Christian" was never part of the equation.
Posted by Eric Earling at December 08, 2007 03:12 PM | Email ThisDavid Brooks had the same concern, as well as others, with Romney's speech: http://tinyurl.com/yrhx62
Religion is not like race, or ethnicity, or sexual orientation. Those are immutable traits that by them selfs have no effect on behavior. A black person is not more or less likely to be say pro-war, then a white person absent the influences of culture and upbringing.
Religion however is a changeable choice. It is the assent to certain precepts, often based on faith. Its a worldview that defines how one sees the world and how they respond to it.
It is not an accident of culture that most Christians are against gay rights, or that most Muslims are against divorce. These are parts of their faith and stem directly from them.
For a Christian the bible is the word of god and sets out truths, laws, etc. As a voter I have a right to know if a person believes that and how that will influence their choices as an elected official. No different then I have a right ot know if they call themselves a republican, a communist, or a neo-conservative for the exact same reason. Beliefs have consequences.
As a person who does not view faith as a path toward truth and who believes that science and reason are more appropriate basis's for decisions , I am reluctant to put people into power who feel otherwise. Not because I have any desire to ban religion or hate Christians or anything like that. I don't like to support highly religious candidates for often the same reason that I don't want to support communists or libertarians. I don't think that they will make the sorts of choices I want my leaders making.
Posted by: Giffy on December 8, 2007 04:00 PMhttp://lds4ronpaul.blogspot.com/2007/12/mormons-knocking-doors-for-ron-paul.html
THe article basically talks about how the president of the LDS church has said the constitution should almost be treated as a verse out of the bible and thus many mormons are not actually supporting Mitt Romney but instead supporting more constitutional candidates like Ron Paul.
Having 2 years of experience knocking door to door sure is a nice plus to their resume for campaign volunteers!
Posted by: Article on Mormons knocking door to door for Ron Paul on December 8, 2007 04:21 PMPersonally, I would vote for Romney because i assume he is a hypocrite. In effect, Kennedy said exactly this in his version of the "I am a believer" speech. No one believed that Marilyn Monroe's lover would accept a decision from Rome. Unfortunatley, Mr. Romney is less convincing.
Posted by: SeattleJew on December 8, 2007 04:36 PMAlso if you are a Ron Paul supporter, make a post on every blog subject.
Lastly he might get beyond 2% in Iowa---maybe to 4% and if he wins with 4% I will jump on his band wagon. Hard to believe I thought about being a supporter before all the blog spam. Sorry Bruce(s), but you get the responsibility.
Posted by: Ken Howard on December 8, 2007 05:11 PMIn theory, yes. In practice, very few people choose a religion that at least one of their parents did not teach them. In practice, religion is a cultural value that is passed from one generation to the next.
It is not an accident of culture that most Christians are against gay rights
I don't think that's true. Indeed, my wife's Christian church fights vigorously for gay rights. However, most fundamentalist Christians are against gay rights, and they invoke religion in the political sphere more aggressively than most other Christians.
For a Christian the bible is the word of god and sets out truths
Again, that's not true of all Christians. Indeed, I don't think my wife or the Christian pastors and (retired) bishop in my family believe that. Nor did the many distinguished Christian scholars in "For the Bible Tells Me So" (www.forthebibletellsmeso.org), which was voted best documentary at this year's Seattle International Film Festival.
It's odd that I'd be defending Christianity as I don't believe in it (or any other religion). But those who do interpret it in many ways. I actually feel sorry for those Christians whose religion has been co-opted, in the public perception, by a few extremists.
Posted by: Bruce on December 8, 2007 05:16 PMIs that a joke? I ask only because I heard a few callers on the Medved show saying the same thing but being serious. I just do not get it.
Posted by: Travis on December 8, 2007 06:29 PMAfter all, only Islam does that!
Posted by: pbj on December 8, 2007 07:09 PMIT'S HARD TO TAKE YOU SERIOUSLY WHEN YOU WRITE IN ALL CAP'S, MAKING YOURSELF LOOK LIKE A 13 YEAR OLD SCREAMING IDIOT.
Really, how can I take you seriously when you can't even write? Just sayin'...
Posted by: Mike H on December 8, 2007 07:20 PMI think you're still missing the point. Could Romney have included a line about non-believers? Perhaps. That's essentially Brooks's argument. But significant portions of the speech were speaking to our civic culture as a nation, which quite obviously includes nonbelievers, not the individual faiths that people choose (or don't choose) to follow.
But even at that, people like Corr and other left-of-center objectors seem to bemoan that because there was no specific mention of nonbelievers that Romney must therefore be trying to exclude them from their appropriate place in the nation's civic culture. That leap of illogic doesn't hold in the broader context of the speech and everything it said.
"Get over it" refers to reaction toward PC-like demand for inclusive statements to make everyone feel welcome, instead of just accepting the fact that a quota of obligatory mentions isn't necessary in a such a speech, especially when examining the text with intellectual seriousness shows the broad audience of the nation to which it spoke.
Posted by: Eric Earling on December 8, 2007 07:23 PMLOL! That's laughing AT you Giffy, not with you. Especially when you then go on to put such an emphasis on "reason".
Ethnicity has no effect on behavior? Guess that blows away the whole concept of multiculturalism, doesn't it? It's good to know that every culture has the same exact behaviors.
Sexual orientation has no effect on behavior? Tell that to Larry Craig! (and I guess all those people that claim to have changed orientation were immutable also!)
Race has no effect on behavior? Guess that means there are no such things as "white guilt" and "only whites can be racist" then!
Posted by: ItTakesAVillageToConveneAGrandJury on December 8, 2007 07:40 PMIf you'd like, I could start posting links to horrific things our fellow Christians have done throughout history too, often in the name of Christ himself. But do you think that's really the point of the conversation here?
Posted by: Eric Earling on December 8, 2007 07:48 PMYour use of all caps suggests that you are obviously impassioned. Please remain calm.
I must tell you that your information is incorrect and your implications offensive to people of all faith. They display an element of panic and prejudice.
Mormonism traces it�s doctrines to Biblical Christianity. This is pre-fifth century-creedal Christianity. An academic study of world Christianity will show that most modern sects have been influenced by the creedal movements such as the Nicaean Creed. As Mormons reject these creeds they are not bound to creedal interpretations of the Bible. This has always been a point of conflict between the Mormons and the rest of the Christian Community. This difference does not mean that they do not view the Bibl e as holy writ or that they do not testify of Jesus Christ as the Son of God and Savior of the world.
For information on Temples please see the Old Testament. They are places to covenant and communicate with God. NO animal are sacrificed in Mormon Temples. The atonement of Jesus Christ fulfilled that requirement. For information on the atonement please see the New Testament.
The murders you mention are, I assume, a reference to the Mountains Meadows Massacre. For accurate information I suggest you read recognized historical accounts rather than alarmist Anti-Mormon propaganda.
Bruce-
As far as Mr. Romney�s speech is concerned I found it accessible to people of faith and people not of faith. He acknowledged the history of faith in the building of our nation. Regardless of anyone�s current faith/no faith view point this history is fact. To those of faith he states his common ground. To all Americas � whether with or without faith�he attests that he would make decisions based on loyalty to the constitution, law, and liberty. I cannot find fault with that.
pbj-
He also failed to assure us that he wouldn't put on a Chicken Suit and dance the Macarana. I don't think we need to worry.
You could probably benefit from reading authentic historical texts yourself.
He has an interesting new perspective, and I am happy to have him on board and proud to see he has stepped up to continually keep the site alive.
Thanks Eric!
I'll drop a tip in the jar for your hard work!
Merry Christmas!
Posted by: gs on December 8, 2007 08:13 PMYou mean read authentic whitewashed historical distortions that lessen the black eye on the LDS Church.
Sorry, the Fancher Party made the mistake of trusting the words of Mormons. They all got massacred.
Marie - YES OR NO. Do you deny that the mormons murdered over 100 members of the Fancher Party in 1857?
I think you know full well that isn't the point. Neither this thread nor Romney's speech is about discussing the faults of the followers of any one faith or offering comparisons between competing religions.
gs -
Thanks for your kind words. They are much appreciated.
Posted by: Eric Earling on December 8, 2007 08:32 PMI am not denying anything. Today, in various parts of America people are committing violent acts. It does not make Americans evil. It makes those individuals evil. They do not represent America; they only represent themselves. You would not like to be grouped with drug dealer, murders, or spousal abusers just because you both happen to be American. All I am asking is that you get some perspective.
Posted by: Marie on December 8, 2007 08:53 PMIt is easy to figure just looking at this site. This is where most of the R's (and a few Paulite Libertarians)come to post and get reinforcement. Look at the comments - many by regulars. Game over.
Posted by: Rocketdog on December 8, 2007 09:43 PMIsn't it a little unfair to decry a religion for bloodthirsty acts under the banner of God, when religion operates under the assumption that God's creation is "bloodthirsty" (in a way) for a reason? That's not to excuse truly heinous acts under the banner of God, but as Eric points out, it's hardly a mode of thought entirely lacking in the history of Christianity.
I may be reaching a little toward the dangerous realm of "theological relativity" (or whatever we want to call it), but after #11, at least I won't end up the biggest ass in this commenting thread. In any case, I'm not reaching for secular smugness, just pointing out that one religion being somewhat more prone to militant bloodshed than another is not an epistemologically convincing argument that it's unfeasible.
Posted by: Benjamin Johnstone-Anderson on December 8, 2007 09:45 PMI can honestly assure you that there is no allegation that has any force in even scratching our church's honor and reputation.
As Marie notes, the church spent excessive resources and time to get to the bottom of the Mountain Meadow Massacre when the feds were willing to let things lie as they may. Quick, name an organization that would allow the feds to investigate perhaps the most devastating event of the decade, and perhaps tarnish the image of that organization forever. Now name one that will *invite* the feds to investigate when the feds said they aren't interested. Do you see what I am saying now?
Don't listen to those who are challenging the mormon faith as particular weird or evil. Look into it for yourself. Our church hides *NOTHING*, not even what goes on in the temple. We have no fears that you will find a skeleton in our closet because there are no skeletons in our closet.
The answers are freely given and freely available for all. http://mormon.org and http://lds.org (where we put online ALL of our scriptures and education material) are totally accessible. You can find out what we are talking about during our priesthood sessions of General Conference if you like as well. See how many times the brethren have asked us to overthrow the US government (0) or how many times they have asked us to step up to the plate and keep the constitution the supreme law of the land and be subservient to the government. We also send out tens of thousands of missionaries every year to answer your questions and concerns. We also allow anyone to participate in our weekly services. We're a very friendly people and there is no need to go to 3rd parties to learn about our churches. We are extremely enthusiastic about sharing our faith, almost to a fault.
Mitt Romney doesn't need to say one word about his religion because there are 6 million others in the US who are willing to say everything about our religion if you take the time to ask.
Most especially, he isn't running as a mormon, he won't govern as a mormon. That's what his speech was about. You aren't electing a mormon, you are electing Mitt. That's why he refuses to talk about the mormon faith--it's completely irrelevant.
Posted by: Jonathan Gardner on December 8, 2007 10:30 PMI think you are getting hung up on details of mormonism that are not really important. We are electing a president not a spiritual leader. This means it really does not matter whether he thinks jesus is our savior or jesus was a donkey that gave birth to a deformed midget named mohammed.
All that is important is his policies that he has control over as president and what type of person he is. Mormons as a whole are a very polite, respectful trustworthy group of people that favor individualism quite a bit. Unfortuantley Romney is not mormon enough for me.
Travis Pahl
Posted by: Travis on December 8, 2007 10:39 PMThe hatred expressed here by St. Clair (especially) and others is as putrid as that I hear all too often by the deluded "regressives" when they spew on about Bush or neo-cons.
The best part of Romney's speech was his reminder about the American principle of freedom "of" religion as opposed to a freedom "from" it as the "regressives" would have it.
Posted by: deadwood on December 8, 2007 11:45 PMCan you see the difference with religion? (or politics for that matter)
Posted by: giffy on December 9, 2007 12:23 AMThere is no difference, because in practice there are many specific religions, not a general "religion". If I can't be free from your religion, then I have no freedom of religion.
Posted by: Bruce on December 9, 2007 12:33 AMThe drive-by leftist media would have us believe that the apparent disdain for Romney is a disdain for Christianity.
Once Romney is eliminated, they will move their focus this week to Huckabee, and continue their slander of the right.
Posted by: Independent Voter on December 9, 2007 05:28 AMAmen. The atheist and agnostic liberal MSM presenting and discussing principles that separate Christianity from Mormonism? Don't make me laugh. Mormons have been attempting, with little success, to paint themselves as Christians for 150 years. I once heard the late Dr. Walter Martin debate a Mormom elder on Martin's "Bible Answer Man" radio program. It took about 2 minutes for Martin to debunk the Mormon's contention that his religion conformed to the basic tenets of Biblical Christianity. And Martin did this by quoting from Mormon written doctrine, specifically questioning who the Mormons believed Jesus Christ was/is? Don't listen to Mormon doublespeak...read their doctrine.
Posted by: Saltherring on December 9, 2007 07:01 AM#11 St Claire
Is 'St Claire' a BIG 'Nancy'?
Posted by: Brian Thomas on December 9, 2007 08:07 AMIsn't it time we get some other presidential campaigns represented on Sound Politics. Seriously, the Romney shilling has reached its low point with this latest post.
Romney is a stand up guy but he is languishing at the bottom of the polls (except NH) and was just overtaken in Michigan (of all places) by Huckabee. If the guy can't win Iowa where he has outspent Huckabee 20:1, how can we take him seriously anywhere else?
The speech you reference had high points and some low points. The quote I still can't figure out is, "I believe in my Mormon faith." In his only reference to his actual faith, he claims that he believes in it. Does anyone else on here find it possible to "believe in their faith?" Sounds like an empty statement to me. I for one, don't believe in my faith. My faith shapes me and my belief in God. Maybe just semantics, maybe not.
Good speechwriters, but overwhelmingly superficial and forced. We need a good communicator in the White House not a team of good speechwriters.
Posted by: marko on December 9, 2007 08:21 AMBased on your comments at this site on matters related to religion I would speculate your definition of being free from someone else's religion is never having it or God mentioned in public, let alone even indirectly in the context of a politically-oriented debate.
Such a hope has no foundation in the history of the conduct of public business and related debate in this country. Your constitutional right to freedom of religion does not include the right not be offended by some other person's public mention of their own faith, let alone our nation's corporately-shared "civic religion."
Posted by: Eric Earling on December 9, 2007 08:23 AMThanks for the input, though Stefan controls the keys to the proverbial family car of Sound Politics in this case. Moreover, my commentary on the Romney speech can hardly be construed as shilling given the tremendous attention it received, the overwhelmingly favorable reaction the speech received among conservative pundits, and that I've linked to a number of critiques of it.
In a bigger picture, I've largely kept my coverage on presidential issues to a big picture discussion of major trends and dynamics. I've actually gone out of my way to not do posts touting Romney outside of broader discussions on race dynamics. I don't believe I've spent much time talking about the basic pros and cons of the prominent candidates. Fred Thompson might be the exception to that rule, though that was a function of wanting to stimulate some discourse given that the Fredheads didn't seem to be willing to acknowledge the full picture with Fred's potential run (skepticism that has since been borne out).
Posted by: Eric Earling on December 9, 2007 09:05 AMJust for full disclosure, ARE YOU MORMON? Are any of your relatives Mormon?
Posted by: pbj on December 9, 2007 09:06 AMNot that they don't have the right to Atheism, but it's the in-you-face, our-way-or-no-way attitude that must be foisted on everyone. Their "religion" seems a lot more like Islam doesn't it? Not like the tolerant religions of Christianity and Jewish tradition where folks seem just fine with sharing traditions and being inclusive.
Christmas Trees are not even Christian other than in name. And Romney not mentioning Atheists is no slight. It would have sounded much lamer if he had mentioned Atheism in the context of religion, as in the religion of atheism.
The point is that it's all just secular progressivism double-speak run amok. No one really knows what anyone is saying because everything has to be bi-directionally filtered through all of the PC decoders. It's all a code words, and Bush is out to get us all, etc.
Whatever! Enjoy the nice green trees with blinking lights. Enjoy a passionate speech about what makes this nation great, and the need for a basic morality and civility in order for people to carry the responsibility of freedom.
This is all far too much for Progressives like Connelly, but normal people understand it just fine.
Posted by: Jeff B. on December 9, 2007 09:54 AMJust for full disclosure, are you an evangelical, bible thumping, in your face "Christian" that appears not to respect the view points or religious beliefs of others? Or, are you a believer that respects other people and treats them as you would have them treat you? BTW - before you ask - I am Catholic (which - to clarify for some of you out there - is also a Christian religion) and a conservative.
Posted by: Michael H on December 9, 2007 10:08 AMI couldn't agree more! Well said!
I was at Sea-Tac on Thursday morning. While waiting for my wife to go through security I looked up at the balcony that runs along the concourse. There you will see some windows that look in on employee-only areas. Now of course, I could not see in to the windows from down below. But the blinds on one window were open just enough that I could see a REAL Christmas Tree - decorated and everything. That was a great sight. It appears that the only people at the Port of Seattle (the owners and operators of the airport) that are scared of true Christmas trees are the lame elected officials, the lame-brained attorneys, and the weak-minded managers. The employees that work in that area (sorry - I don't know the name of the area) are the ones with common sense.
I saw the chopped-off Aspens yo mention. As with all government-sponsored art, it looks like dog doo-doo.
Posted by: Michael H on December 9, 2007 10:16 AMI couldn't agree more! Well said!
I was at Sea-Tac on Thursday morning. While waiting for my wife to go through security I looked up at the balcony that runs along the concourse. There you will see some windows that look in on employee-only areas. Now of course, I could not see in to the windows from down below. But the blinds on one window were open just enough that I could see a REAL Christmas Tree - decorated and everything. That was a great sight. It appears that the only people at the Port of Seattle (the owners and operators of the airport) that are scared of true Christmas trees are the lame elected officials, the lame-brained attorneys, and the weak-minded managers. The employees that work in that area (sorry - I don't know the name of the area) are the ones with common sense.
I saw the chopped-off Aspens you mention. As with all government-sponsored art, it looks like dog doo-doo.
Posted by: Michael H on December 9, 2007 10:18 AMSome of you bloggers need to pause, take a breath, look in the mirror and honestly ask yourself "Am I a bigot?" What's next: a truck full of fertilizer and diesel delivered to the gates of Salt Lake City? These goof balls seem to have ratcheted up to that level.
My God, if a man's religion becomes a litmus test for public office, then our erstwhile Great Republic will be an asterisk in history.
I'll take honor, commitment, leadership, intelligence and integrity wherever it's found. Anything less, then I would be a bigot. Romney must be judged on these criteria, not where he sings hymns on Sunday.
Sam
Posted by: samuel huntington on December 9, 2007 10:21 AMYou're partly right. No, I don't think the constitution protects me from hearing religion or God mentioned publicly. On the other hand, I question the judgment and humility of people who feel they know what God wants better than other people, especially in the political realm. On the third hand, this is relatively low on the list of reasons why Romney would make a bad president, or why Bush has made a bad president for that matter.
Posted by: Bruce on December 9, 2007 10:24 AMWell said!
Posted by: Michael H on December 9, 2007 10:28 AMMy grandfather and his father were members of the Orange Lodge, which organized whole communities against the "Papist" menace.
Now we have Huckabee's forces (acknowledged or not) filling this societal niche.
In my own personal interactions with Mormons I have yet to encounter anything but fine moral people who love their children and their country.
I am not a Romney supporter by any means, but if it comes down to Romney vs. Clinton, I know which way I will vote.
Posted by: deadwood on December 9, 2007 10:30 AMHas the Establishment Media elected a Queen and forgotten to tell us about it?
Posted by: John Bailo on December 9, 2007 10:30 AMI am not schilling for any candidate under the guise of an impartial journalist. When I do, feel free to ask if I belong to any of the same associations or clubs. How impartial would you any of you judge a press officer of the LDS Church on Romney? Would any of you trust Bruce Guthrie for an honest evaluation of Ron Paul?
And for the historical record, go read about project Venona which essentially PROVES McCarthy, the big bad boogie man of 60's liberals indoctrination was EXACTLY RIGHT. The government of FDR WAS infiltrated by communists such as Klaus Fuchs, Julius Rosenberg, and Theodore Alvin Hall.
I don't believe Mormons are Christians, but that doesn't disqualify Romney from holding office, in my opinion. So far, no one here has pointed to any lapses in the way that he governed as governor of Mass. No one has said he was nuttier than Barney Frank, Ted Kennedy, or for that matter, Governor Patrick, the current governor. Some of the secular progressives might disagree with his policy positions, but that would be a disagreement on policy, not the fact that he is incompetant.
The issue seems to be the forces of secularism in this country vs. people of faith and the values esposused by people of faith. There are two very different views of what society would look like. Personally, I prefer the Focus on the Family world over the world of Howard Stern. There has been over 60 years of research on the Black family which demonstrates Howard Stern's world doesn't work for enhancing the lives of children.
When it comes to advancing the cause of civil rights for all people it has been the people of faith who have led the charge. Wilberforce and Newton (Amazing Grace) led the fight to get slavery outlawed in England. Dr. Martin Luther King was a Baptist minister and he was joined by churches and synagogues all over this country in the civil rights struggle. Those were people of faith.
Now, let's look at what the secular world has brought. The old soviet system was sevular and atheist and they persecuted both Jews and Christians. China persecutes a wide range of groups. Although, Europe has Christian history, it is now mostly secular and there is a new anti-semitism there based upon hatred of Israel. Previous cycles of anti-semitism were based first upon religion, then upon racial superiority, now on hatred of Israel. Isn't it funny that some of the biggest supporters of the Jewish state are conservative Christians?
This country which was founded by those predominately of the Christian faith, despite those who claim the Taliban Christians are shoving their religion down everyone's throat by public displays of Christmas trees and saying Merry Chrstmas is one of the most tolerant places on earth for all faiths. Try giving some one a Bible in Saudi Arabia. I have seen Koran tracks being given out at Westlake and no one called the religious police.
The speech was outstanding and in this instance I agree with Dr. King, candidate Romney deserves to be judged solely on the "content of his character."
Posted by: WVH on December 9, 2007 10:41 AMOf course the man believes in his faith! How could he live it if he didn't? I could ask that of any of you... except perhaps those with no faith. (YOU, I don't understand at all).
I don't know much about LDS. I see their missionaries about, I know they have family night, I know they are well prepared for emergencies, I know the young adults often attend LDS 'school' early in the day before they go to HS and I knew ONE LDS family whose Mom had a mental breakdown... but she had 6 kids.
I think what Romney did effectively is point out the VALUES by which we should all strive to live, the VALUES that, like it or not, do indeed have their basis in a belief that we are accountable to someone higher than ourselves. Once again we have let the news DELIVERERS define the terms. Was this actually a 'Morman speech" or was it a 'REMINDER speech', a history lesson that has been forgotten, a reminder of our heritage and the role God played in it, a reminder of the VALUES that made this country great and that are quickly slipping away in to the hopelessness of secularism? I believe it was the latter and it was well done.
There are two men, Rabbi Marc Gellman and Monsignor Thomas Hartman, two exceptionaly close friend who each define themselves by their love for God, who co-host a radio show and have co-authored seceral books ( I recommend them all)
One of their books my son and I read together when he was about 10 was How do you spell God . It is a book about all the major religions in the world, the big questions we all have about them and the big answers they each provide. I simply do not remember whether they addressed the Mormons, but what I absolutely do remember after 12 years was the magnificent ways they explained ALL religions. When you look at a diamond, there isn't one way to see it best: it sparkles on each and every side. Religion, faith is not a destination. It is a journey. It is a journey to the top of the most fantastic mountain ever. There are so many paths to take, many easy paths, many more difficult. BUT, they all lead to the same place and it is that PLACE that should be our focus, not who has the best trail to get there.
Some of the "adults" posting here would benefit from reading this book.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on December 9, 2007 10:55 AMWe do not need a good communicator, we need someone that has a good message worth communicating. My persoanl favorite message is the constitution. If only we had some grassroots supported candidate whos campaign platform is the constitution. But Sound POlitics has not written about one yet so I assume there must not be one out there.
Posted by: Travis on December 9, 2007 11:08 AMHow about doing a local angle on presidential politics. Like perhaps which candidates have the most support in terms of signs, bumperstickers, straw polls results, cash donated in the last quarter, etc...
I think it would be interesting to see who locally the area is supporting since we have not really had any 'scientific' polls yet.
Posted by: Travis on December 9, 2007 11:11 AMAccording to your litmus test of objetivity we should trust bruce to give an honest review of ROn Paul. Bruce is an atheist and Ron Paul is a christian so Bruce has no interest in promoting his candidacy. Unless of course you conceed there is more to a man than his religion.
Posted by: Travis on December 9, 2007 11:15 AMI would just ask, what is it about a Mormon candidate that would get Mormons to put up so much money? Would we expect a Catholic candidate to get such a large proportion of his/her donations from Catholics? Would a candidate that gets most of their money from trial lawyers be expected to govern in a way that benefits trial lawyers?
What can we expect from a candidate that gets such a huge proportion of his campaign funds from Mormons because he is Mormon?
Just as people would worry if we evangelists bought and paid for a successful Pat Robertson presidency, we should worry about Romney being bought and paid for by one faith. With Robertson, we would expect for him to act in a way consistent with his faith. The Mormon donors must be expecting him to act in a way that is consistent with his faith. His speech did not explain what that would be.
Posted by: Doug on December 9, 2007 11:15 AMNow for money tallies. Some candidates temporarily loan money to their campaigns to pump up their stats.
My thesis ios this: Aside from money given by Nazis, Aryan Nation types, and KKK supporters, Paul is getting an infusion of cash from the Soros-Peter Lewis of Progressive Insurance Network to pump up the stats. The reason is that Hillary needs either:
1. Paul as the republican nominee so that it is a repeat of the famous "Vote for the Crook" election in Louisiana between Edward Edwards the dem who later went to prison because he was a crook and David Duke, the KKK Grand Wizard running as a republican. She would prefer this sceanario because it gives her a "mandate" for her policies.
2. A third party headed by Paul if he doesn't get the republiocan nomination. In Louisiana, many republicans crossed lines and voted for Edwards and many stayed home. The calculation is dems are coming out in droves to ensure her election.
So, as in Watergate, follow the trail of the money, it is not just totals that explain what is going on.
Posted by: WVH on December 9, 2007 11:27 AMPlease point out where I said Rommey is disqualified because of his religion?
Posted by: pbj on December 9, 2007 11:29 AMGodwins Law.
Whoa! I didn't even follow that post! Translate please.
Are you saying Soros is funding RP $$$ so Hillary will win?
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on December 9, 2007 11:33 AMHere is the thesis:
1. No, Soros is not funding the republican party, he through a network of supporters is funding the Paul campaign. Soros is a very dangerous man, in my opinion.
2. This is similiar to what is being done in the Black commnunity by hiring ministers as "consultants" to the Clinton campaign to keep them from supporting Obama.
3. I don't know if the link is up still at Drudge or at Luciannne. Andrew Young, who is practically senile and envious of Obama made a quote about Clinton's dating habits.
The Clinton machine knows that Hillary has sky high negatives and needs "help" for a win.
Posted by: WVH on December 9, 2007 11:48 AM1. Define Godwins Law. Who is Godwin and the basis for this law being an acceptable principle in the body of knowledge. Was it peer reviewed? Is its application generally accepted by scholars?
2. How does Godwins Law relate to this discussion?
Posted by: WVH on December 9, 2007 11:52 AMNo and no.
Moreover, my own faith is best categorized as non-denominational, Evangelical. Every church I've regularly attended as an adult - including the current one - has profound theological differences, to say the least, with the actual particulars of the Mormon faith.
katomar @ #64 -
Doug is no liberal but he's pimped that crazy "Romney's campaign is a Mormon conspiracy" theory in the comments before. I join you in believing such thinking is appalling, even if it were provable (which isn't even remotely possible).
Posted by: Eric Earling on December 9, 2007 12:56 PM1. All candidates will get money from their base of supporters, whoever they are.
2. Having said that, it is legitimate to ask about sources of money support. Why isn't the lamestream media all over Hillary for her Chinese money donations?
a. Waiters in China Town of NYC making contributions in excess of the proporation of their salary. I believe this is true from other cities as well. People saying they didn't remember making the donations.
b. Asking the questions can any of this money be traced back to the Red Army or Chinese government which would be illegal.
c. What does Hua know and are any of his shdy deals traceble to the Clintons?
All candidates need a full vetting of where the money comes from and who is giving and more importantly, why?
Posted by: WVH on December 9, 2007 12:57 PMYes, I believe it is bigotry when certain classes of people donate their money specifically to people of similar classes of people based on race, religion, or sex, specifically donating because of race, religion, or sex.
I think if African Americans support Obama through their finances specifically because he is black, then they are bigoted. I think if women support financially Hillary because she is a woman regardless of her political ideology, then those women are bigoted. I also believe if Mormons support financially Mitt Romney because he is a Mormon and would not support him financially if he wasn't, then they too are bigoted.
Am I wrong to think this?
Posted by: Doug on December 9, 2007 01:15 PMkatomar and Eric can answer for themselves, but it is politics 101 that a candidate goes to their base and looks for support first. I have no problem with women giving Hillary money, Blacks giving Obama money, and Mormons giving Romney money as those are base groups for each. In my analysis, bigotry comes in if one would not support a qualified candidate because he or she is __________. I also, don't like to see illegal
donations counted as support.
Is it bigotry when a green party candidate goes to the Sierra club for dollars? I don't think so.
Many people hedge their bets and will be giving to a couple of candidates who support their positions. I expect that many Hillary supporters are giving to Edwards and Obama as well because their philosophies are similar. I wouldn't be surprised if many Mormans are giving to other conservative candidates with the hope some conservative gets in.
Posted by: WVH on December 9, 2007 01:32 PMMy answer would be should expect a candidate that is trustworthy, honest, respectful, and value self reliance. If he were a typical mormon I would probably consider him a fine candidate.
Unfortunately Romney is not mormon enough for this agnostic.
Posted by: Travis on December 9, 2007 02:05 PMI never said you disqualified him because of his religion. I questioned your insistance that Eric Earling disclose his religion. You in post 50 implictly said that he should disclose his relgion because we should not trust his analysis of Romney if Eric is Mormon. Yet you do not trust Bruces critique of Paul even though one is an atheist and the other is a evangelical christian.
It sounds like you just do not like anyone talking about candidates you dislike in a positive light and try to discredit them however possible.
But maybe I am misjudging your intentions. If so... Sorry.
Posted by: Travis on December 9, 2007 02:09 PMWow.... So now in addition to all the KKK and neo nazis supporting Paul, he also has the backing of jewish business men!
Truly Paul is a uniter not a divider. Anyone who could get this two groups together deserves our support!!!
And the media is trying to promote Paul supporters as the conspiracy theorists!!! Haha..
Yes you are wrong to think people are bigoted for giving money to candidates they like. People should be free to give as much money as they want to whomever they want for whatever reason they want so long as it is their money. We should accept that people will spend and give their money away for reasons we may not like but it certainly does not give us reason to call them bigotted.
Posted by: Travis on December 9, 2007 02:17 PMFirst, it's a huge stretch to call the behavior you describe as "bigoted." It is not uncommon for people to cast votes based on the kind of shared affiliations you describe above, assuming candidates in a given race are reasonably competitive. Is that "bigoted"? If so, many a woman who has caste a vote for their fellow female in a competitive race because the shared gender tipped the scales is a bigot. Needless to say, I don't think that's reasonable.
Second, your theory, as you've stated before in previous threads, is based on rough analysis of where Romney's donations are coming from and trying to tie them to local Morman populations in respective locales. Such guesstimates are by no means a definitive way to establish a pattern amidst the high number of variables involved in human behavior.
Moreover, a number of the locations you have pointed to in the past as having concentrations of Mormons also have notable concentrations have reasonably affluent business people (such as the southern CA and suburban Detroit examples you've cited before). Based on Romney's career outside of government as well as his contacts from his tenure at the RGA there is more than enough cause - using your same sort of loose logic - that a healthy amount of his contributions come from such connections as well. Furthermore, where are the Mormon communities that are responsible for his clusters of donations in major metropolitan areas up and down the East Coast?
Plus, I would speculate that if there was a non-Mormon candidate who did what Romney did with the 2002 Winter Olympics then that candidate would likely have a spike in contributions from Utah too. Would it be the same as Romney's? Probably not. But it would be similarly disproportionate to Utah's typical proportion of contributions in such races.
In closing, I concur with katomar at #69 and Travis at #73.
Posted by: Eric Earling on December 9, 2007 02:35 PMSoros is of Hungarian Jewish extraction. I am informed that he is an atheist like you.
1. I know that you will dismiss this source because it is Christian media but here it is:
"Soros has given away nearly $5 billion in his lifetime, but while a significant portion of that money has been spent on pro-democracy movements overseas, some of it has gone to liberal causes in the United States.
From abortion rights groups to drug reform initiatives, Soros' domestic funding generally ends up in the hands of liberals. The self-proclaimed atheist also created the Project on Death in America to generate debate about the dying process and "alleviate unnecessary suffering."
Among the beneficiaries of Soros' largesse is the Center for Reproductive Rights, the pro-abortion group that recently saw its internal strategy plotting memos publicized by a pro-family group, and at the request of U.S. Rep. Christopher Smith (R-N.J.), included in the Congressional Record.
Conservative commentator Armstrong Williams, an authority on Christian values, said Soros wants to destroy the values on which the United States was founded. Williams called Soros "morally bankrupt" and he wants the U.S. Justice Department to investigate his contributions.
"He hates God and his biblical principles. He hates everything that's godly," Williams said. "He's jumping up and down at the thought that same-sex marriages could happen in this country. It's a direct assault on the church, the institutions that restrain and restrict our behavior and remind us of the standard of morality and moral absolutes."
Other conservatives were just as harsh. The Rev. Louis P. Sheldon, founder and chairman of the Traditional Values Coalition, said Soros had to be taken seriously because, "He's the Daddy Warbucks of everything we do not believe in."
"No one knows what demons drive Mr. Soros to consistently fund anti-family agendas," said Robert H. Knight, director of the Culture and Family Institute at Concerned Women for America. "But he seems determined to turn the world upside down and replace morality with immorality....."
http://www.crosswalk.com/1236027/
2. Now, YOUR candidate of choice as reported by Lonestar.com has taken $500 from at least one David Duke supporter. Has he returned it?
3. Soros does not support Paul, Paul is simply a convenient tool for getting Hillary into office. He either needs Paul to be the republican nominee, so that it is a "Vote for the Crook" election or he needs a third party. Keep up, dude.
Posted by: WVH on December 9, 2007 02:44 PMFirst at #69, you are calling me a bigot for not supporting Mitt because he is a Mormon. No where in any of my posts have I said I was not supporting him because he was a Mormon. I merely pointed out that shouldn't you worry if a candidate gets such a large proportion of their finances from a specific religion? Is that really a bigoted statement!?! It's only bigoted in the eyes of Seattleites and their ilk.
Out here it makes perfect sense, if a person is donating to someone because of race, gender or religious affiliation then they are partaking in a discriminatory practice. It would be discriminatory for a govt. agency to discriminate based on those things, but what you are saying is that it is okay for individuals to. That is all fine and dandy (Travis @73) and I agree that they have the right to, however, if they are basing their support based on race, gender or religious affiliation, then by definition they are being discriminatory. Bigotry breeds discrimination.
Eric #74, you cannot see the forest for the trees in regards to Mitt's funding. It's all fine and dandy, but I just have to ask, why is it happening? If the radical Islamists decide to attempt to purchase an election, we could all say that is fine and dandy and legal as well, but that doesn't mean we should turn a blind eye and ignore it or rationalize it all away by showing that not all the supporters are 'radical'.
As Mitt tried to point out in his speech no one should be elected because of their faith - yet this candidacy's fundraising is at odds with that statement. That is not to denegrate Mitt, it is merely to point out a fact of today's political climate. It just so happens that Romney's campaign is a very good and visible example.
Posted by: Doug on December 9, 2007 03:04 PMYour comments continue to carry a heavy dose of conspiratorial thinking on this issue. Are Mormons donating to Romney more than they ever have to any other Presidential candidate? I'm sure they are. Is there something inherently problematic about that? No.
I can see the forest and the trees quite clearly. I just don't think some of the trees are out to get me.
Posted by: Eric Earling on December 9, 2007 03:32 PMThe point and questions still remain, if a large proportion of a candidates funding comes because of their race, gender or religion - is that a good thing? I know it is not a good thing when it relates to whether they got a similar large portion of their funding from labor unions, trial lawyers, or other interest specific groups. It is not bigoted to ask that or observe it, however, it could very well be a function of bigotry to participate in it.
Posted by: Doug on December 9, 2007 03:51 PMunions, trial lawyers, or other interest specific groups
Apples and oranges.
And since there are only TWO genders, I pretty much think that blows your theory right out of the water.
Look, a president can have effect on unions and trial lawyers, but I have yet to see one that has effect on gender or religion.
I MAY give you race, but I really have to consider it before I concede.
Can we stick to the issues now?
How will what candidate and possible President, Romney, Guliani, Thompson, Clinton, Obama, Kucinich affect our security, our economy, our foreign policy, our domestic policies? W
Which of them are honest, trustworthy, honorable?
Which actually desires to serve us and which desires power over us?
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on December 9, 2007 04:48 PMWhy did I not realize this before and more importantly, where do I sign up to get some of Soros money?
:)
Posted by: Travis on December 9, 2007 04:53 PMBut just to make sure I understand your theory and how it works... answer me this... Why does Paul have one of the smallest average donations of any of the presidential candidates?
If you were a millionaire trying to funnel money into a candidates campaign wouldn't you try to limit the people you are funnelling money to and therefore have a few people donate the maximum rather than hundreds of thousands of people donating small amounts like Pauls campaign has seen?
You have to forgive me, despite being 12 year Paul supporter, I am not the greatest at conspiracy theories yet! :)
Posted by: Travis on December 9, 2007 04:56 PMYou Ron Paul people crack me up. He lines himself up with some pretty strange folks and says ZIP. You backers like you and Bruce G may not care, but it shows much about a person and who he's with.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on December 9, 2007 05:04 PMIf it says something about me that I do not find anything wrong with accepting money from racists to spend on non racists message, than so be it.
Posted by: Travis on December 9, 2007 05:34 PMThe first seems a combination of ludicrous and perhaps a Hillary hope--I'm sure Hillary would, indeed like to get a substantive 3rd party to run, although given the Iraq War histories of Hillary and Ron Paul, he may take more votes from her than from the Republican nominee. But seeing that Bill Clinton only won in 1992 because of Ross Perot and that Bill is MUCH more popular than Hillary, I don't think she can win WITHOUT a viable 3rd party candidate.
I don't know what to make of all of the Nazi/KKK discussion since I have not heard anything in Ron Paul's agenda that would have anything to do with Nazi/KKK. If it wasn't for his national security stance, he might very well be my first choice candidate (I did vote for him when he ran as a Libertarian in 1988). But I can't vote for him this time around. Maybe the neo-Nazis are involved in a conspiracy to get the government to follow the constitution?
The conspiracy theory regarding Mitt Romney, however, is just silly. As Claude Raines might have said "I'm shocked, shocked that Mormons are contributing to another Mormon's presidential campaign". I mean really! It seems pretty obvious that since the Mormon religion is fairly small and seems to be fairly close-knit, that they would feel that a fellow Mormon would reflect their values. I would hazard a guess that Gore/Lieberman got increased contributions from Jewish voters in 2000, and I would be willing to bet that an inordinate share of Huckabee's funding comes from people in Arkansas and from evangelical Christians. What a surprise!
If you have a problem with a candidate, let's base it on either that candidate's position on an issue, on their experience or on something relevant. These things are just talking around the issues--not addressing them.
Posted by: Bill H on December 9, 2007 06:20 PMOn every single issue he wants to have his cake and eat it to. I have no clue what he really believes on anything, which is unfortunate, because if he just had a consistent position on issues he might be the strongest candidate.
Posted by: Nancy on December 9, 2007 06:47 PMWell said. My only disagreement is with your Hillary analysis. Yes she is liked than Bill, but George Jr is far more despised than George Sr. and the Republicans have (with the exception of Ron Paul) lost much of their past supporters over the past 7 years since they have shown they do not support smaller government like their voters do.
So if we get a Republican that is in support of the war and big government (all except Dr Paul) than Hillary has a very good chance of winning without a 3rd party. Against Ron Paul she has a hard time convincing the antiwar crowd (70% of the country) to vote for her since Dr Paul has a much better anti war record than she does.
But your call to argue the candidates actual opinions is spot on. I grow tired of defending Romney and his mormonism from people who think mormons are going to take over the world and I grow even more tired of WVH's continual nazi/kkk claims against Paul.
Posted by: Travis Pahl on December 9, 2007 07:15 PMI most certainly do not trust what Bruce Guthrie says regarding Ron Paul simply because he is part of the Ron Paul campaign. That doesn't mean he is a liar necessarily, just that I will put stock in independent analysis. This has nothing to do with religion.
Would you trust Bill Clinton to give you the straight story on Hillary? Think about it...for once in your life.
Posted by: pbj on December 9, 2007 07:31 PMGW isn't running for anything and people. particularly conservatives, aren't stupid. They will NOT choose rotten peaches simply because they happen to be angry with apple growers. People live, make decisions and vote in their own best interest. If my best interest is capitalism, I won't be choosing a socialist.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on December 9, 2007 07:32 PMAs for Eric, he did disclose because he has nothing to hide. That is called journalistic integrity. Perhaps if the liberal MSM would be as forthcoming as Eric, their credibility wouldn't be in the toilet. Or am I the only one who recalls the CNN debate with all the supposedly "undecided Republicans" who turned out to be members of the Democrat party?
Posted by: pbj on December 9, 2007 07:37 PMYou read his literature, maybe give a couple hundred bucks and call it a day. Do you know what the campaign finances really look like? Unless you are a campaign treasurer, you really don't know what is really going on and who is supporting who. We have had a couple of campaign treasurers with their hands in the till and some have filed incorrect PDC reports. I say this for all campaigns, not just Paul's. Until one is on the inside, you have no clue.
Bill H:
The accusation against Paul is that he, unlike other republican candidates for president keeps money from known Nazis and KKK types. He has a 20 year association with such types and refuses to disavow the groups. With the exception of Strom Thurmond, David Duke, and George Wallace. That is a different stance from all other republican presidential candidates. If I am incorrect in the previous statement, please correct me.
I imagine if he embraced the ideology directly rather than just associating with the proponents of the ideology, most of his rabid supporters would look elsewhere, but not all.
To bring the discussion back to this thread. I really don't know much about Romney and Huckabee and Thompson. I continue to read. I don't support any candidate, but I don't dismiss Romney because he is Morman, Huckabee because he was once fat ot Thompson because he was an actor. There are plenty of things I like about Mc Cain, except immigration, but I guess many republicans are mad at him for some reason. I like many of the law and order positions of Rudy, but I don't like his abortion position and how many wives has this guy had.
Posted by: WVH on December 9, 2007 08:32 PMArmstrong Williams has an odd view of George Soros. If he's an atheist, how exactly can he "hate God"?
Posted by: Bruce on December 9, 2007 08:39 PM2. This from the WSJ Opinion site, might be a clue:
" RELIGION
The New New Atheism
Attacking "God" has become a lucrative book business. But there's not much substance behind the latest atheist tracts.
BY PETER BERKOWITZ
Monday, July 16, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT
"There is nothing new under the sun," proclaims the Book of Ecclesiastes. The rise of the new new atheism confirms this ancient biblical wisdom.
Of course the famous words of Ecclesiastes should not be taken in a slavishly literal sense, a technique that is all-too-common among those who think they can refute belief in God by showing that the Bible abounds in demonstrably false and self-contradictory statements.
But one stunning new development under the sun is that promulgating atheism has become a lucrative business. According to a recent article in The Wall Street Journal, in less than 12 months atheism's newest champions have sold close to a million books. Some 500,000 hardcover copies are in print of Richard Dawkins's "The God Delusion" (2006); 296,000 copies of Christopher Hitchens's "God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything" (2007); 185,000 copies of Sam Harris's "Letter to a Christian Nation" (2006); 64,100 copies of Daniel C. Dennett's "Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon"; and 60,000 copies of Victor J. Stenger's "God: The Failed Hypothesis: How Science Shows that God Does not Exist" (2007).
Profitability is not the only feature distinguishing today's fashionable disbelief from the varieties of atheism that have arisen over the millennia. Unlike the classical atheism of Epicurus and Lucretius, which rejected belief in the gods in the name of pleasure and tranquility, the new new atheism rejects God in the name of natural science, individual freedom and human equality. Unlike the Enlightenment atheism of the 18th century, which arose in a still predominantly religious society and which frequently went to some effort to disguise or mute its disbelief, the new new atheism proclaims its hatred of God and organized religion loudly and proudly from the rooftops. And unlike the anti-modern atheism of Nietzsche and Heidegger, which regarded the death of God as a catastrophe for the human spirit, the new new atheism sees the loss of religious faith in the modern world as an unqualified good, lamenting only the perverse and widespread resistance to shedding once and for all the hopelessly backward belief in a divine presence in history...."
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010341
The site gurus have not kicked our little fannies when we go off topic. I will now stir up the dust on the thread. I, personally, would not vote for an open atheist or agnostic.
Uh....you do know what the official name of the "Mormon" church is, right.
Have you ever done one modicum of research about the church? (I'm not a Mormon, nor do I play one on TV)
According to their website, the appear to have a core set of beliefs.
http://scriptures.lds.org/en/a_of_f/1
Reading those, I see nothing that suggests they are anything BUT a Christian religion. Maybe they don't hold the same view of Christianity as you, but no rational person would conclude they are NOT Christian.
I actually know quite a bit about who is donating what to the Paul campaign since he is providing complete transparancy to his donations. Have you looked at his site? www.ronpaul2008.com On it shows up tot eh minute how much he has raised this quarter and also the names of recent donors. There have been people tracking this information. CHeck out www.ronpaulgrahps.com if you are interested.
Posted by: Travis on December 9, 2007 10:14 PM1. I am not a theologian and the issue of Mormanism and Christianity came up on a prior thread. This is what I found. Also, I believe the President of the Southern Baptist Convention has studied the religion and thinks they are not Christian.:
"I was reading on your website about software but also reading about Christianity. I saw you listed Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as non-Christian. Why is that? I know they follow the Bible.
Our Answer:
Hi ______:
I'm happy to answer your question.
While the Church of Jesus Christ of Later Day Saints claims to be Christian, they do not follow the Bible. They believe the Bible has been corrupted by Catholics and can not be trusted. Here is what the Book of Mormon says about the Bible:
"...many parts which are plain and most precious; and also many covenants of the Lord have they taken away. And all this have they taken away. And all this have they done that they might pervert the right ways of the Lord." (1 Nephi 13:26b, 27)
Orson Pratt, an early apostle of the Mormon Church, put it this way, "Who knows that even one verse of the Bible has escaped pollution, so as to convey the same sense now that it did in the original?" (Orson Pratts Work's, 1891, page 218)
As a result Mormons follow three other sacred books, giving them greater authority than the Bible: The Book of Mormon; The Doctrine and Convenants; and The Pearl of Great Price.
Mormon beliefs are similar to Christian beliefs in name only. The "Jesus Christ" they believe in is not the Jesus Christ of the Bible. For example, Mormans claim that before Jesus was born he was a preexistent spirit (just like the rest of us). He was the first preexistent spirit to be born, live on earth, die and become a god. This is not what the Bible tells us. For example John 1:1 says, "In the beginning the Word [Jesus] already existed. He was with God, and he was God." According to the Bible Jesus was God from the beginning. He was not a spirit who later became a god.
Also, if in their life on earth a Mormon meets all of the requirements specified by Mormanism they will also become a god when they die. At the highest level after death, a good Morman will enter the Celestrial Kingdom and rule as god over their own planet. Thus Mormans believe that there are many gods -- and you to can become a god. (That's not in the Bible.)
Christianity believes in ONE GOD - who is seen in the three persons of God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit.
There are many, many more differences. While Mormans use the language of Christianity, based on their beliefs and doctrines Mormans are not Christian. They do not follow the Bible. They are wonderful, moral, family oriented people -- but they are not Christian.
I hope I have been helpful. I'll be happy to answer any other questions if you'd like more information about Mormanism or the Bible.
Yours in Christ,
http://www.missiontoamerica.org/letters/other-religions/mormons-01.html
2. Even though I don't believe that it is a Christian faith, that doesn't prevent me from admiring many things about the religion.
I am not a theologian, maybe you should address your questions to the many theologians that feel that Mormans are not Christians.
Posted by: WVH on December 9, 2007 10:34 PMYou know quite a bit about the Paul campaign from volunteering, working for him, office staff, or what capacity? If you know quite a bit about him, then why does he associate with the groups that he does? If he is doing so well in fundraising, why does he need to keep $500 from a David Duke supporter?
Posted by: WVH on December 9, 2007 10:39 PMMy wife's Lutheran church performs gay commitment ceremonies. I think they even call them marriages, although of course they are legally not marriages. I am curious how many of you would say that means the church can't be Christian.
Posted by: Bruce on December 10, 2007 12:00 AM"I find it amusing when people try to tell other people (or churches) what religion they do or don't belong to."
Perhaps you should ask your wife and the pastors in the family the following:
1. Is the Nicene Creed a basic statement of the principles of the Christian faith? Does the teaching of a particular church align with this statement is the test?
2. In the New Testament St. Paul wrote letters to the seven churches of Asia Minor which represent the seven types of Christian faith communities. Some communties, then as now, went their own way and followed their own interpretation of Scripture.
Christianity is a broad umbrella and includes those like Bishop Spongen of the Anglican Convention who wasn't sure that he believed in God. I'm sure you would love him
Every Christian knows that the Judgement awaits and this is what Sripture says about that:
"....27 "The owner's servants came to him and said, 'Sir, didn't you sow good seed in your field? Where then did the weeds come from?' 28 "'An enemy did this,' he replied. "The servants asked him, 'Do you want us to go and pull them up?' 29 "'No,' he answered, 'because while you are pulling the weeds, you may root up the wheat with them. 30 Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.'"
Matthew 13:24-43
This is the famous parable of the wheat and tares. God knows the real deal from the fake and when the time is appropriate the wheat will be separated from the chaff.
So, St. Paul was correct in his observation, some will go their own way, but it is everyone's choice where they spend eternity.
Interesting you atheists spend so much time trying to dumb Christianity down to your level.
Posted by: WVH on December 10, 2007 12:57 AMI have already answered all those questions multiple times as have many others. But here it is again...
He associates with groups like the republican liberty caucus because they beleive in the things he does. He does not associate with the groups you continually try to associate with him. He keeps the $500 from the one donor that you are obsessed with because he feels he can spend the money on his agenda which is better than giving the money back to a racist for them to spend promoting racism.
Did you catch all that this time? Can we move on?
Posted by: Travis on December 10, 2007 05:41 AMYou did an excellent job detailing the primary differences between Christianity and Mormonism. I agree that there are very fine (by the world's standard) Mormon people, but being a "good" person doesn't count (by God's standard) for entry into Heaven.
You also did well in mentioning the parable of the wheat and the tares, as well as the seven churches. Pews in some churches are filled with unbelievers, by nature of what those churches preach. When the book of Revelation speaks to the seven churches, some are apostate, as is the Lutheran Church that "marries" homosexuals. Those churches have supplanted God's word with their own worldly "wisdom".
I suggest those who are curious as to how one makes peace with God, that they read the gospel of John and pray that God will open their eyes to the truth.
Posted by: Saltherring on December 10, 2007 06:36 AMWhat is so amusing about someone mentioning their own faith when it's relevant to the conversation or in response to a related question? Is that outside the reasonable bounds of public discourse?
Moreover, I think once again you have a very wrong read on other people's thoughts related to this issue. You would obviously be able to find a number of people of faith that disagree with the specific act your wife's church performs, but I don't see a lot of people lining up to make decrees on the validity of the Christianity of those who attend it. That's more than presumptuous of you.
Posted by: Eric Earling on December 10, 2007 07:37 AM1. You really have never fully answered the question, although you gave me YOUR opinion numerous times.
2. I have also asked why Paul is in league with Strom Thurmond, David Duke, and George Wallace and no other republican presidential candidate in associating with Aryan Nation, Nazis, and KKK. If I am wrong in that statement, correct me.
You guys sound like Hillary and Bill when asked about anything. Never answer a question and then it is we discussed that, move along now.
3. I like Romney because he knew there was an issue with his religion, he took on the issue directly and he really cleared the air. So, he really can move on now.
YOUR candidate needs his "Sister Souljah" moment with the racists.
You said:
"He keeps the $500 from the one donor that you are obsessed with because he feels he can spend the money on his agenda which is better than giving the money back to a racist for them to spend promoting racism."
So, I'm at least glad that you are acknowledging the KKK as racist.
We despise that MSM define the argument and that America believes their terms to be true when in fact it is manipulation. We all whine about others (read liberals) manipulating the language and defining the arguement to fit their own agenda and yet here we are.
Here we ALL are falling into the same trap by the loyal Paulbearers known as Travis and Paul.
WE are letting them turn every damned thread into an unpaid advertisement for a fringe candidate with absolutely no chance of being nominated let alone elected. Hells bells, there are serious doubts he can even hang onto his seat.
I'm sick of it.
The Paulbearers are absolutely entitled to their free speech, but that doesn't mean their freedom trumps our willingness to listen.
Well Travis and Bruce, Paulbearers extraordinaire, here's MY free speech: your intractability in defense of this nutburger has caused me to tune him and YOU out. I would never support such a liar. And yes, he is a liar, a losertarian liar trying to wear conservative clothes.
While you have contributed many insightful thoughts and valuable ideas, those have been shadowed, nay, buried, by your cultlike recitation every single time you approach the keyboard here at Sound Politics. It is my sincerest hope that I won't be the only person turning my back on you every single time you start moaning your mindeless cult mantra.
...and, if RP and all the other elected rats still enjoying their paychecks at my expense are all so convinced of their Presidential inevitability why haven't they shown faith by giving up their seat?
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on December 10, 2007 10:33 AM So because the President of the Southern Baptist
convention says Mormons aren't Christian that
must make it true?That would be like considering
buying a Ford and then only asking a Chevy dealer
about the car.What do you think the Chevy dealer
is going to say?
That little statement from Orson Pratt continues to be taken out of context. Its way to
long to go into here anyway. I will just say
this: Orson Pratt no matter what he said
doesn't make it the official position of the
Mormon church. Here is actually are position
on the Bible. We believe the bible to be the
word of God as far as it is translated
correctly.
Sense there are numerous versions of the bible
available and they all are different in they
way they are written. I see nothing wrong with
this position. We most certainly do follow the
Bible.Just as we do the Book of Mormon.
I here this comment about Mormons not being
Christian every so often. It never ceases to
amaze me that it just keeps coming.Try going
into a " Christian book store" and see what kind
of books they sell about the Mormon church.
What you will find is a whole section of anti
Mormon type books. What you won't find is one
positive book written about or by Mormons.
Instead you have books that are filled with
distortions and outright falsehoods.
You know why "Christian book stores don't sell
positive Mormon books or music for the matter?
Because they have same misguided view you do
about us.Conversely trying going into a book
store that is owned and operated by Mormons.
They do sell books by other Christian writers
as well as there music and they are all
positive. What you won't find are books that
attack other religions. Sure there will be
those defending us from attacks. But that's
all they do.
Just because we believe differently on some
things doesn't make us unchristian. If we are
to use that as definition of what Christian is
then all religions would be disqualified.
Because in some form or another we all believe
differently.
I've always thought that the U.S. Govt. considers the Mormon church to be a denomination of Christians, just as they do the Jehovah's Witnesses and other 'denominations' that have differing or additional texts that are purported to be the Word of God. I would also assume the Branch Davidians also considered themselves to be Christians, Catholics and Baptists do as well.
It's a good thing that all I have to do is be a disciple of the Messiah, the Son of God, in order to be a Christian. Doesn't matter to me that other Christian churches have different rituals or requirements of me in order to be considered a Christian, I'll just try to let the Holy Spirit run my life the best I can and let my Savior do the judging when the time comes.
As for Romney and him being a Mormon, I believe it will matter for many evangelicals, just as Hillary being a female or Obama being black will have an effect on many. I also believe that if Mitt was as 'down home' and straight talking as Huckabee and Huckabee was the slick, wishy-washy character instead, then Mitt would garner more support from evangelicals and Huckabee would garner less, than what they currently will get.
Posted by: Doug on December 10, 2007 01:20 PM I'm not the one who claim some religions
aren't Christian.So which Mormon bookstore
have you been in?Site for me the book this
was in. But you know what you won't find it
because Joseph Smith never said that.
Understand there's a big difference between
that and books about Mormons in a negative light
You will not find negative books about other churches
in a Mormon bookstore.
I am sorry for speaking about Ron Paul too much.
WVH:
I am sorry I am not able to answer your questions in a satisfactory manner.
To help all of us out, I will no longer reply to any of WVH's posts since I obviously am not able to satisfy her. This will reduce my posts about Dr Paul by 50% at least.
Ragnar, I hope you reconsider calling Dr. Paul a liar. He is generally considered one of the most honest men in DC even by his most harshest critics in congress.
Travis Pahl
Posted by: Travis on December 10, 2007 04:19 PMI will admit and apologize that 'liar" is a harsh, ugly and probably undeserved label. I do not believe however, that he is a Republican. I believe that were a third party even slightly viable, he would top that ticket.
It troubles me greatly when someone like Bruce alludes to the fact that he considers himself conservative, touts a "Republican" candidate with far too much ballyhoo, but then promises to hold his breath and withhold his vote if his guy isn't ultimately in the running. Actually it infuriates me.
I read a great article about just that today. I hope you, Bruce and Paul's other bearers will give it thoughtful consideration now and after RP is out of the race.
Why Vote For A Winner?
By Phillip Ellis Jackson
Given the choices we have, do we use our vote to make a statement, or to win an election?
Excerpts:
...Therefore, let's focus on the Republican party instead, and ask a simple question that might logically guide one's actions in an election year. Given the choices we have, do we use our vote to make a statement, or to win an election?
This question only applies to the general election, however. In the primaries one should feel free to vote for whichever candidate they feel best represents their interests. If Bozo the Clown was on the ballot in South Carolina and you felt a particular affinity for bulbous-nosed circus performers -- go for it and proudly put your name in the "Bozo-yes!" box. But when the primaries are over and Bozo returns to his regular gig from 3-4:00 pm on your local cable access channel, then you face another decision. Two people have received the nomination of their political parties for the office of President of the United States. One of them will be elected to that office. For which one do you cast your vote?
Voting for a third party candidate serves only one practical, immediate purpose, and that is to help elect someone even more antithetical to your beliefs.
But come November 2008, when your ideal candidate has been rejected as the Party's standard bearer, the nature of the game has changed. It's now down to just two people, the Republican or Democrat nominees for president. And here a simple fact trumps all others.
There is nothing more insane than insuring defeat for a person who shares only some of your beliefs so an individual who holds none of them can be elected to office.
Please read the whole thing.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on December 10, 2007 04:37 PMInstead of responding with the usual complaint from Mormons that they aren't regarded as Christian by those who accept the Bible as literal, try responding to some of the points raised by WVH in post #96. Here are two: Is Jesus a created being or one of the three pre-incarnate personages of God? Could you become a "god" when you die?
Why do people who belong to counterfeit religions such as Mormonism and Jehovas Witnesses try to paint themselves and their religions off as Christian? Either you believe the Bible is the Word of God, complete and unerring in its original text, or you don't. It all begins and ends with who Jesus was/is.
Posted by: Saltherring on December 10, 2007 08:04 PMFirst off, for full disclosure, given the topic and what others have written here, I am currently Presbyterian as far as denominational ties. I grew up UCC (Congreational, Dad-Congretional, Mom-Evangelical and Reformed, prior to merger w/Congretational to form UCC in '50's). I have also attended Lutheran Church and Evangelical Free Church in college, and Four Square Churchs after college. I was involved with Fellowship of Christian Athletes in College and Intervarsity Christian Fellowship. I profess to be a "born-again" Christian since my Junior Year in High School (yes, through the UCC church). Like stated in other article threads, I am the same age as Barack Obama (i.e., 46).
Second, with regards to the speech, for the most part, I liked what Mitt had to state. I especially liked the part about his reconigition of the growing "religion" of secularism. I feel society has indeed changed from when I was growing up (70's) and today with regards to religious views. It seems like there is a cultural war against people of religious faith. I am unsure though, if this isn't brought on some by the so-called religious leaders. Jesus called us to be the Salt of the Earth and Light to the World, but this means (to me, recalling Becky Pippert's excellent book on the subject that came out when I was in college, available via IVP press), that we are to live our lives in the world. It doesn't mean we are to force people to believe or else. As C.S. Lewis wrote, it is the "hound of heaven" (i.e, Holy Spirit's) job to work through people. All we are to be is lights that shine God's grace to the world.
I do think that Romney did "tick" off the agnostic/atheist left by leaving them out of his speech. That is for him to answer. We do live in a pluristic society and maybe he feels he doesn't need their votes.
While I don't agree with Mormon Theology, I personally find that Mormon's as a whole are very caring and considerate people. I would have no problem supporting a Mormon as President if I thought he was the best person for the job. I do look at character when it comes to politicians and their faith. As I have stated in other threads, I have currently narrowed my Presidential support down to four candidates (two in each party -- being McCain and Huckabee for Republicans and Edwards and Obama for Democrats). I don't know if I will narrow farther at this point. I will probably wait until closer to the WA State Primaries/Caucuses to decide (as an Independent), which way I will lean this Primary/Caucus season (seeing that we are forced to choose).
Right now, I would put Romney as my third choice on the Republican side. My biggest problems with him (as I have stated in other threads) is his flip-flop nature on subjects, and his torture stance. I agree with McCain, who has been through torture, on this matter. McCain knows the topic and the other should listen to him (Huckabee has and has come out against waterboarding). I also find Romney less than genious on immigration. I also agree with McCain and Obama on this subject.
Cheers,
TC
This is exactly what I'm talking about. What gives you
the right to call any religion
counterfit? Have ever read the
Book of Mormon? I challenge you
to do so before making anymore
irresponsible statements.
PC,
Who actually said that?I know
You don't actually believe that
GOD said that. Joseph Smith
himself taught others to respect
all religions. You will find
nothing in his writings that
calls any religion apostates.
I suggest that you the read the
Book of Mormon and find out
for yourself if its really true.
Then if you have any questions
We can talk.
1. I am not a theologian and I said that.
2. The head of the Southern Baptist Convention is.
3. Last night, Robert Mak's Upfront program ran a segment on Mormanism which is probably online for viewing. Toby Nixon was on the segment as was Pastor Joe Fuiten of Cedar Park Assemblies of God, I believe. His comment was that Mormanism was a deviation from Christianity. There are many theologians that agree with him. So, fight with them. I am a lay person. I have a hard enough time staying on the good side of my church. I swear and love to irritate Travis, Bruce G. and Bruce which is mean. Pray for me. :-)
4. I did cursory research on the question of are Mormans Christians and my research indicated, no.
5. The real question posed by this thread is does Romney's Morman faith disqaulify him from office and I think the answer is no because the fact of the matter, Christian or not he still has a set of values that are admirable. Do I think he is a Christian, no. Does it matter what I think about that, no.
Posted by: WVH on December 10, 2007 09:57 PM"WVH:
I am sorry I am not able to answer your questions in a satisfactory manner.
To help all of us out, I will no longer reply to any of WVH's posts since I obviously am not able to satisfy her. This will reduce my posts about Dr Paul by 50% at least."
The way we have been playing thus far is one of your team members refuses to talk further and your side sends in a new team member to refuse to answer any questions. Who is the new team member?
Posted by: WVH on December 10, 2007 10:17 PM Just because Joe Feiten says it
doesn't make it so. Instead of
taking the word of someone from
another religion find out for
yourself. If you read the book
Of Mormon then you will know for
yourself if its the truth or not
For the record I have said all
I'm going to say about this
Subject for now. Goodnight all
I defer to theologians on the study of religion as that is not my area of expertise. Now from my cursory study, I have satisfied my self enough to form my own opinion. Since I am not an expert, no one should rely on my opinion. Pastor Fuiten and theologians study religions, I don't. I read extensively about religion and have studied Latin, but don't know Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic to go back to original Scripture. So, I defer to those who are able to go back to source documents which are the best evidence. According to those documents, I gather that the Morman faith has several tenets that are not mentioned in source Scripture, nor can there be any doubt that they fail within accepted Scripture. Again, you need to make you arguments to theologians.
There are several indices of what theologians feel are the elements of belief that constitute the Christian faith. From what I can determine, the Morman faith does not fit that mattrix. So, knock yourself out quarreling with the theologians.
Posted by: WVH on December 10, 2007 11:42 PMI note you still don't answer the questions posed in my #115 post. But, neither do the Mormons who come to my door. That is one of the signs of a cult. Cults are counterfeit religions who adopt some elements of Christianity, but distort others. Their followers attempt to distract the ignorant and innocent with flowery words and false doctrine, but knowledgeable believers are grounded in the truth and reconize cultic lies as such. The Bible is the God-given source of truth, and stands as the ultimate arbitor.
So, Phil, who was/is Jesus Christ?
Everyday Mormons have no clue that many other faiths view these things as well outside the bounds of typical Christian belief systems. Had Romney wound down this path it would have created a never ending debate about the parts of Mormonism many people find bizarre.
Romney's speech failed. He betrayed his lifelong association with his Church (gave if lip service) and mixed it all up when it comes to separation of church and state. Mormons have long been confused about that. And who can blame them. They find the connections in their rich theocratic history that Mitt Romney is the result of.
I think its great he's running for President. But Mitt Romney is hardly a typical Mormon. The vast majority of American Mormons live in the West and have sensibilities related to the West and communities here. Romney is more establishment East and a pretty atypical example of a modern Mormon man. He always has been.
I also find most Mormons to be pretty reasonably tolerant on social issues and very connected to the land - mindful of the views of their geriatric leaders yet mostly making up their own minds based on their life experiences. This is especially true of mulitgenerational Mormons who value family and the land - everyone in the family and the health of the land from an enviromental perspective.
I guess you could say Romney was more like most Mormons before he decided to run for President and flip-flopped in an apparant attempt to attract conservative evangelical leaders to his campaign. Looks like he should have stayed true to his views, and his faith.
Posted by: redflag on December 11, 2007 07:49 AM"Mormons are Christians, just extremely different from most other Christian faiths for a variety of reasons, including their belief that God is as man and that any man can become God."
Christians believe that the Bible is the "complete" "unerring" Word of God. There are no texts in addition. Scripture is complete as the Bible.
Redflag:
"....including their belief that God is as man and that any man can become God."
This is one of the points of deviation for Christian theologians. Can you provide Scripture passages from the Bible and not the The Book of Mormon; The Doctrine and Convenants; and The Pearl of Great Price? The point of differiation is that Chrisitian theologians do not accept the latter three books as Scripture. Christians believe the the Holy Spirit directed the writing of Biblical texts and the Holy Spirit directed the completion of the Scripture. So, a major point of contention is the Morman holy texts.
The major point of disagreement is that no man can become God because God is the great, I AM.
We will never come to a satisfactory agreement, in my opinion and those of many pastors and theologians. No, Mormans are not Christians.
Posted by: WVH on December 11, 2007 08:17 AM I wasn't going to say anything else but sense you
brought up archeology I will. First of all there
has been quite a bit of research done in the past
10 years or so. I think can reasonably show that
evidence does exist in the America's for the book
of Mormon. Having said that its much to long to
spell out in this forum. If you are interested
let me know and I will email it to you
If in fact you are looking for concrete proof
I can't help you. There is no way to conclusively
prove that book of Mormon archeology exists.
Anymore than you or I can conclusively prove
the archeology in the Bible. Yet we both know
the Bible is real and where it probably took
place. I actually have spent a great deal of time
studying these things. Not because I needed any
proof but because I get these questions from time
to time.
Saltherring,
No matter what I say it wont satisfy you.
I believe Jesus is in fact a created being.As to
your second question that is what I believe.
You keep saying the Bible is complete and
that's it. Well its not, there are many books
missing from it that are indeed talked about
in the Bible. Where are they and why aren't
they in the Bible?
WVH,
Its your right to let others do religious
thinking for you. If I were you though I
would want to find out for myself from active
LDS church members and not from Joe Feiten
or any other religious leader before I said
the kind of things you have about another
religion.
or any other
This is false.
He did not say that you can't be a good person or good leader without faith. He said that we wouldn't have freedom today if not for religious faith. And that is an arguably reasonable point.
He was not saying non-religious people today don't believe in freedom, don't champion freedom, etc.
Posted by: pudge on December 11, 2007 06:08 PMThere are different types of opinions. There is an educated opinion which comes from reading, which is the type of opinion I have. There is an authorative opinion which comes from research and study and that is what Pastor Fuiten and the head of the Southern Baptist Convention and theologians have. My opinion on theology should be given less weight because it is not authorative.
Now let's take your specific points:
1. You said this:
"No matter what I say it wont satisfy you.
I believe Jesus is in fact a created being."
You are entitled to believe what you will. Christian doctrine says this about Jesus:
"Christian Doctrine, part 2
Jesus
He is the creator (John 1:1-3; Col. 1:15-17).
He is uncreated (John 1:1-3; Col. 1:15-17).
He is God in flesh (John 1:1,14; 8:58 with Exodus 3:14; Col. 2:9; Phil. 2:5-8; Heb. 1:8).
His Incarnation and His deity
Hypostatic Union - Jesus has two natures in one person. He was not half God and half man. He is both Human and Divine. He was completely God and completely man. This is the correct position concerning His two natures. See Col. 2:9; Phil. 2:5-8; John 8:58 and Exodus 3:14.
Jesus will remain as both God and man for eternity.
Jesus was born of the virgin Mary (Matt. 1:18; Luke 1:35).
"He was born under the Law (Gal. 4:4) and fulfilled all of the Law of God (John 4:34 ; 8:29), even to the point of death (Phil. 2:8). In His death He bore the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us (Gal. 3:13). Thus in the death of Christ the sins of His people were judged (Rom. 3:23-26) and forgotten (Heb. 8:12), and the result of His act of righteousness was eternal life (Rom. 5:18).
Jesus is worshiped - (Matt. 2:2,11; 14:33; John 9:35-38; Heb. 1:6).
Jesus is prayed to - (Acts 7:55-60; Psalm 116:4 and Zech. 13:9 with 1 Cor. 1:1-2).
Jesus is called God - (John 20:28; Heb. 1:8).
He is the exact representation of the nature of God (Heb. 1:3)."
http://www.carm.org/doctrine/christiandoctrine2.htm
He is not a created being, He is a Creator.
That is Christian doctrine.
2. As to the role of the Book of Morman. Does any Christian Church recognize the Book of Morman as having anything to do with the Bible? Is there any Christian Church that says the Book of Morman completes the Bible and should be considered as Scripture?
3. Here is a good site on the authority of the Bible:
http://www.gracethrufaith.com/selah/the-bibles-authority
4. The only thing that I have said about your religion is that in my opinion, it does not meet the test of being defined as a Christian faith. There are plenty of doctrinal disputes in Christianity such baptism, whether child or adult, or imersion or sprinkling of the water. But, none accept the Book of Morman as Scripture. I don't know if Unitarians consider themselves as Christians or are acknowledged as such. To be accepted into the Body of Christ, a church must accept and acknowledge the Trinty and the fact the Jesus is the ONLY Son of God and is God in the flesh. The differences with Mormanism are not slight and go to the very core of what it means to be a Christian. That is my layperson opnion which is backed up by theologians, who have an opinion based upon research and study.
5. I will at some point read the Book of Morman, but will study it as I do the Koran or another religious text. For me it is not the "complete" and "unerring" Word of the Living God. That is my opinion.
I don't have anything negative to say about your faith and the Mormans that i have met have been very fine, decent people. We do, however, disagree regarding the classification of your faith.
Posted by: WVH on December 11, 2007 09:54 PMI hope and pray that Phil, as well as others who have been deceived, will put their pride aside for a moment to consider what you've written in #130. Understand that it is difficult to free people from the clutches of the cults, as the lies have been hammered over and over into their heads to the point where only the true God can deliver those who prayerfully seek the truth.
Posted by: Saltherring on December 12, 2007 06:42 AM I have about had it with you and the mindless
false assertions you continue to throw out here
about my faith. First of all I have been a member
of the LDS church for over 36 years. No one and I
mean no one has ever locked me in a room and said things to me
over and over again. No one drills things into our
heads and were certainly not held against our will
.
Just because you don't believe any of it doesn't
make it a lie.No one has deceived me about anything.
I know what I believe in is real and true because
I have prayed and studied on my own.
PC,
Way to respond to what I said to you.All you
did was just throw a cheap shot out there.
WVH,
What I would saY to you is where did get Feiten
and the President of the Southern Baptist
convention get there information from that
you say they have studied? Yes of course
your opinion is just as important as anyone
else's. The problem is I don't really know
what yours is.You keep saying that Feiten and
and what the President of the Southern baptist
convention say must be accurate because there
studied theologians.
Be real here, Do you really think that where
ever these guys have studied theology they are
going to give them complete and accurate
information about the LDS church? The kind
of things I have seen used as reliable
information are Books and DVD's that are
nothing more than hit pieces designed to
lead those that have never heard the truth
away from it.
I will give you just one example of what I'm
talking about, back at the end of March 2007 a Dvd
was distributed to thousands of homes across
America called Search for truth. It was put
together by a consortium of leaders from
various religions. It should have been titled
the search for crap because that all it was.
It was nothing more than the same tired anti-
Mormon claims that have been around for many
years and addressed by church members repeatedly over the years. But you don't see any
of these responses anywhere in this Dvd.
I might add the Anti-Defamation league condemned this Dvd.Saying this was nothing
more than Mormon bashing and hate.How can
anyone make am accurate judgement about a
religion no matter how learned they may be
without going to the direct source that being
the religion itself. Its like I said before
if your going to buy a Ford and you go to a
Chevy dealer what do you think they are going to
say about a Ford? If you want to know about Ford
you go to a Ford dealer.Sure you talk to other
car dealers but ultimately you go to a Ford because he or she knows more about a Ford than
anyone else.
I truly feel bad for you. You have a lot of hostility towards those who are doing nothing more than speaking the truth. I hope that someday you find that truth and it will set you free. God Bless.
Posted by: Saltherring on December 12, 2007 01:09 PM I have no hostility towards anyone. I am
simply defending what I know to be true.
You accuse the faith I belong too of some
pretty serious things. Yet you offer not one
shred of proof that that has ever happened to
anyone. All you really have done are the same things
you accuse me and my fellow members of doing.
Well you know what you can't have it both ways.
You insult the intelligence of members of my
church. To your way of thinking we are not smart
enough to think ourselves. All 11 million of us
are just a bunch of dupes and suckers.Do you
really think Glenn Beck has been brainwashed?
Do you really think Senator Orrin hatch has been
brainwashed?Do you really think that US secretary of health and human services Mike Leavitt has been brainwashed?
When I speak specifically of Glenn Beck this is
a man who for the last 3 weeks has had the number 1 bestselling book on the New York times
bestseller list. He has the number 3 most listened to radio show in the nation right now.
His nightly TV show is getting very good ratings. But to your way of thinking he is to
stupid to think for himself and has been duped
like the rest of us.Do you know how ridiculous that
sounds?
I accuse no one of anything. I merely speak of the inerrancy of the Bible and the fallacy of religions that believe otherwise. There can only be one truth. Either Jesus Christ is who He said He was in the Bible ("I and the Father are one") or He is a liar. If you are willing to trust for all eternity in what you believe, you are certainly free to do so. But it would be wrong for me to know the truth and not share it with you. God Bless.
Posted by: Saltherring on December 12, 2007 06:13 PM1. I can't be any clearer than I have. In my opinion, Mormanism is not Christianity for the reasons posted above.
2. You will have to ask Pastor Fuiten what his opinion is based upon. Here is his bio and e-mail:
a. Bio - He has a doctorate:
Dr. Joseph FuitenSenior Pastor
Joseph B. Fuiten was raised in rural Oregon in the home of a mother and father who were both Assemblies of God ministers. As a youth he was active in sports, music, debate, student government, and politics. His youthful dream was to go into law and politics. Pursuing that dream led him to attend Willamette University and obtain a B.A. in Political Science.
At Willamette University, Joe pursued politics, being elected Chairman of the College Republicans of Oregon, Student Body President of Willamette, and National Student Representative. His internship was as a lobbyist in the Oregon Legislature working on the Oregon Motorist Information Act of 1971. He also worked as a chauffeur for Clay Meyers, Oregon's Secretary of State.
A call to the ministry resulted in a changed direction. Licensed as a minister while still a student, Joe began preaching to youth during the "Jesus Movement" of the early 1970's, and helped start the Willamette Christian Body on campus. He also helped start the Jesus Festival Movement by founding the "Sweet Jesus, Prince of Peace, Rock Festival," in 1971 at McCullough Stadium in Salem.
In 1972, Joe entered formal church ministry as a Youth Evangelist and thereafter as a Youth Pastor. He has served as an Associate Pastor in Aloha, Oregon with Rev. John Fuiten and as Associate Pastor with Dr. Fulton Buntain at Life Center in Tacoma, Washington.
In 1979, he was elected Director of Christian Education for the Northwest District Council of the Assemblies of God, with responsibilities in Church Growth, Christian Schools, and Sunday Schools for the 370 churches of the Northwest District Council.
He has served as Senior Pastor of Cedar Park Assembly of God in Bothell, Washington since 1981. Since that time, he has established an organization of eight branch churches, Washington State's largest private school in five locations, a funeral home, cemetery, mechanics shop, day camp program and State licensed counseling center in several locations. There are over three hundred employed through Cedar Park ministries.
Joe earned his Doctor of Ministry Degree from Northwest Graduate School of the Ministry in 1995. He later joined the regular faculty of the Graduate School and also serves as an adjunct faculty member for Northwest College of the Assemblies of God. Joe is a member of the Society for Pentecostal Studies. He has served the denomination on its Ministerial Enrichment Committee which designs personal, family, and professional programs for the 32,000 ministers of the Assemblies of God. He is an Executive Presbyter of the Northwest Ministry Network of the Assemblies of God and is also a General Presbyter. Pastor Joe is the past President of the Eastside Pastors' Association, an interdenominational group of pastors who meet together for prayer and to join together on church and community projects that help bring unity to the churches on Seattle's east side...."
joe.f@cedarpark.org
He has studidied for his opinion and in my view is entitled to it.
3. The Southern Baptist Convention
The President is Dr. Frank Page
a. Archeology and the book of Morman:
"PART 3: Archaeology & the Book of Mormon
Posted on Dec 12, 2007 | by Mike Licona
EDITORS' NOTE: The following information, adapted from the North American Mission Board's www.4truth.net apologetics website, is the third of six parts to be carried by Baptist Press this week. The initial article appeared in Baptist Press Mon., Dec. 10.
ALPHARETTA, Ga. (BP)--In the last part in this series, we saw that the Bible is reliable, being textually pure and verifiably accurate in many places. Therefore, the Mormon can have confidence that the Bible is the Word of God and that it can be accurately translated. In this chapter we will examine the Book of Mormon to see how it holds up to the historical test. The Mormons at your door will tell you that many findings within archaeology have confirmed the Book of Mormon time and time again. Is this true? What does the historical data we have tell us about the events recorded in the Book of Mormon?
1. There is no specific confirmation of the Book of Mormon from archaeology.
A. What Mormon archeologists say.
Brigham Young University (BYU) is owned by the Mormon Church and has a department of professional archeologists who are dedicated to archaeology as it pertains to the Book of Mormon. These professionals, who are practicing Mormons, are to be applauded for their honesty. What many of them have to say will be a shock to the lay Mormon who is unaware that archaeology and the Book of Mormon are at odds with one another. The lay Mormon is told by the Mormon Church that archaeology continues to confirm the Book of Mormon, while Mormon scholars, who actually study archaeology for a living, have something quite different to say.
"[It appears that the Book of Mormon] had no place in the New World whatsoever.... [It] just doesn't seem to fit anything ... in anthropology [or] history.... It seems misplaced" (endnote 20, continuing from endnote 19 in Part 2).
"The first myth that we need to eliminate is that Book of Mormon archaeology exists. Titles on books full of archaeological half-truths, dilettante on the peripheries of American archaeology calling themselves Book of Mormon archaeologists regardless of their education, and a Department of Archaeology at BYU devoted to the production of Book of Mormon archaeologists do not insure that Book of Mormon archaeology really exists" (endnote 21).
"What I would say to you is there is no archeological proof of the Book of Mormon. You can look all you want. And there's been a lot of speculation about it. There've been books written by Mormon scholars saying that 'this event took place here' or 'this event took place here.' But that's entirely speculative. There is absolutely no archeological evidence that you can tie directly to events that took place" (endnote 22).
"Now, I'm an archeologist, and I work in Mexico where some people think that the events occurred. So a lot of Mormons ask me every week if I find any evidence. And I tell them, 'No.' ... [T]he question of how to translate what the Book says in terms of real evidence that we can grab in our hands, archeologically, is still a huge problem" (endnote 23).
Keep in mind that all of these are practicing Mormons who are professional Book of Mormon archeologists!
B. What non-Mormon archeologists say.
Earlier we read from the Smithsonian Institution's statement "The Bible as History." We saw that archaeology confirms much of the Bible and that professional archeologists use the Bible in their work. The Smithsonian also has a "STATEMENT REGARDING THE BOOK OF MORMON." This statement can be requested at the same address. Every one of the statements are damaging to the reliability of the Book of Mormon. Here is the first of eight statements: "The Smithsonian Institution has never used the Book of Mormon in any way as a scientific guide. Smithsonian archeologists see no direct connection between the archeology of the New World and the subject matter of the book....."
http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?id=27018
b. They have a series about Mormans at:
http://www.sbc.net/
3. Now address the questions I posed to you at post #130:
a. Name a Christian church that recognizes the Book of Morman as Scripture?
b. Comment on the specific Bible passages presented. Christians disagree on certain doctrinal issues but not the issues set forth in the Nicene and Apostles Creed.
You might have been an adherent of a particular faith for ____years, but one can still study and I recommend that you do Crosswalk's Bible in a Year. Here is the link:
http://bible.crosswalk.com/
My opinion is very clear.
Blessings on your journey.
Your friend,
WVH
I have never said that Book of Mormon archeolgy
can be positively proven. As I said in #128
I can't conclusively prove that the Book of
Mormon archeology exists. Anymore than you or
anyone else can conclusively prove that the Bible
Archeology exists. Yet we know its real and where
it probably took place. I can say the same thing
about the Book Of Mormon.
There are now and continue to be many
archeologist's who have put together DVD's
and printed publications that given a pretty
darn good description of probable Book of
Mormon archeology.
So I checked out your link to bpnews. Here is
the problem, one of those individuals was quoted
in 1969. Another in 1984, The other two back in
1997. In the 10 years since those last statements were made there have been major findings
to the contrary. If you are interested I will
email you some of it.
As I said before you put way to much stock
in what other religious leaders say about the
LDS church. Just because they say it doesn't
make it so. I respectfully ask you to find
out for yourself. Because its the only way
you will know the truth.
I am not aware of any other religion that
recognizes the Book of Mormon as scripture.
Nor do I think there ever will be. Since when
is it a prerequisite that others have to
recognize it anyway?
Posted by: Phil Spackman on December 13, 2007 05:00 PM
You said:
"I am not aware of any other religion that
recognizes the Book of Mormon as scripture.
Nor do I think there ever will be. Since when
is it a prerequisite that others have to
recognize it anyway?"
There is a difference between the Catholic Bible and the Protestant Bible. The Catholic Bible has seven more books. Still, all books were around contemporeanously with the Apostles. At the time of the Reformation, the Protestant Bible reflected Protestant doctrine. Still, the essentials of the Nicene and Apostles Creed are retained by both versions. The fact of the Trinty, the role of Jesus, and other doctrines are missing from the Morman faith.
The Book of Morman relies on a "revelation" by Joseph Smith and is not accepted by Christians as definitive "truth." It is correct that God is a Living God and still speaks to us today. I simply do not accept that God was speaking to Joseph Smith and neither do all Christian dominations that I am aware of. So, your faith singluraly claims to be Christian. No other dominations, accept the faith's claim.
You can't refute any of the Scripture that I have posted in #130, can you? That is the key.
I think we have been dancing around the basic issue. To be blunt, I don't accept Joseph Smith as a prophet and therefore, in my opinion, the Book of Morman is not Scripture. So, Mormans are not Christians. I leave it to the theologians to categorize the faith. In my opinion, and I am lay person, if it ain't in recognized Scripture, it ain't relevant.
There is no prerequisite for other Christian denominations to recognize the Book of Morman, just like there is no prerequisite for Christian denominations to recognize the Koran. In my opinion, neither Muslims or Mormans are Christians, although there may be individuals of great faith in each religion.
The following was compiled by Jill Martin Rische, daughter of Walter Martin, the late "Bible Answer Man". Could a religion that professes the following possibly be considered Christian?
On Sunday, February 25, 2007, Meet the Press had an interesting roundtable discussion on Mormonism that reflected the abundance of their journalistic ignorance. What I found particularly amusing (choosing humor in lieu of intense frustration) was their patronizing comment that Christians know very little about Mormonism. They proceeded to cite a recent poll that showed 45% of Evangelicals view Mormonism negatively (although the source of the poll was fuzzy). This seemed a bit illogical, since Christians must know something for the negative percentage to be so high. No mention was made of the unique Mormon beliefs that might cause millions of rational souls to view them with a healthy dose of skepticism.
After pondering the wisdom of the media elite (or lack thereof), I decided to research a short list of Mormon facts to help guide them through the dense jungle of Mormon Doctrine:
Top 10 Amazing Facts of Mormonism
1. Mormons can become gods and goddesses.
2. Goddesses will spend eternity in full submission to their god-husband.
3. Mormon women will give birth "forever and ever" to spirit-babies.
4. Mormon men can have multiple wives in heaven--eternal polygamy.
5. Heavenly Father is an exalted man who lives with his goddess wife, Heavenly Mother, on a planet near the great star Kolob.
6. American Indians are descendants of the wicked Lamanites, who were Israelites that God cursed with dark skin.
7. God the Father had sex with Mary to conceive Jesus, who is the half brother of Lucifer.
8. All Christian churches are an abomination.
9. Mormons need 4 secret handshakes to get into the Celestial heaven.
10. Joseph Smith revealed that the actual Garden of Eden is in Jackson County, Missouri.
And so you see, 45% of Christians know what thousands of the media elite do not: Mormonism is not Christian.
Notes and references:
[1] Journal of Discourses 1:50-51; J of D 8:115; Doctrine and Covenants Section 132:20
[2] Doctrine and Covenants 84:33-9; Goddesses are always subject to a god. Women are denied the Priesthood (meaning they are denied authority--not the same as Catholic priesthood). "In the LDS universe, theologically described as the real eternal universe, each man who achieves the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom is worth many times more than each woman, even the women who qualify at that highest Celestial level, because each man who achieves Godhood-level may have numerous God-wives, but each God-wife may have only one husband. This can only mean that each "heavenly father" is worth many times more than each "heavenly mother." And, even if the ratio were strictly one to one, the male God, not the female God, holds the priesthood authority and is the only one of the God parents to whom his earth-mortality children are allowed to pray. So Mormon women can never, NEVER achieve equality with men, no matter how outstanding or righteous the women are. That's just the way it's set up." MORMON WOMEN, PROZAC® and THERAPY By Kent Ponder, Ph.D. e-mail address: kponder@swcp.com, http://home.teleport.com/~packham/prozac.htm
[3] LDS Apostle Orson Pratt wrote, "Each father and mother will be in the condition to multiply forever and ever" (The Seer, 37).
[4] Doctrine and Covenants 132; Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 11:269; Men can still be sealed for eternity (not time) to women other than their wives; "The practice of polygamy has been discontinued, but the doctrine of polygamy has never been revoked. D&C 132 is still part of the LDS canon. And some current church practices are still based on polygamous principles." See pro-Mormon site http://mormonopenforum.blogsome.com/2005/08/02/eternal-polygamy/ (accessed February 25, 2007).
[5] Pearl of Great Price, Abraham 3:2-4, 9; J of D, 26:214.
[6] Book of Mormon: Alma 3:6-19; 3 Nephi 2:14-15; Enos 1:20; J of D, 7: 290-291.
[7] Journal of Discourses 8: 116; J of D 8: 211; J of D 8: 115; Mormon Doctrine p.546-547.
[8] Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith--History 1:19. Smith claimed God sent him to "restore" true Christianity.
[9] Celestial Kingdom is the highest of 3 levels in the Mormon heaven (need handshakes to get past the angel guarding the veil); See ex-Mormon site http://www.mormoncurtain.com/topic_templeceremonies.html#pub_1816881347 (accessed February 25, 2007); David John Buerger, The Mysteries of Godliness: A History of Mormon Temple Worship, http://lds-mormon.com/buerger.shtml (accessed February 25, 2007).
[10] Doctrine and Covenants 116; Journal of Discourses, 10:235; Smith named the Spring Hill, Daviess County, Missouri area Adam-Ondi-Ahman.
Posted by: Saltherring on December 14, 2007 05:54 AMRead my comment #35. I once heard Walter Martin make an absolute fool of a Mormon elder. Dr. Martin knew far more about Mormon doctrine than the Mormon himself and was able to easily use that knowledge to dispute the elder's claim of Christianity. I believe most Mormons follow that mold, in that they believe what they are told, rather than research the doctrine and compare it to Biblical Christianity.
Posted by: Saltherring on December 14, 2007 02:12 PM