Video: “I know Mitt Romney is not himself Christian…”
posted at 9:30 am on August 30, 2007 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
printer-friendly
The things you learn on “Countdown.” Between this and that big dog-on-the-roof expose, this might be her year for a Pulitzer. Click the image to watch.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 »
Yes, I was named after him.
Christoph on August 30, 2007 at 4:50 PM
Most Catholics don’t get to drink either. And the folks on the altar who do get the wine get very little, and if you ask me, it looks watered down.
That’s why I only go when I have to, funerals, weddings and the like. But I’ll be happy to meet you at the bar!
Pablo on August 30, 2007 at 4:53 PM
NRA4Freedom, where can I find source material on this? Is there some Mormon scripture that states their God is a different one?
Pablo on August 30, 2007 at 4:56 PM
Most Bible believing Christians …
NRA4Freedom on August 30, 2007 at 4:46 PM
Is a “Bible believing Christian” someone who takes every word of it, from creation onwards, literally?
If so, how many Christians do you think fall into that category?
Buy Danish on August 30, 2007 at 4:58 PM
Yeah, he (christoph) has NO CLUE what you are talking about with the “lukewarm” and spitting out from Gods mouth analogy.
He isn’t worth one additional moment of my time.
csdeven on August 30, 2007 at 4:58 PM
This should be comment 402+. What’s the record on a single post?
Christoph on August 30, 2007 at 4:58 PM
Everything you just said in that one comment goes to the heart of our disagreement. You claim, in short, that your view of Christianity supersedes and is more faithful to Christ than traditional, orthodox Christianity. In light of that, what would you call someone like myself who follows a traditional, orthodox form of Christianity, but who does not and refuses to accept your version of the faith? Someone who does not believe that the Book of Mormon is the word of God, but the later creation of Joseph Smith? Am I a Christian? A true Christian?
Also, in the very next paragraph, you state clearly at least one major divergence from Christian faith - that Christ “acts as the Holy Ghost.” How, in any way, shape, or form, is this compatible with the Biblical view of the Holy Spirit? Never, not once, does the Bible ever imply that Jesus acts as the Holy Spirit, but presents the Spirit as a distinct, separate, divine person.
As for the creeds - what you are then saying, is that you do hold a creedal form of Christianity, but that your creeds are better, because they were revealed, closer to now, to Joseph Smith by God and Christ themselves? I would hasten to point out that the Nicene Creed is a committee position, based upon the revealed word of God. The Articles of Faith, as I understand your explanation, are the testimony of one person, and in contradiction to the biblical witness (that last part is my addition).
nailinmyeye on August 30, 2007 at 4:59 PM
Thanks for the respectful discussion, nailinmyeye!
Talon: I still think there is something more to that story. The LDS church emphasizes the family very much. If the guy left his wife solely because she wouldn’t convert, that would not go over well in the Church…. In fact, I know of many, many part member families.
And no, the church strongly teaches that divorce is not a good thing (except in certain circumstances, such as abuse, etc). We are almost as strict as the Catholics on this subject, so that person, if he left because of that reason, could face church discipline. I heartily endorse Mitt on this–the LDS church has some strong family values, and that means all families, not just LDS ones. So I’m sorry for whatever happened in that situation of your friend, but that is very isolated, and I’ve never heard of that kind of thing before. It’s certainly not the normal, nor is it approved (rather, is strongly DISapproved).
Vanceone on August 30, 2007 at 5:01 PM
The Catholic church would have a problem with them partaking at one of our masses, but you probably know that.–Nice Deb on August 30, 2007 at 3:40 PM
Never to be outdone, the mormons have a problem with Catholics or any unclean person partaking of their sacrament, “the” sacrament not called the holy eucharist. Mormons are supposed to earn their own salvation. Though mormons admit that Jesus died for our sins, there is no grace in mormonism, none taught. Some learn responsibility and self sufficiency–the ideal “fruits”–but ultimately, the sin factor weighs heavier than the atonement in the mormon psyche. Hence, dense depression, especially amongst the mormon women whose sole purpose through-out existence is procreating and being a help-meet. There is no blessed Virgin Mary for mormon women to seek condolences, just brow beaters. Though motherhood can be the most magnificent thing, it certainly is not the only meaningful thing in an adult female life. The 30 year old and younger mormons have no compunction being or saying whatever will get them ahead in the world. They actually deny the reality of their own geneology, participating actively in the revision of their own history. Eras have elapsed since the Catholic church (proper) endorsed book burnings and the decimation of populations. So currently, mormons are still at least a century if not 500 years behind Catholics in the ability or even the willingness to admit their own faults.
Vanceone, Christoph has not written lies here. If you feel threatened, that does not mean that Christoph lied. Perhaps it is difficult emotionally to reconcile, but not impossible to realize that the truth be known, Christoph wrote correctly regarding mormonism and the history of mormons. Peace be with you.
Christoph, speaking for myself, claiming ones own superior intelligence can be both truthful AND an expression of dry wit (tongue in cheek). I have no quarrel with you.
maverick muse on August 30, 2007 at 5:04 PM
I’ve got to head out. But, I’ll check in later. I’m enjoying [most of] this discussion.
nailinmyeye on August 30, 2007 at 5:04 PM
I’m there. What better way to celebrate Christ’s first miracle.
And you likely make a great point about the communal wine, after all, there’s got to be some backwash in there by the end.
It was stupid of me to think an internet argument could be at all worthwhile. The true test of my intellect will be if I can stay out of one of these discussions next time.
Esthier on August 30, 2007 at 5:08 PM
Found that here
Talon on August 30, 2007 at 5:08 PM
Here is an excellent article called Mormonism and Christianity.
The short of it:
.
Buy Danish on August 30, 2007 at 5:12 PM
Nailinmyeye–LOL, this IS an interesting discussion. Yes, we do, in fact, claim to be a restoration of the primitive church. No, we don’t “damn everyone else to hell” as some would put it. I believe you are a Christian, doing the best that you can. And I believe that God will judge you based on your works (and you seem to be a decent enough guy, so I have high hopes).
As for the Christ acting as the Holy Ghost–that was my attempt to understand the Nicean Trinitarian position. If they are the same “substance” then Christ IS the Holy Ghost in some way, and thus has to act as the Holy Ghost. I totally agree with you that in fact the Bible does not teach that, but that Christ is completely separate from the Holy Ghost (as He has to be, since Christ has a resurrected physical body and the Holy Ghost has no physical body at all). But that implies that Christ and the Holy Ghost are different people, not sharing the same substance…. Like I said, the Nicean orthodoxy solves the Three Gods but one God requirement differently than we LDS do, and here’s an example why I think the LDS view is more clear and biblically based.
No, we don’t use a creedal form at all. The Articles of Faith (as cited in this thread) do not contain a full description of our doctrine at all; rather they were written by Joseph Smith as kind of a summary of some of our beliefs to a newspaper editor. There’s lots of our doctrine not represented in those 13 articles. An example would be we believe in paying tithing; which is not mentioned in the AoF.
I’m sure you would disagree with what Joseph Smith or others have said (after all, if you didn’t, I can arrange baptism right now…. *grins*) but I am grateful you are, at least, not maintaining that we aren’t Christian. I assure you, we LDS are a biblically based faith. It seems to not be sometimes because of the way the Bible has been interpreted over the last 2000 years, but we hold the Bible to be the word of God–after all, it contains the testimony and life, death, and resurrection of Our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. How can it not be precious?
Vanceone on August 30, 2007 at 5:15 PM
After all the back-and-forth, I’ve been waiting for someone to point to the “lukewarm” verse in the Bible–a clarification of what Esthier said about Satanists, that God is having hypocrites even less than He is having non-believers. Thanks.
The only thing I know about the LDS church is what my step-father told me.
A college hoops star waaay back in the day, he said that it was the only place he could go to get involved in a decent pick-up game without having to dodge bullets.
baldilocks on August 30, 2007 at 5:19 PM
I don’t mean all pastors and I should have said so. I apologize.
The Nicaean Creed was developed through political end fighting etc. And as we have learned, the amount of people voting for a doctrine has zero relevance on it’s truth. If you do not believe this, all we have to do is look at Christs life and persecution. The church leaders of the day condemned him, yet he was right and they were wrong. So it is entirely likely that many precious truths were cast aside in favor of a majority rule. This was done out of expediency and not under the direction of those in authority to speak for God.
That in itself enough to cast serious doubt that all that Jesus did was recorded and even survived the Council.
csdeven on August 30, 2007 at 5:19 PM
The first words spoken between us, Vanceone:
*** So, you start by calling me a liar. ***
*** I then, and only after you called me a liar, say:
*** So I clarify I do not hate Mormons.
*** As I said several times.
*** And state my issue is with Joseph Smith.
*** Who I believe lied according to the historical record.
Then you go on to say:
*** So I bring up specific details and documented details related to the Doctrine and Covenants and the Book of Mormon.
You say:
*** Calling me a liar once again.
*** So while I could bring up Smith’s convictions for fraud and the proof of his plagiarism again, more fraud, and his adultery, etc., instead I talk about the “lie” you say I told without evidence.
*** So I quote the third president of your Church, an annointed prophet of the only church on earth, from your official church history, who says Joseph Smith killed two people in his defense, an action I never even criticized Smith for.
*** Other accounts show at least three injured through Smith’s gunshots, the most common agreement, but uncertainties on who if anyone died.
*** You then take various steps to evade the issue not dealing with one substantial point all the while calling me a liar. Remember, you started the conversation by calling me a liar and saying I had no evidence for my assertation and then the evidence I presented was the testimony of your own prophet from your church history.
*** It goes on.
*** Conclusion?
*** You’ve shown yourself to be intellectually dishonest, you debate unfairly, and you are afraid to do so. But not to attack others without proof while accusing them of not having proof they do in fact have.
Christoph on August 30, 2007 at 5:19 PM
Talon–I’m not quite sure what the point of posting those quotes are. To the best of my knowledge, they don’t condone, excuse, or command what you allege that person to have done. Simply put, any convert shouldn’t separate from his/her spouse because they have not as yet been converted.
None of those quotes change that at all.
Vanceone on August 30, 2007 at 5:20 PM
baldilocks, that verse about being hot or cold, well, it refers to… being hot or cold.
Esthier was comparing a self-righteous prick vs. a Satanist with the Satanist being the better of the two.
How does a self-righteous prick qualify as cold?
Just askin’.
Christoph on August 30, 2007 at 5:24 PM
That and the verses from the Sermon on the Mount that speak about the matter of the heart rather than actual deeds.
Jesus made it clear that just because you don’t kill the person you call a “fool” doesn’t make you any better than a killer.
Esthier on August 30, 2007 at 5:25 PM
It doesn’t. It’s lukewarm.
Esthier on August 30, 2007 at 5:25 PM
Maybe you guys settled this hours ago. I agree with Esthier that if you do not acknowledge Jesus as Lord in this life, you will end up acknowledging him while in Hell. However, Estheir, one who is now following Satan is beyond redemption and doomed to Hell. One who is a “self-righteous prick” in this life still has an opportunity to be saved and be with Christ in Heaven. Therefore, it is not better to be a Satanist than a prick.
Mallard T. Drake on August 30, 2007 at 5:26 PM
Scripture is quoted here and at first glance it would appear as though there is biblical justification for a believer divorcing an non-believer. BUT! I have ALWAYS found that you need to read THE WHOLE text rather than one or two snippets.
The quoted passage is 1 Cor. 7:14-15. Back up a few verses and things change a bit.
1 Cor. 7:10 “To the married I give this command(not I, but the Lord) A wife must not separate from her husband. (11) But if she does she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife.(12)To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her.(13) And if a woman has a husband that is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him.”
Talon on August 30, 2007 at 5:26 PM
IIRC, there has been at least one 1000+ post and one 800+ post. Both had a Christian theme. ;-)
baldilocks on August 30, 2007 at 5:28 PM
Until death, as far as I’m concerned, everyone has a chance, even Satanists.
Besides, in my view, the prick doesn’t believe he/she needs salvation, like the rich man and the eye of a camel.
Esthier on August 30, 2007 at 5:29 PM
Since you a self-professed non-believer in Christianity (IIRC), I would say that you’re cold.
baldilocks on August 30, 2007 at 5:29 PM
Not surprising!
That must be why this is only getting half that number. It’s just Mormon, right, Vanceone?
:-)
Christoph on August 30, 2007 at 5:30 PM
I will agree that majority rule does not automatically ordain the truth. But God protects his church and his word. Even if the C of N was wrong, why hasn’t the “correct” interpretation come to the forefront through history? Why hasn’t their been a reformation to restore the true theology of Christ? Because, the C of N got it right. You are exponding a conspiracy theory. God would not let politics or plots destroy his church.
I don’t think for a moment that all Jesus did has survived to this day. Even John stated that all the books of the world would not hold the documentation of Christ’s life on Earth. But we have the key Gospels and Epistles, which even the LDS accepts.
Mallard T. Drake on August 30, 2007 at 5:37 PM
Since you a self-professed non-believer in Christianity (IIRC), I would say that you’re cold.
Fair enough.
And this is an example of why I’m not a Christian. B.S. like this in the Bible.
To me and to any reasonable person, someone steering a middle route, while maybe annoying or not stellar, is less bad than someone devoted to evil.
If God feels otherwise, screw ‘em. He’s wrong.
Fortunately, I don’t think He does. Here’s where I agree with Mormonism and its three levels of Celestial Glory.
Oh, not literally. But the idea the worst are punished worse and the best rewarded the most makes sense, whether theologically sound or not.
Or a dividing line. But not God liking more the evil over the milquetoast.
Christoph on August 30, 2007 at 5:40 PM
Wait a second…
We are listening to religious sputum from AnnaDufus and Keef Overbite on Countdown to LowRatings (I know it’s Mark Levin’s routine—but it’s so good) on MSPDQLMNBC?
When it comes to Christianity, these libs do not know their holes from an ass (donkey) on the ground.
saved on August 30, 2007 at 5:41 PM
And the Satanist does?
The logic is not adding up. Suppose that to become a Satanist means to truly renounce Christ as Savior. Is there salvation after that? It is better to try and bring the pricks into the fold, than the Satanists. One has a chance, the other as forfeited their chance.
Mallard T. Drake on August 30, 2007 at 5:42 PM
Vanceone,
The quoted phrases are the LDS rules on marriage.
What believer would want to have the strength of their faith questioned?
What believer would want to remain in a defective marriage?
I did not make any of this up, it’s all available on the internet. If these quotes are false, please share with me the true LDS position.
I have only my experience to go by.
Talon on August 30, 2007 at 5:43 PM
Again, I ask you, Christoph–why do you hate Joseph Smith so much? You are too vehement in your dislike of him for it to be a mere disagreement with his theological teachings. He’s been dead and gone for 150 years. Yet you are getting so emotional you are swearing at the very idea that Joseph Smith could, possibly, have done something right.
There’s something wrong there.
As for your attacks on the Book of Mormon and the D&C, you only try to bash details–not the messages themselves. Just remember, the same standards you judge the Book of Mormon on can easily disprove the Bible as well.
You claim that Joseph Smith was convicted of fraud. Again, you are incorrect. Despite the hordes of lawsuits, prosecutions, etc–not once was Joseph Smith ever convicted. If you can show otherwise, please do so. And I want the offical court documents, not some hearsay from some book.
You also try to besmirch J.S on many other grounds. I don’t want to get into it, because it would take MUCH too long here. However, let me give you a link. Here. It’s a starting place for you.
Vanceone on August 30, 2007 at 5:49 PM
Talon, great Corinthians reference regarding the honor of oath and permanent commitment in marriage.
csdevon, the Christian Creeds are an expression of faith and unity in the Holy Spirit. Your reference to them as mere political conveniences or results from in-fighting shows your own lack of respect for the Fathers of the faith. Your irony is in the mormon hierarchic in-fighting since the beginning the Joseph Smith’s tale.
Back in 1963, the Carthage Jail tour included the complete story of the shoot-out aka martyrdom of the Smith boys.
maverick muse on August 30, 2007 at 5:53 PM
Talon: You are getting slightly confused by the LDS concept of Temple marriage. Temple marriage and civil marriage are slightly different–Temple marriage is the time for all eternity one. It’s better than regular civil marriage, simply because you have your spouse forever, not just until death do us part.
But a civil marriage is still a marriage–you still make promises. The Lord will look very dimly upon anyone breaking those covenants. I’d rather be married civilly than seperated or divorced from a Temple marriage.
Besides, there’s always the hope that the nonmember spouse will convert. Seperating or divorcing does not help that. So it’s completely foreign and totally wrong.
Vanceone on August 30, 2007 at 5:54 PM
Some (more) clarification is required here. The “lukewarm” message is to the Church in Sardis; therefore, a message to those who professed to believe in the purpose of the sacrifice and resurrection of Jesus Christ. JC says that this church is neither “hot nor cold,” or, as I understand it, neither on fire for JC, nor openly repudiating JC’s purpose. IOW, hypocrites.
Which is why, Christoph, that you don’t fall under the “neither hot nor cold” category.
I don’t know. Here’s an analogy, albeit an imperfect one as nearly all analogies are.
My step-dad (a guy who you can tell that I love) said once that he had less problems with white people who are openly racist than with those white people who acted as if they liked blacks but secretly viewed us as inferior. The thinking was that at least one knows where the former are coming from and that one can be on guard against them (the imperfect part of the analogy.)
The latter, however, are far more dangerous in that they are pretending to be friends. They may even believe that they are, but, in the end, they will end up doing black people no favors.
I think that’s one of the reasons that he became a conservative. :-)
baldilocks on August 30, 2007 at 6:00 PM
This thread, just like my daughter’s Hannah Montana CD, is old and tired. Let the guy just be a Mormon. Who cares…?
pullingmyhairout on August 30, 2007 at 6:01 PM
All conversations of “so and so is not a Christian” are stupid conversations. Why? Easy. Get a piece of paper and put four column headers on it as follows:
1. Things one must do to be a Christian
2. Things one must NOT do to be a Christian
3. Things one must believe to be a Christian
4. Things one must NOT believe to be a Christian
Then take it to 1,000 different people who call themselves “Christians” and ask them to fill it out completely, omitting nothing.
You’ll get 1,000 different responses, all with scripture to back them up.
No one (not even you, Christoph) has the authoritative answer to this question. It’s all just a bunch of self-important, squabbling humans trying to out-huff and out-puff each other.
Loundry on August 30, 2007 at 6:02 PM
Does that include a professing Christian, non-LDS member? Would they be converting if they joined the LDS church?
You and I are doing well Vanceone. No name calling!
Talon on August 30, 2007 at 6:05 PM
The person worship Satan is acknowledging a need to worship someone, which yeah, is an acknowledgment of a need of a savior.
The pricks tend to believe that God is wrong when He wants more than just good behavior; the pricks actually believe they know more than God, which yes, is worse than worshiping Satan. After all, Satan’s biggest sin was thinking he could be God.
I don’t see why you would say the Satanists no longer have a choice in the matter. Is Christ’s sacrifice not enough to cover their sins? Either we live in Grace and all have a chance or we don’t. I don’t get how we could have a third option there.
Everyone rejects God until they accept Him, just look at Paul, a man who did everything in his power to stop the message of Christ from being spread. He may as well have been an atheist for all he did against God, but he still had a chance and was saved.
Esthier on August 30, 2007 at 6:07 PM
Cyrus H Wheelock, my ancestor, gave Joesph Smith the weapon he used to shoot through the door in the upper room of the Carthage jail. I don’t know if anyone was killed and don’t let it bother you if there were any. Joesph’s mission was to establish the restored church and he did that. And if this moment was in error on his part, he more than made up for it and will be forgiven. The souls that should be worried were the ones who broke into the jail to kill someone who had committed no capital offense. Don’t listen to Christoph. He has no clue what he is talking about in relation to the church and biblical teachings except for what he reads on anti-Mormon websites.
If you would like to understand the character of Cyrus, just read the hymn “Ye Elders of Israel”.
csdeven on August 30, 2007 at 6:07 PM
Finally, someone who admits to being LDS. Can you answer this: Are you (generic term for LDS) poytheists or monotheists?
And do you beleive in one god or do you believe that their are many gods? (i.e. Gods of other celestial bodies)
I can finally get a confirmed honest answere from a LDS member.
right2bright on August 30, 2007 at 6:08 PM
Vanceone reminiscent, unless I thrust my hand into his side and my finger into his hands, I will not believe. So Vance, since documented books won’t suffice, YOU go through the MANY county courts from whence JS wandered and see the court records for yourself. When the truth dawns on you, don’t wail in pain. Joseph Smith has nothing to do with the truthfulness of God’s love, compassion, Son and Holy Spirit. In order to exist, God doesn’t NEED Joseph Smith to be what you’d like to think or any uniquely mormon books to be any more than they are. The Bible does not NEED the book of mormon. Your thought that the Bible is false because the book of mormon isn’t true shows your own distraught psyche–that need not be. The truth will set you free unless you abhor the light and prefer the darkness that does not comprehend the light. Naturally, you will dismiss anything disturbing; but then, most people react that way as well. According to Christ, there is fault in taking offense when none is intended, and then in justifying rash reactions.
maverick muse on August 30, 2007 at 6:10 PM
That’s exactly my point. What you do isn’t always as important as what you are.
Esthier on August 30, 2007 at 6:11 PM
You’re as ignorant as christoph. I have seen many a non-lds person partake of the LDS sacrament. Until you make the commitment to God, all you did was have some bread and water.
Bigot.
csdeven on August 30, 2007 at 6:23 PM
Vanceone, to which generation were you born?
My ancestor, Joseph Bates Noble, was awarded Joseph Smith’s Nauvoo Legion sword as a gift from the friend who started all this hullaballoo. My other ancestor, John Monroe Moody, was given the dubious duty to burn down SLC when the army entered IF need be–thank God, NOT!
Has the seminary church history books been cleansed of all accounts from our ancestors’ journals and the D&C references from jail been eliminated so that you have no knowledge of Joseph Smith’s many trials and tribulations? At least during the 1960’s-70’s we were still encouraged to read our pioneer family journals. Ours were well kept. Although I have copies, the originals, like so many, were donated to the mormon church and are hidden in archives never to be retrieved without permission from their almighty heirarchy.
Good night, and good luck.
maverick muse on August 30, 2007 at 6:24 PM
You have quoted this more than a few times. Please get your history straight. It was not born out of political end fighting. That is the kind of rubbish that is taught by some anti-Christian churches. Show me what part is not biblically correct.
The fight was not political, but was one of basically disagreement on Gods grace. Or Calvin’s later opinion on the depravity of sin in the human spirit. It was a spirtual and linguistic battle. The Mormons resolved this by saying, the bible is right by how we interprete it (blacks are out, they are in), not how great linguists and translaters translate it. Written close to 2,000 yrs. ago (321-385 a.d.) it has withstood the test of time, I wonder if the religion you belong to has stood such a test of time? Many religions popped up in the 1800’s to 1900, during the “age of enlightenment”, and Thoreau and others spread their wings under this age.
Please, when you discard the Nicene creed you are discarding 2,000 years of investigation, analysis, and it has withstood that, it will withstand you and your religions puny put-downs.
Let me know when your religion has stood such a test of time. Let me know the archeological evidence that supports your church, until you have built such a history, best you sit back and learn from the experience of 2,000 years.
right2bright on August 30, 2007 at 6:26 PM
This is slightly off topic, but Esthier and baldilocks’ conversation reminds me that the Romneys, going back to his Governor father, George, have always been strong supporters of Civil Rights.
Unlike so many activists who are nothing but self-serving and pandering opportunists, their involvement was sincere and inspired, and Mitt was raised in a generous and service-oriented environment which is reflected in his life and accomplishments.
For all the tiresome arguments as to whether or not he is a real Christian, he certainly behaves like one.
Buy Danish on August 30, 2007 at 6:29 PM
So Christs blood is unable to redeem a satanist. I’m sure he’ll be pleased to know what limitations he has that he forgot to tell himself about while he was in the “God the Father” role. It must be tough to do that when God hangs his Jesus skin and bones suit in the Holy Closet.
csdeven on August 30, 2007 at 6:32 PM
The flaw in the logic is not that the Satanist needs a savior of some sort, but they have chosen their savior: Satan. They had three choices: to follow God, to follow no one, to follow Satan. They chose; they are doomed. The unbeliever can still go either way. In the end, not chosing Christ will doom their soul. Until that point, they still have a chance to choose to go “up or down.”
Paul believed he was serving God, the God of the Old Testament. He did not believe in the New Covenant and that God revealed himself as the Son. The Jews of the first century were in a unique position of worshipping God, but not believing in God Revealed. Paul did not chose the latter even though it is likely he saw and heard Jesus. But when confronted with the overwhelming evidence, He chose Jesus. Anyway, I don’t think Paul fits into the argument about Satanists and non-believers.
Mallard T. Drake on August 30, 2007 at 6:34 PM
Maverick Muse-I’m not sure what you are thinking, but you are sorely mistaken that LDS people think the Bible is false or untrue. We beleive the Bible to be the Word of God. I would gently suggest you go to Mormon.org and actually read our beliefs, as several times in this thread you have claimed that we (LDS) believe things that are not true. Seriously, don’t embarrass yourself.
Talon: Yes, from some other Christian tradition to LDS is considered conversion. Just as I believe in order to become Catholic if you are, say, Baptist, requires certain things as well. I’m not sure on that one, but the principle is the same.
Right2bright: Polytheists or Monotheists? Well, that’s tricky, I guess–just like it is for all Christians. We believe in God the Eternal Father and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost. To a muslim, I suppose that’s polytheistic, just like they say all Christians are polytheistic.
We ultimately only worship one Being: God the Father. So technically we are monotheists. But we acknowledge that Christ and the Holy Ghost are divine as well, so I suppose in that sense we are polytheist… just like all other Christians. Tell you what–if you can say that Christians can view the Father, Son and Holy Ghost as being monotheist, then I can say we are monotheist as well.
And I know of no other Gods than the Father, Son and the Holy Ghost. Even if there are some, we certainly do not worship them, nor ever will. However, I do recognize that Christ promised us that we would be an heir of God and joint-heirs with Christ, so I guess you would have to consider what being an heir of God would be (or what a Joint-heir of Christ consists of).
Vanceone on August 30, 2007 at 6:36 PM
There has. It’s called The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
csdeven on August 30, 2007 at 6:38 PM
Additionally, it was restored through an ordained Prophet of God who received the authority to do so.
csdeven on August 30, 2007 at 6:39 PM
And right2bright: Remember that if you base your acceptance of the Nicean creeds on longevity, why are you not a Zorastoran? They’ve been around longer! Or a Jew, for that matter? And Christ tossed out over a thousand years of doctrine as well in the Law of Moses….
As for changes in doctrine… Remember, Gentiles were not allowed to be preached to while Christ was alive. But Peter and Paul changed that, didn’t they? So I’ll expect you to disavow the gospel being preached to anyone but Jews.
In any case, while this has been a fun discussion for the most part, I have to run, everyone. Sorry!
Vanceone on August 30, 2007 at 6:45 PM
Greek Orthodox and Roman Catholic are the 2 primary versions of Christianity. Everything after the Protestant Reformation are derivations from that. I find it fascinating that Protestants seem to be the ones who feel they are arbiters of who is rightfully Christian. Talk about throwing stones when you live in a glass house.
Resolute on August 30, 2007 at 6:49 PM
Christ came to fulfill the Law not destroy it. It’s in the Bibile.
It was Peter who first brought the Gospel to the gentiles. He didn’t just decide to do it. He was instructed in a dream from the Holy Spirit. It’s in the Bible. Paul spread the Gospel to Asia Minor. He didn’t just decide to do it, Christ came to him on the Road to Damascus. It’s in the Bible.
Mallard T. Drake on August 30, 2007 at 6:52 PM
I completely disagree but have nothing more to add to what I’ve already stated and thus will just leave this one alone.
I believe that anyone can be saved, and you believe that Satanists have made their choice and cannot choose another one.
Maybe we can agree to disagree?
Either way, maybe at least now you understand where I was going with my statement?
Esthier on August 30, 2007 at 6:53 PM
On both those points we will violently disagree………
Mallard T. Drake on August 30, 2007 at 6:53 PM
By that I mean that when I was talking about a Satanist and a prick, I did mean one who can be redeemed and one who does not believe redemption is necessary.
Esthier on August 30, 2007 at 6:54 PM
Sure, just disagree with you. That’s fine.
Mallard T. Drake on August 30, 2007 at 6:54 PM
But do you at least agree that it’s preferable to be the one who can be redeemed?
Esthier on August 30, 2007 at 6:59 PM
I meant to add: even if we disagree on which person that is.
Esthier on August 30, 2007 at 7:00 PM
…and the dude on Olbywatch had a typo on “arbiter” in his intro.
asc85 on August 30, 2007 at 7:10 PM
My two cents’ worth:
1) Christians engage in heated theological debates precisely because correct theology is so important in Christianity.
2) Often, whether someone/thing is or is not “X” depends on one’s exact defnition of “X.” By some definitions of Christian, Mormons are Christian; by other definitions, they aren’t.
3) Simply “believing in” Jesus Christ and/or the Christian Bible does not automatically make one Christian. The Muslims claim to believe in Jesus, yet they are no more Christian than Madelene Murray O’Hare was. Christians believe in the Jewish Torah and the Prophets, yet we are not Jews (with a few exceptions).
4) Regardless of Mormonism’s founding or actual theology, the question in the political sphere is what is the candidate’s views and how will he function if he attains office? If his views strongly adhere to that of his church, then what are his church’s positions on matters of public policy?
5) I have heard enough about Mormon theology to find it quite absurd, however: Mormons are among the nicest people I ever meet, and I have heard no accusation that LDS is a bastion of far-leftism, or that it publicly pushes for liberal political agendas. (Come to think of it, I am unaware of any political agenda it has attached itself to, so maybe I am merely uninformed on this point.)
6) I have not yet decided which Republican I will vote for in the primaries (guess I’d better hurry, though-way things are going, voting will start in October), but if Romney wins the nomination he will get my vote in the general election.
7) Just to let on where I am coming from, I am an Independent Baptist Christian.
Lancer on August 30, 2007 at 7:11 PM
Each cult of Christians had their own version of the basic tenets of the faith. In this sense they were having political strife. I didn’t mean it as “politics” literally.
I discard the Councils authority. They had none that allowed them to just pick and choose through voting which teachings were fact or erroneous. This is a fatal flaw in their work. There was no prophet to guide them through the process.
And the insistence that God would take away mans free will, or manipulate him in order to protect the bible is laughable. If that were true, we wouldn’t have the various religions and interpretations we have.
The bible is not infallible. It has been tinkered with by those in the same stripe of those in attendance of the Council.
csdeven on August 30, 2007 at 7:24 PM
Just for clarification’s sake, the Muslims and O’Hare believe that Jesus existed, but neither believe/believed that He was the Son of God,; the former merely have distorted beliefs about who He was and the later didn’t believe that there is a God and, therefore, thought that JC was a mere nut.
Likely, I will also.
Full disclosure: I’m a non-denominational Protestant and I guess that I am willing to “dance”–a little bit–at this “party.”
Allah(pundit) knows all!
baldilocks on August 30, 2007 at 7:30 PM
I the difference between ‘later’ and ‘latter.’ Really. :-)
baldilocks on August 30, 2007 at 7:33 PM
I know…eh, forget it.
baldilocks on August 30, 2007 at 7:33 PM
Lancer on August 30, 2007 at 7:11 PM
Thanks for your comments. It is refreshing to hear from someone who isn’t totally a green eye shades guy when it comes to Christianity versus LDS.
This thread has excruciating attention focused on minutiae that is irrelevant to the office of the Presidency. Some members of my own Party are losing sight of the big picture.
Who would Romney appoint as judges? What sort of choices would he make for his cabinet? How would he approach the war on terror? Islamofascism? Taxes? Economic growth? Education? What’s his character?
These are the things matter.
Buy Danish on August 30, 2007 at 7:38 PM
Lancer on August 30, 2007 at 7:11 PM
Best comment so far.
The controversy stems from the fact that, unlike Hindus and Druids, Mormons consider themselves Christian. Naturally they take offense when others state they are not, even when it is not meant pejoratively.
The doctrines are really quite different. Neither side should be expected to compromise their beliefs to placate the other. As long as no one gets hurt, there should not be any problem.
Nosferightu on August 30, 2007 at 7:54 PM
I love seekers of Truths.
‘The Kingdom of Heaven is Within You’…
find it, and calm down. :)
Mormons, and even schmormans can find heaven within, just as the Christ said. It’s about wisdom. It’s about soul wisdom. These arguments are ultimately shallow.
Here’s to one and all recognizing the power of God within.
Even if you call yourself a schmorkomakiomian.
lol..sheesh.
bridgetown on August 30, 2007 at 8:05 PM
Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions Vanceone. Have a good evening.
I would vote for Mitt LONG BEFORE I would ever vote for just about every democrat.(More than likely EVERY democrat) Bill and Hill profess “deep Christian faith” all of the time(when it “fits” rather) and I honestly can’t remember them EVER acting “like good Christians”. HAHAHA!
Point is, Mitt Romney is a GOOD PERSON. I do not care WHY he is a good person.
Quite a few of the posters here are atheists. GOOD PEOPLE and I do not care why.(Although I do have a view on that)
Let us also keep another thing in mind. This is America, land of the free.(Unless you are a leftist. To you Amerika is an oppressive, imperialist, racist, militarist, sexist and every other EEEEVIL “ist” there is)
We ALL enjoy the freedom to believe as we wish without fear of big brother kicking in our doors and hauling us off to re-education camps.(My apologies to any Branch Davidians here)
IMO, the ONLY time a persons faith would or should be an issue is if that faith commands them to destroy all others. If that faith commands them to subjugate “non-believers” then that person should NEVER be allowed ANYWHERE NEAR public office. Because their motivation is not to keep America free. THEY, csdevan, are the bigots. THEY are the fascists. The enemy of freedom.
Debating theology on a blog is like sweeping a dirt floor. Nothing is ever resolved but a lot of people get pissed. The first time a personal attack occurs, the debate is over and the argument starts. At the end, both parties of the argument walk away the victor. At least in their minds. So what is the point?
We are free to think and do pretty much as we damn well please here. I don’t like all of what is done, but that is the way it is AND should be. Free will and all that.
There is no freedom to destroy freedom however.
Yer gonna’ have to fight for that mate!
Savvy?
Thanks MM and AP!
Best blog on the net!
Talon on August 30, 2007 at 8:09 PM
Thanks, Nosferightu.
I agree with you as well. I often find myself wishing that the Founders had added “the Right to be Wrong” explicitly in the First Amendment (even though I believe it is clearly implied).
My dream is for one of the other Republican candidates to stand up and say loud and clear that Romney’s religion should not be a factor against him in the election, that the people should vote for or against him based on Buy Danish’s criteria.
Whether Mormons are Christian or not is, in the political arena, nothing more than semantics, and should be treated as such. Each of the different Christian denominations will decide whether they consider LDS to be close enough theologically to be called “Christian” or not. Some denominations will, others won’t. Once that is done, we will proceed to demonstrate our mutual intolerance by not blowing each other up over our differences-while the MSM makes a big deal over theological pronouncements that they are totally unqualified to discuss, in their neverending quest to equate conservative Christians with Muslim terrorists.
Lancer on August 30, 2007 at 8:36 PM
Spot on Lancer!
Talon on August 30, 2007 at 8:49 PM
Which is why I say: ALLAHPUNDIT FOR ATTORNEY GENERAL!!!
baldilocks on August 30, 2007 at 8:55 PM
http://www.fairlds.org/Anti-Mormons/Can_Mormons_Be_Considered_Christians.html
lan astaslem on August 30, 2007 at 8:56 PM
Some things never change. I am astonished at how easy it is to stir up this sort of thing in the HotAir readership.
Take a good look. Is this what we want for HotAir’s legacy? If this post (and others like it) generate enough traffic to get an AP an iPhone, will it have been worth it?
One thing is fairly certain: liberals can (and probably will) use the comments posted/archived here to further their agenda (for the benefit and/or posterity of the “progressive movement”).
Although I’ve been guilty (in the past) of exacerbating these sorts of nasty exchanges, the novelty and amusement derived from doing so has pretty much lost it’s appeal I think. The comments in this thread instill the same kinds of feelings of disgust (and doom) that I get when I visit DailyKOS or HuffPo.
My collie says:
CyberCipher on August 30, 2007 at 9:20 PM
Does that make Allah the Eye of Sauron? So that’s why we’ve never seen him!
SouthernDem on August 30, 2007 at 9:28 PM
Well……we all know this.
Conservative blogs allow ALL to post. We are allowed to kick the livin’ bejeebus out of each other. Try that at Huffpo or Kos. You’re kicked out of the echo chambers immediately. So WHO exactly is “tolerant”????
I have said it a bazillion times before……the DEBATES ARE OVER. The lines are CLEARLY drawn. Those people DO NOT want “co-existence”…they want assimilation. Their “faith” commands them to destroy all others.
I look forward to the day they actually stop talking about it and give it a run.
The hand of hilleron will NOT save them.
Til then……go in peace.
Talon on August 30, 2007 at 9:49 PM
Neither you nor Cox get to decide whether Romney or me is a Christian. Only God can do that. And if you try to tell me I’m not, you’re a bigot. Get used to it.
WasatchMan on August 30, 2007 at 10:00 PM
Talon,
I think they want “domination” not assimilation, but the “faith” part is pretty accurate.
Assimilation requires a melding of ideas and cultures at some point in time, but they spend all their time stressing how different and “diverse” we are, and how fabulous it is to be multicultis.
Buy Danish on August 30, 2007 at 10:02 PM
I’ll tell ya what. You search official LDS sites for anti-Christian blogs etc, and I’ll search for all the anti- “anyone who isn’t a Christian” sites and we’ll see who is being offended by who.
csdeven on August 30, 2007 at 10:23 PM
It occurs to me that for all the arguments over dogma, there is not one person here who really knows what particulars of the LDS faith that Mitt Romney believes in.
We know the broad principles of his faith as it mirrors Christianity, and we know about his life and accomplishments. We don’t have a clue about anything else (nor should we).
Indeed, it is absurd to assume that every mainstream LDS member believes exactly the same thing or that every member takes the details of the LDS dogma literally - just as it is absurd to argue that all Christians agree on how to interpret the Bible.
It seems to me that in a political context, all these arguments over “false” and “evil” prophets are irrelevant, and would only matter if a candidate embraced some aspect of ANY religion (or non-religion) that had contempt for our nation’s laws or classically liberal traditions, or intended to dispose of them forthwith.
Buy Danish on August 30, 2007 at 10:38 PM
I find it interesting that so many people believe that a member of a church who’s full name is:
The CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST of Latter-day Saints
are not considered Christians.
Offhand I can only think of one other major sect that has the word Christ in their name.
While there may be some odd little details in their particular beliefs, there has to be some sort of mental / emotional disconnect for people to think that Mormons aren’t Christians when “The Church of Jesus Christ” is the first part of their name.
Seriously; I’m starting to see why the Shia and the Sunni will readily and happily kill each other over minor details of fundamentals. Some of you people seem to be about | | *that* far away from conducting your own ‘jihad’ against people who basically have the same beliefs as you, with minor differences in the specific rites and practices.
LegendHasIt on August 30, 2007 at 10:52 PM
I agree. I guess I used the “assimilation” term more from a “Borg” sense. That is they rip out your brain and replace it with a chip. “You have been assimilated”. The leftoids would stop half way. “OOOOPS! We haven’t quite figured out that “”replace the brain part yet”". (If that statement makes me an orc…….so be it)
Talon on August 30, 2007 at 10:55 PM
CyberCipher,
I am kinda curious. What is your collie’s favorite Lord of the Rings movie?
Movie 3 or 2?
ColtsFan on August 30, 2007 at 11:12 PM
That is one of the nuttiest postings I have ever read.
Blog arguments amount to the same as inter-denominational killings to you????
Because people disagree on some blog they automatically equate to “foaming at the mouth” radicals intent on eradicating their “opponent”???
Well LA DI DA!! Go read a sports blog! There ARE Yankee fans that would do bodily harm to a Red Sox fan and vice versa. Ever watch film clips from ANY GODDAMN soccer match?!?!?! They literally kill each other in some of those riots oh pious one.
A few people VENT here and you see no difference between them and the Shia and Sunni eh???
Show me one death threat. Show me one THREAT AT ALL.
What an absolute BOGUS post.
Talon on August 30, 2007 at 11:13 PM
LegendHasit,
Words have meanings independent of what we wish them to have. (And they had better-otherwise communication is impossible) Just calling yourself a “Christian” does not automatically mean that you are one.
Here’s an example: Suppose Hillary Clinton held a press conference and announced that she was now a Christian Conservative. She also announces that she has changed none of her views-she is still pro-abortion, socialist, anti-Second Amendment, anti-military, etc. Does calling herself conservative mean that she is a conservative, even though she still holds every political view that defines a liberal?
The answer, of course, is “No.” “Conservative” has a meaning that is independent of what she wishes or thinks it is. Now we can disagree on what qualifies one as a conservative, but that does not mean that just anyone who wants the title can take it and expect to be accepted as such.
This applies to the term “Christian” as well. It makes no sense to say that anyone who claims the title is a Christian, because then you have made the word completely meaningless. WasatchMan may or may not be a Christian as I define/understand the word. That does not make me a bigot. The pope considers me a “wayward Christian” at best. This does not make him a bigot-nor lessen the high respect I have for him.
This is a side issue with respect to Romney’s campaign, but in a longer-term, more philosophical sense, this is a very important subject.
Lancer on August 30, 2007 at 11:17 PM
And I find it interesting that there are people who are so spiritually blind. In fact, there are more than enough links in just this thread for anyone to willing to take a moment to read them, to clearly comprehend the differences between real biblical Christianity and the false doctrine teaching cult of Mormonism…and all it takes is the time to read the differences. You must either be too lazy to do it, or, just another troll laying down bait…
NRA4Freedom on August 30, 2007 at 11:20 PM
I will deal with the last point first because it is so dishonest. I have never once said there was no possibility Smith could have done something right.
Our discussion was never about that. It is about whether he did certain things wrong and whether he, as your third prophet said, was involved in a gun battle on the day of his death.
So you’re lying. Again.
Second, I dislike the man or hate him if you will for the evil he has wrought, deceiving so many into abusive so-called marital relations, inspiring militarism both under himself and his direct successor and the death and theft of property they perpetuated, his and the church’s racism, the intentionally lying to people about inform vital to their own spiritual development and their souls… if he is a fraud and was somewhat of a pedophile bastard who pressured multiple young teenagers to marry him, using his supposed position from God to do so, something that would absolutely, categorically due to his authority, be a crime in my country… I think he’s a jerk and deserves condemnation.
Documents from 1826 are in short supply, but we do have his arrest records and related documents and many contemporary accounts describe him as being arrested. More evidence and analysis here. We also have exact copies of newspaper articles from later in the 1800s relying on the court records then available and reproducing word for word (same link).
You’ll never believe anything you don’t want to.
As I said above, regarding Smith’s gun battle among many other things:
You’re also, as I said above, an intellectual coward.
Christoph on August 30, 2007 at 11:21 PM
Words are different from meanings????
It sounds like you really do understand the Theistic Argument from Reason. Atheists and naturalists try to reduce words to just mere talk about “semantics.” But theists are really not talking about words. We are really talking about meanings, and meanings (concepts) tie into logically a discussion about propositions.
And propositions (the cognitive “what”, or the engine of rationality) cannot be “reduced” to anything else.
Atheism is false simply because atheism does not have the philosophical tools required to make sense of propositions or rationality.
ColtsFan on August 30, 2007 at 11:23 PM
Talon on August 30, 2007 at 11:13 PM
OH OH. I think LegendHasIt on August 30, 2007 at 10:52 PM makes a valid point.
It’s a bit hyperbolic in that we’re not about to kill each other, but this rings quite true to me:
There is no denying that for the most part the entire day was spent arguing over “specific rites and practices”, and some of it is, dare I say, quite “mean spirited”.
What those rites and practices have to do with Romney’s qualifications to be President have yet to be answered.
Oh wait!
The answer is….NOTHING.
Buy Danish on August 30, 2007 at 11:26 PM
Buy Danish on August 30, 2007 at 11:41 PM
Woops, the emphasis is only meant to be on the words that go above NRA4Freedom, which are his and his alone.
The rest are my own.
I do not want any confusion over who is saying what!
Buy Danish on August 30, 2007 at 11:42 PM
While I envy you ‘fundamentalists’ your absolutely sure and ‘perfect’ faith, I don’t envy your disdain for people who don’t believe exactly as you do.
I don’t have to read the links…. I’ve known MANY Mormons very well, Related by marriage to a Mormon Bishop and I have read their texts.
And more importantly, I have seen them in in the conduct of their lives and families and communities.
Sure, there are some Mormon sects that are down right scary… But EVERY mainstream Mormon that I have known well, I have admired and respected. EVERY one that I have known well has been a better person overall than I am, and a better person and a greater asset to society than many people who claim to be members of the ‘perfect’ Christianity.
I judge people and groups, not by what they profess to believe, but on what they do and how they live and how they affect the community around them.
Funny, but I’ve never been called lazy, ignorant, spiritually blind or a troll by a Mormon. What ever happened to … What is it… Mathew 7?:
1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
No, I can’t find any death threats on this thread…. That is why I said
. The threat of violence is not here, but the disdain for the beliefs of others (even though they share the the same BASIC tenets and tend to be good neighbors and citizens) is pretty obvious in some of the posts. If you read what I actually wrote, I did not say that you members of ‘Perfect Christianity’ conducted yourselves as the Shia and Sunis… I wrote, (or at least intended to imply) that I could see why they do it, because both have no tolerance for anyone who believes somewhat differently than they do.
And it is a small step from disdain to hate, and another small step from hate to offering violence.
LegendHasIt on August 31, 2007 at 12:01 AM
I guess it does not matter what I ACTUALLY said then eh Legend?
You see only what you WANT to see. Tell ya’ what…..stay up all night and watch Drudge and see how many cars explode in front of LDS and non-LDS churches tonight. My WILD ASS GUESS???? NONE!!!! But do not take my shia/sunni opinion as gospel. YOU stay awake all night and watch.
I posted here all evening and not ONE WORD of vitriol entered my postings. NOT ONE!
Then along comes YOU!
If only the entire world could behave and believe like you!
Right?
Talon on August 31, 2007 at 12:01 AM
Uhhh…….provide one example of this please.
Quite honestly, I could accuse you of the exact same sentiment .
ALL HAIL LEGENDHASIT!!! (Or suffer the consequences!)
Talon on August 31, 2007 at 12:08 AM
Funny… Here all I have been doing in this thread has defending people who are generally very good citizens, and pleading for tolerance for decent people who have BASICLY the same values and goals, yet:
accuses me of just the opposite.
Hey Talon; When I’m responding directly to you, I’ll let you know. (Like right now.) Mostly, when I post things like I have earlier in the thread, I’m speaking generally.
Now I’m going to quit typing specifically to you Talon, because my next words would be insults and imprecations, and I try to avoid such if posssible.
LegendHasIt on August 31, 2007 at 12:18 AM
Legend,
You’re missing the point.
Just because a person is what we consider a “good” person does not make them a Christian. There is absolutely no contradiction in saying that Mormons are nice people and at the same time are not Christian. If nice = Christian, then AllahPundit is a Christian, which is ridiculous because he is an atheist.
The Bible also calls us to “judge with righteous judgment.” Christ never intended us to shut our brains down. Matthew 7 is (IMO) a warning against judging others while holding different standards for ourselves.
Also, you can’t just look at the similarities between two things and declare that they are the same. If we accepted that logic, I could prove to you that the computer you are sitting in front of is actually an orange (care for a snack?). To be intellectually honest (which the universalists/syncretists aren’t), you have to look at both the similarities and the differences, and then decide (or “judge,” if you prefer) whether, for the purposes of the question at hand (whatever that question may be), the similarities outweigh the differences or vice versa. That is why two different people can have honestly differing opinions about whether Mormons are Christian or not, without either one being a bigot or an idiot.
Lancer on August 31, 2007 at 12:20 AM
Comment pages: « 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 »