Video: “I know Mitt Romney is not himself Christian…”
posted at 9:30 am on August 30, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
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: « Previous 1 ... 4 5 6 7 Next »
Talon on August 31, 2007 at 12:01 AM
The arguments here have gone beyond Christian versus LDS, but are even Christian versus Christian.
I think he is quite right when he says,
There IS a lot of internecine squabbling which is way beyond what I would call “venting”. Not all of it, but some of it.
Buy Danish on August 31, 2007 at 12:22 AM
.
Lancer,
First of all, no one is saying they are the same, anymore than Catholics are the same as Methodists.
It is the domineering and intransigent tone in which some opinions are expressed that which make it quite obvious that the commentator does think that those who disagree with them are “idiots”.
Those people do come across as sounding “bigoted” because they are so intolerant to any variation of their own beliefs.
No one is asking these people to compromise their own beliefs, but that is quite different from insisting that everyone else’s beliefs are “false”.
There is a similar intolerance of some more “far right” conservatives towards others, and Masscon is a perfect example of this when he touts a web site which criticizes Mitt Romney because, among other things, he believes that unmarried people should have access to birth control. That is a very rigid and narrow viewpoint, and is certainly not a “mainstream” conservative belief.
Buy Danish on August 31, 2007 at 12:41 AM
…does anyone know how the Braves did tonight?
T/C
Doug on August 31, 2007 at 12:43 AM
502 posts. Is it safe to assume that AP will be posting the trailer for September Dawn soon?
Just to keep it civil, how about Red Dawn instead?
Nosferightu on August 31, 2007 at 1:17 AM
Good answer.
Good question.
Christoph on August 31, 2007 at 1:20 AM
Maybe I am. I’m not sure what the point is.
I’ve never claimed to be a great polemicist, ESPECIALLY on things that are a matter of pure faith.
What is your definition, then, of the word Christian?
I base my opinion that Mormons ARE Christians on the first definition of the word according to my Websters Dictionary:
And since from the ‘horse’s mouth’, (so to speak):
seems to be a pretty clear indication to me that they do indeed profess a belief in the teachings of the Christ; That one would have to conclude that by general definition, they MUST be Christians.
Therein lies my comparison to the Sunni – Shia situation. They agree on the basics at the source of their ‘religion’, it is what comes later that separates them and makes them disdain (at best) each other’s differences in the minor details.
Now, one could argue that the ‘Latter gospels’ in the Book of Mormon are all BS (and I would probably agree with you), and the story of the ‘Golden Plates’ is pretty obviously false, even to me as a defender of Mormons in general.
Nonetheless, the Latter / later gospels do not repudiate the earlier Biblical teachings of Christ… in which the Mormons also profess to believe. So, therefore by my definition, they ARE Christians.
Maybe not ‘perfect’ Christians, and maybe the ‘Latter Gospels’ are even blasphemous in God’s eyes.
But at least I know I’m not really qualified to judge God’s opinion of them, and I kinda doubt that you are. (you, meaning not only Lancer, but every person that hasn’t yet ascended into Heaven and had ALL of the Mysteries of God revealed to them).
Not many people around my neighborhood can HONESTLY claim that they know absolutely everything that God thinks…. The best that they can do is hope they properly understand the things that He and his Disciples HAVE chosen to reveal.
LegendHasIt on August 31, 2007 at 1:25 AM
PS: Thanks for the help, ‘Buy Danish’!
LegendHasIt on August 31, 2007 at 1:30 AM
Some food for thought for you Vanceone.
Why zero?
Christoph on August 31, 2007 at 2:32 AM
Oh, here’s an interesting fact, Vanceone. From JosephSmith.net search results:
Your Joseph Smith didn’t rise to the level of being a bastard.
Christoph on August 31, 2007 at 2:36 AM
I’m pretty sure that all the anti-Mormons here claiming “some of my best friends are Mormons” have in fact never met a Mormon in their lives, let alone had any significant relationships with them. I’ll bet Ana Marie Cox has never even spoken with one. You simply can’t spew the kind of bile I have read on this thread and have any actual acquaintance with Mormons as they actually are.
WasatchMan on August 31, 2007 at 2:49 AM
Three very significant relationships, ongoing friendships, close family friends, and ex-member myself.
But don’t let being completely wrong influence your thinking.
And you’ll see I haven’t expressed any vileness toward Mormons per se, with the exceptions of individuals such as Joseph Smith and Brigham Young who were vile, except to attack specific Mormon church lies and defend myself from being called a liar by Mormons who refuse to debate any substantive point and are clearly wrong on each point they bring up themselves as established by the evidence they refuse to look at.
Signed,
Mitt Romney Supporter in large measure,
Christoph
Christoph on August 31, 2007 at 3:12 AM
I have Mormons sleep over at my house and sleep in theirs on a fairly regular basis.
Of course, I actually hate them. What’s more, I don’t know them. Because I’ve never met them.
Christoph on August 31, 2007 at 3:15 AM
The blanket I have 30′ behind me that my close Mormon friend, one of several, spent 8-months in secret knitting me, according to her Mormon mom who told me she wanted to surprise me with a gift, doesn’t exist either. And neither do her letters, or those of my other Mormon friends, or the drawing of their children.
Because you’re such a supergenius, WasatchMan.
Christoph on August 31, 2007 at 3:17 AM
A lot of the Mormon haters apply their own bigoted flawed logic to Gods dealings with his prophets. All this talk of JS and the vitriol leveled against him makes perfect sense in relation to modern thinking. I cannot tell you on what exact date it changed and it doesn’t matter. What matters is the sensibilities of the people who lived during the time it happened. For instance the bible tells us that King Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines. And as we can see from his example, God puts up with a lot of his crap, but eventually, in the end, the punishment of God is leveled upon him.
It is disingenuous to disparage a Prophet who was restoring Gods will to his people because Gods way offends your sensibilities. God keeps his own council and doesn’t seek ours. Polygamy is obviously a principle that he approved of. Solomons problem was he married foreign women NOT because he took 700 wives. He was punished because of it. Do we discard ALL that the wisest of Kings said because it offends our sensibilities today? If so, just toss your bible out the window and get out of this conversation because you know not that of which you speak.
In the end, the practice of polygamy can be laid at the door step of every single Christian church out there and many other revered persons in the bible.
csdeven on August 31, 2007 at 9:13 AM
I’m coming back to this (why, I don’t know) after leaving it for the night. I just had to say that I think your moral equivalence between Christians who have a problem, not with the Jesus Christ part, but with the of Latter Day Saints part (not Jesus of Nazareth, Jesus of Latter Day Saints…), and Muslims who want to kill each other, is incredibly out of line and over the top.
Seems to me that most of the debate in this thread has been civil and honest disagreements. Nobody wants to kill anybody (thought, Esthier is pretty pissed at Christoph…and maybe for good reason…). Anyway, I just don’t think your comparison is fair.
nailinmyeye on August 31, 2007 at 9:17 AM
Oh, I forgot about that part. Nope – not rites and practices, but fundamental beliefs about the person, nature, and work of Jesus – the most central figure of the Christian faith. If the issue was one over infant or adult baptism – or about transubstantiation vs. consubstantiation vs. a symbolic view of communion – I wouldn’t have anything to say. However, the issue of the identity of Jesus Christ is the most central issue of Christian faith. Period.
And, if you even cursorily go back and view the comments, you will see the nearly every person on this thread has said that Romney’s Mormonism would not have an effect on their choice to vote for him in the general. It wouldn’t have an effect on my decision. In fact, the more I hear of Romney, the more I like him. This is why this discussion probably does not belong on this board, but on a board discussing religion specifically, as this really has only to do with the differences between Mormonism and traditional, orthodox Christianity.
nailinmyeye on August 31, 2007 at 9:27 AM
Vanceone – I love you man, but this is simply double speak. You are being deliberately vague on details here buddy.
What you are describing is tri-theism. It is not the monotheism of traditional Christianity. This, right here, is the central difference between our faiths. It is not “like all other Christians.” Christians are, I hope I have communicated, strictly monotheistic. 3 persons – 1 God. It may be creedal, but it has existed so long for a reason – Definition of Chalcedon. Dealing both with Tritheism, and with Modalism.
What do you consider being a joint-heir with Christ to be? Will you also be divine? Is that the Mormon goal, to become divine in the same manner with Christ?
nailinmyeye on August 31, 2007 at 9:41 AM
There is a book titled “The God Makers” by Ed Decker that covers this subject. He also has a website with much of the same information available. There are a number of other books available on the same subject. It’s interesting that the Mormon faith and the Masons have so much in common in terms of secret teachings and non-Christian theology.
Someone’s faith is going to be fair game in politics and is a key issue for voters, and always has been. Why else would people like the Clinton’s profess to be Christians and carry around Bibles every time there’s an election.
Hening on August 31, 2007 at 9:57 AM
HUGE difference between one person believing in immersion while another believes sprinkling is ok and Christians believing what the bible says about God and Jesus Christ while Mormons choose to believe that God was once a man like them and that Satan was physically Jesus’ brother.
Face the facts, Christianity is one thing, Mormonism and all the other doctrines of demons out there are something all together different.
NRA4Freedom on August 31, 2007 at 10:13 AM
Ex-member, eh Christoph? Well, that explains a lot. They always say that those who are bitterest about Catholics are those who were once Catholic themselves. But that doesn’t make them reliable sources about Catholicism. And thanks for the personal insults, as usual. Stay classy.
WasatchMan on August 31, 2007 at 10:13 AM
I tried to argue that point too. Maybe you’ll have better luck.
Are you being sincere? You’ve been perfectly polite, but did you miss all the times I was called an idiot, before I started calling Christoph a prick, for doing nothing but disagreeing with his assertion that he can say who is and who is not a Christian?
His disdain was tangible. He may actually have these Mormon friends he claims to have, but he certainly has disdain for their beliefs.
What’s that? Are you upset because someone is claiming to know more about you than you do?
Fancy that.
I wouldn’t say I’m any more upset at him than he is at me. After all, I only find him arrogant and willfully ignorant, whereas he finds me completely vile, disgusting and of course idiotic because of his own misunderstanding of my point.
It was nothing to lose sleep over last night.
Esthier on August 31, 2007 at 10:18 AM
To steal a quote:
E L Frederick (Sniper One) on August 31, 2007 at 10:30 AM
Hey Christoph. What did you think of my analogy?
baldilocks on August 31, 2007 at 10:42 AM
You forgot the best part of that quote:
Esthier on August 31, 2007 at 10:46 AM
nailinmyeye on August 31, 2007 at 9:27 AM
Bingo. That’s why I find all this discussion of the minutiae of dogma tiresome and irrelevant to what matters, which are the broad principles of Romney’s faith as demonstrated in his character, his life, and his ability to govern.
Moreover, as I said earlier, there is not a single person here who can claim to know every detail of what Romney believes and it is folly to assume otherwise, just as it would be folly to claim to know what all Catholics believe just because they identify themselves as Catholic.
Are you sure that blanket is 30′ behind you and not 29′ or 31′? Can we trust your presentation of the facts or are they “false” and are you “lying”?
Maybe its time for you to put a lid on it. The word “obnoxious” comes to mind, and it is clear that you are on a fool’s mission, where you seem to think you can browbeat others into experiencing your own disillusionment.
It is also silly for you to ask what kind of person would allow a girl of 14 to marry a man of 38 because you are applying 21st Century standards to a 19th Century situation. The fact is that the marriage of young girls, or of young girls to older men, was an accepted practice in the 19th Century.
Standards evolve, just as the LDS Church has evolved, and what was acceptable practice then will now get you excommunicated.
Whatever your personal quarrel with the church is is your business, and it may have been alright to share it once, but your relentless attempts to “convert” others to your way of thinking is both incredibly irritating and, in my view, inappropriate.
Buy Danish on August 31, 2007 at 11:01 AM
LOL. And may I say, “dittos!” for the benefit of Christoph, who is too smart by half, and “falsely” compares himself to the great Rush Limbaugh.
P.S. I love South Park, so thanks for the reminder, guys and gals.
Buy Danish on August 31, 2007 at 11:14 AM
Maybe you could get the next Presidential debate moderator to ask this question of the candidates, since it is so very important to you.
Have fun with that!
Buy Danish on August 31, 2007 at 11:23 AM
It’s the best show on TV, and that’s not an opinion.
They were the only ones to stand up to the Danish cartoon hysteria, and their own network caved like cowards.
Esthier on August 31, 2007 at 11:45 AM
You obviously missed the point all together, but then, you are already missing far more than that, by the looks of your messages here anyway.
Bottom line still is, “Christianity is one thing, Mormonism and all the other doctrines of demons out there are something all together different.”
NRA4Freedom on August 31, 2007 at 11:46 AM
I was hoping for an honest answer. You are saying that their are no other God’s in all of creation than the one God your father. You are saying no mormon can ever become a god?
Please, be honest.
And you know, that the Christian believe in one God, that the trinity is one…you know that, I do not expect the Muslims to acknowledge that, they are out to destroy the Christians…Are you?
I will give you another chance
Are Mormons polytheists, do they beleive that there are many (more than three) gods…forget about what you worship, how about the many before you do they worship the same god as you?
Another chance to be honest.
right2bright on August 31, 2007 at 11:48 AM
Most Christians I know will only vote for Romney if a Christian does not join the race. (They don’t consider Rudy a Christian even though he professes to be a Catholic. They want a real Christian, like President Bush. Like Ronald Reagan.
Most Americans want a Christian president. Romney is not a Christian. Mormons are not Christians.
PoliticallyIncorrectSandy on August 31, 2007 at 12:05 PM
Agreed, although the do get unnecessarily disgusting sometimes which I really wish they wouldn’t do. The Danish Cartoon episodes were brilliant, and I also love the episode where Cartman goes after the hippie colonies.
I didn’t miss the point at all. You said there’s a HUGE difference between “immersion” and “sprinkling”.
Since Mormons use full “immersion” in their baptismal rites, I concluded that you are an adherent of the “sprinkler” system.
Do you not realize that Christians have different baptismal rites, and many baptize through immersion also, just like those danged demon Mormons?
Buy Danish on August 31, 2007 at 12:20 PM
This issue about Romney and Mormonism is very divisive since it divides those of us who support conservatism, the Constitution and don’t want to see the Democrats in power. There have been so many posts on this topic that turn one person against the other even though they probably have more in common than this one issue.
Being an apologist for Mitt Romney demands some knowledge of Mormonism and some knowledge of Christianity. Simply calling foul over discussing the man’s faith is not going to cut it. Mr. Romney has lauded his leadership role in the LDS so his attachment is solid.
What should be argued is that whatever one holds for theology has no bearing over their role as president. Part of the genius of the founding fathers is that this country runs under the skills of the president, but remains detached from the spiritual affiliations or beliefs of that individual. How about calling to attention the hypocrisies of Democrats, who claim to be Christians, yet behave as the secular opportunists they truly are. At least Mitt Romney walks the walk when it comes to his beliefs.
If this issue remains a point for like-minded people to squabble, and those same people allow boobs like Olby come off with a better, basic understanding of Romney’s church of choice’s beliefs, than this is going to become blown out of proportion and damage our cause.
Hening on August 31, 2007 at 12:25 PM
No offensive, but I’m fairly certain that NRA4Freedom meant something else. The difference (from what I read) was not between sprinkling in immersion but was that there is a difference between arguing over immersion or sprinkling and arguing over the different things Mormons believe.
Basically saying that the argument over sprinkling or immersion is not as big an argument as the ones others have against Mormons.
But I could have misunderstood NRA4Freedom.
Esthier on August 31, 2007 at 12:27 PM
Maybe we should all stop bringing religion into the fray.
I think you are stretching it abit, I think 30% – 40% of the voters really worry about this. You need to think outside of your own little box – your own little private idaho from where you live and from which you operate daily in your life. Many Americans believe Religion and how one worships and sees God is personal.
And who is the moral authority to say who is really Christian and who isn’t Sandy? You? Is there a litmus test for that? We have all learned that just because someone says they are Christan, or it appears that they are God fearing isn’t neccessarily the case.
I suspect Sam Brownback and my guy Mr. Huckabee are the real deal, but I am not a moral authority on anyone’s faith and I could be wrong, the only real one with the answers is God.
AprilOrit on August 31, 2007 at 12:28 PM
Of course not, Christoph already took that job.
Nice idea but likely as possible as world peace.
Esthier on August 31, 2007 at 12:30 PM
The other thing I don’t get is the whole polegemy thing in the Fundamentalist Mormon households, I mean, they are only legally married to one woman – the first wife and the other marriages are supposedly spiritual, so what’s the big deal?
I mean how is that different than like someone like Hugh Hefner and his set up? I know he is not legally married to the first one, but it he was married to Holly he would still have the set-up with Brigette and Kendra, so what’s the big deal? Everyone seems to think that fine, their show gets big ratings across Middle America.
Bigamy is one thing, but this polegemy – I don’t get it. If it involves the child brides, birth defects and the welfare scams I get the problem, but this actual fantasy of having more than one wife seems ridiculous.
AprilOrit on August 31, 2007 at 12:42 PM
I don’t quite understand – this entire thread is about religion.
nailinmyeye on August 31, 2007 at 12:44 PM
Esthier,
Your synopsis makes sense so I doubt that’s what he meant:)
My eyes glaze over when I hear people characterized as “demons”, so I’ll blame it on that.
Buy Danish on August 31, 2007 at 12:44 PM
You may be saying having more than one wife a fantasy, others would say a nightmare.
Just realized the relationship between having many celestial wives for the mormons and 72 virgins for the islamic creatures.
right2bright on August 31, 2007 at 12:49 PM
I betcha Mitt walks the walk better than most of the Christians who don’t accept him into their fold right here on this blog.
Yep. We need to be focusing on the “Demons” in the Democrat Party and their “belief system” instead of “demonizing” Mitt (or Guiliani for that matter).
Ironically, if a Fundamentalist Christian was asked about his beliefs he’d probably get less votes that Mitt. That is why it is a slippery slope to go down this road.
Buy Danish on August 31, 2007 at 1:14 PM
LOL! Nope, you really missed it.
NRA4Freedom on August 31, 2007 at 2:10 PM
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.–VANCE ONE
Vance, perhaps I misread what you said, but it seemed the same ol’ mormon rhetoric as in, whatever means are used to disprove the book of mormon will in turn disprove the Bible. The point is that the Bible is the legitimate recorded word of God, and not merely the greatest 19th Century Americana history novel. Believe as you like.
csdevin, calling those who know better a ‘bigot’ is juvenile. I forgive you. During 1950-80’s, the deacon boys (my brothers) were instructed by the heirarchy (originating from SLC and trickling down to the local wards) to NOT serve the sacrament to non-members and to those who were disciplined in church courts in which my father participated in passing judgement during his years on the stake high council. I was indignant to see my people I knew to have gentle hearts being mistreated by the mormon priesthood, and have always gone out of my way to protect the underdog suffering unjust social stigma. For you to say that according to mormonism non-mormons are encouraged to take the mormon sacrament shows either your own ignorance or dishonesty.
As far as I am concerned, the person’s FAITH determines the meaning of things. Jesus reminded those he healed to go their way and sin no more, and that their faith made them whole.
maverick muse on August 31, 2007 at 2:22 PM
Allah is only trying to get his iPhone by bringing up the traffic stats on this site, so I don’t blame him. But this thread has seen an outbreak of AMDS, Anti-Mormon Derangement Syndrome, where a disturbed minority of commenter’s freak out because someone mentions “Mormon” in the public square. I believe it’s similar to Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDS) as first diagnosed by Dr. Krauthammer, and likewise has no known cure.
WasatchMan on August 31, 2007 at 3:10 PM
I’m amazed at the ignorance here. Go read what the early “church fathers” wrote (2nd/3rd century) to see what the early Christians believed. It’s not what mainstream Christianity believes today in many cases.
sadatoni on August 31, 2007 at 3:14 PM
The Nicene Creed (and it’s brothers) were written around 320-380AD. What part of that is not mainstream? Something that is stated now in the year 2000 as being “mainstream”.
Luther in the 1500’s what theological quirky things did he adhere to? Of the 91 thesis, which ones do you find different than “mainstream”?
Glad your amazed. You will herewith be known as….the “amazed supreme sadatoni” may we call you by your intitials?
right2bright on August 31, 2007 at 3:48 PM
Man, I disagree. Some here – maybe. But, many of us simply are emphasizing differences between two faiths, and are quite happy to be friends with, or even elect, a Mormon. I have nothing inherently against Mormons, at all –
(except that to go to a dance at the LDS church in high school with this hot chick, I had to have an interview with one of the church elders to see if I was alright. I loved playing basketball there though.)
- but other than that, sweet!
nailinmyeye on August 31, 2007 at 4:22 PM
I have not been able to catch up on the posts but I have a sister who is Mormon and a sister who was Mormon and is now a Charismatic (a low key Pentecostal). I know a lot about Mormonism because of my two sisters and there are things in their beliefs that do not fit in with the beliefs of those who feel that if the New Testament does not support a belief than it is to be rejected. It is not hatred, it is disagreement. I am also a Charismatic. I have a brother who is an Atheist and my parents are Baptist. We all get along fine.
Rose on August 31, 2007 at 5:06 PM
right2bright: go read the early teachings. You too will be amazed. Read up on the history of the Council of Nicea. Much bickering and invention of ideas to fit with Greek Philosophy (Neo-Platoism).
Concerning the Nicene Creed: Harper’s Bible Dictionary, compiled with the help of the Society of Biblical Literature, declares that “[t]he formal doctrine of the Trinity as it was defined by the great church councils of the fourth and fifth centuries is not to be found in the New Testament” (in P. Achtemeier, ed., Harper’s Bible Dictionary, Harper and Row, San Francisco, 1985, p. 1099)
“Mainstream” Christianity picks up from said creed that God, Jesus and the Holy Sprit are of the same substance, one person in three, isn’t scriptural.
For instance: John 10:30 “I and my Father are one.” What do the experts say about this verse?
In The International Bible Commentary, ed. F.F. Bruce, Zondervan Publ. House, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1986, p. 1249 (this is a non-Mormon publication):
“The neuter gender rules out any thought of meaning ‘one Person.’ This is not a comment on the Godhead. Rather, having spoken of the sheep’s security in both Himself and the Father, Jesus underlines what He has said by indicating that in action the Father and He be can regarded as a single entity, because their wills are one.”
To claim someone isn’t a Christian based on not accepting this particular creed (and this is the one that is used to say the Mormons are polythiestic), is a sham and intellecutally dishonest.
Some other comments on things I read looking thru again…
While the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Septuagint line up quit well, the same cannot be said of the Septuagint and the Masoretic text (which was what was used for the KJV OT). There are many place where they diverge (e.g., Deut. 32:8-9, the DSS and LXX have “sons of God” while the Masoretic, a later text, has “children of Israel.”).
sadatoni on August 31, 2007 at 6:18 PM
I’m looking for it man, can’t find it. Which one? When did you make it?
Christoph on August 31, 2007 at 6:24 PM
And what of the entire first chapter of John? “In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God… the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.”
The writer of John seems to be strongly implying that the Word, which became flesh is with God and is also God.
Esthier on August 31, 2007 at 6:32 PM
And are you?
Christoph on August 31, 2007 at 7:04 PM
Man, I would have like to be around your dinner table…who says grace (not your brother I’m sure)?
right2bright on August 31, 2007 at 9:00 PM
We all love Mormons, it’s their theology that we don’t love. Nobody’s deranged, they just know their bibles.
Mojave Mark on August 31, 2007 at 9:45 PM
right2bright,
My brother is respectful of our faith. We are all adults and only get together at holidays so the topic is one we don’t discuss much. When my one sister left Mormonism she tried to talk to my other sister about it and it caused hard feelings so she no longer brings it up. She does talk about things she’s doing at church and my kids are involved in their Christian school and talk about those things so it isn’t a taboo subject, we just avoid any attempts to proselytize. My mom usually asks someone to pray and that person does and everyone is respectful.
Rose on August 31, 2007 at 9:57 PM
With love and respect like that, I don’t need hate.
WasatchMan on August 31, 2007 at 10:35 PM
Even if that were true, it is irrelevant. The Masoretic Text is what is used for modern translations of the Old Testament – and the text of it is incredibly well preserved. Why does everyone feel the need to bring up the King James text. Does anyone even use that thing anymore? It is an inferior translation, based on inferior manuscripts – we know this. There are newer, more accurate translations, based on more accurate manuscripts. Get over it.
As you are on the topic of translations, let me know what Joseph Smith’s translation of John 1.1 is, and then tell me what the Greek says, and then let us know the implications for the identity of Jesus.
nailinmyeye on August 31, 2007 at 10:47 PM
He gave me the ok. She…well…I think she ditched me at the dance. But then again, I was pretty used to that sort of thing.
nailinmyeye on August 31, 2007 at 10:48 PM
Boohoo, Mark, welcome to a free country where people can speak of their views including on religion, which is, if true, the single most important thing on Earth.
Christoph on August 31, 2007 at 10:52 PM
You misread the dictionary…at least, I believe you did. I don’t have it in front of me, but will check it at the library on Tuesday. The key word there is formal doctine of the Trinity. True true – the word “trinity” is not to be found in the NT. The spelling out of the doctrine is not there. However, the teachings which underlie the formal doctrine, which point to, and form it, are quite clearly there. To say that the “formal” doctrine is not present is not to say that it is not scriptural.
nailinmyeye on August 31, 2007 at 10:53 PM
Nobody said you can’t speak your mind. But you seem upset (and freaked out) that I’m speaking mine.
WasatchMan on August 31, 2007 at 10:57 PM
I’m not freaked out. You mischaracterize, probably due to your lack of understanding.
Like your plainly erroneous statement that those of us here who are critical of Mormons probably haven’t met any.
You can speak your opinions, however stupid they are.
Christoph on August 31, 2007 at 11:26 PM
That’s BS. What you are saying is akin to telling us all that because we have a president that we can’t just obey our president, but that we have to obey ALL presidents.
And again, here you are, a follower of the Nicaean Creed, who were the leaders of the early Christian church keeping and discarding gospel principles through the democratic process and not under the direction of a prophet of God. In other words, they have NO AUTHORITY.
You need to prove beyond doubt the factual nature of the bible before you can demand that the rest of us follow your lead. PERIOD.
csdeven on August 31, 2007 at 11:51 PM
I’ve heard this many times. Do you have a link that you can reference us to?
csdeven on August 31, 2007 at 11:53 PM
When exactly has he done that?
csdeven on September 1, 2007 at 12:00 AM
But you cannot prove that Joseph Smith has authority. He claimed he did, but he no more can prove that than anyone else who claims authority. You are taking his word by faith. There are those here who do not believe his story and do not believe he has any authority. The Bible says that we are a priesthood of believers. Christianity’s authority comes from our belief in God and Jesus’ sacrifice for our sins. It is personal. No church can claim authority. It is in our personal belief. You do not believe in the “factual nature” of the Bible. I do not believe in the “factual nature” of Joseph Smith’s story. So it would appear that there is no point in anyone here trying to convince anyone else unless you are just enjoying the dabate.
Rose on September 1, 2007 at 12:05 AM
You think the primary/election is going to be decided on “links”?
As opposed to perceptions — and people’s opinions?
Snicker, snicker.
Christoph on September 1, 2007 at 12:05 AM
I don’t he had any spiritual authority; I believe he had a lot of psychological authority among his authorities as a skilled conman and I think he clearly created a lot of religious authority for himself.
And abused it to get teenage girls (married 33-women in total, only one of whom is even acknowledged on the JosephSmith.net LDS-run website, which is a curious fact in and of itself — and it wasn’t one of the fourteen year old’s) in bed and make money.
Christoph on September 1, 2007 at 12:09 AM
*among his believers…
Got to remember, “Preview is your friend.”
Christoph on September 1, 2007 at 12:10 AM
If we did that what would the bigots (NRA4freedom, christoph, Mojave Mark, and Maverick et al) do to boost their narcissistic personalities? Losers like them have to do something to overcome the worthlessness of their existance on this earth.
Let em talk. It makes them feel superior and the rest of us get to laugh at them.
csdeven on September 1, 2007 at 12:10 AM
Oh… I should have said, “among his believers and their children, some of whom he ——d.”
Christoph on September 1, 2007 at 12:11 AM
csdeven, one of the reasons we disagree as often as we do is you follow the teachings of an EVIL man and I do not.
Christoph on September 1, 2007 at 12:13 AM
Prove it you bigot.
csdeven on September 1, 2007 at 12:14 AM
I think you might be right. Bay Buchanan is a Morman convert as is Glenn Beck. And we have the Osmonds who are good people. I am not going to condemn anyone for their faith, I’m a jew and I am not going down that road.
Live and let live.
AprilOrit on September 1, 2007 at 12:21 AM
This shows how ignorant you are of the LDS churches inner workings. NO deacon would EVER pass the sacrament around someone in the congregation. And I never said passing to non-members was encouraged.
The other thing sick jagoffs like you don’t care about is that once you become a member of the church, you take upon yourself the responsibilities and blessings of said membership. You willingly hold yourself to standards that you agree to hold to and when you violate those standards, there is a consequence. As far as the cultural teachings within the church, hell, ALL denominations have those. It is each persons responsibility to make sure that YOU follow the authorized teachings and not the cultural crap that people bring into the church.
Bigot.
csdeven on September 1, 2007 at 12:21 AM
Mormons teach us it is, however, “completed” by the Book of Mormon.
So, since you’re a Mormon, why should he have to prove to you one of your religious texts is true?
You moron.
Christoph on September 1, 2007 at 12:26 AM
How funny. Most of the bigots (not saying you are) around here reject the faith issue and declare the bible infallible. THAT is not faith. That is being afraid of faith. They cannot prove their beliefs are the one and only trues ones, yet they refuse to take the approach you suggest….”So it would appear that there is no point in anyone here trying to convince anyone else”. Yet we have these demonic bigots disguising themselves as “Christians” passing judgment on all others.
As far as authority goes, every LDS elder has a card that lists his line of authority right to Jesus Christ. All the Nicaeans have are a document on the wall issued by a man without a line of authority that can be traced to Jesus himself.
Again, both require faith, yet the “Christians” claim they have the only truth and don’t need faith, but demand faith from others to follow their lead.
Sorry, but I am not accepting the rantings of demon Christians until they can prove without a doubt that what they believe is the actual truth.
csdeven on September 1, 2007 at 12:36 AM
I wasn’t talking to you, bigot.
csdeven on September 1, 2007 at 12:38 AM
But if authority was lost how can someone have a line of authority to Jesus? I’m not trying to be disrespectful but I think that there is a misunderstanding of what Jesus was doing during His ministry. Upon His death the temple veil was ripped in half exposing the Holy of Holies. Jesus wanted our faith to be in Him and solely in Him. Not in man, or an institution formed by man. Authority is in our belief in Him not in a line of succession or plates or an angel named Moroni. It is in the ministry of Jesus. It is personal. It is a relationship with the savior Himself. Too much emphasis is being put on authority by the Mormons as well as the Pope.
Rose on September 1, 2007 at 12:44 AM
It’s all right to throw bigot every two seconds just because I point out what a sexually abusive, violent, and money grubbing con artist who taught you that you, yes you, can be your own your own God one day, the person who founded your religion is.
The question, however, was why are you, a Mormon, demanding that he prove the Bible, one of your religious texts, is true?
That seems a bit daft, don’t you think, seeing as how it’s your own religious book?
Christoph on September 1, 2007 at 1:16 AM
So I take it you won’t answer that question, do the Mormons believe in multiple Gods, not do they worship one God, we understand the semantics. I am trying to get past this shell game. You know the question, do Mormons beleive that there is more than 3 Gods in all of creation? Don’t dodge it, just answer the question without all of the anger.
What part of the creed is not in the bible? You mean in the bible where it says this:
Or this:
So you must accept Joseph Smith as your saviour, how biblical. And you cannot trust any translators except Mormons, who will not accept the Greek or Hebrew text as scripture. How convienient. Joseph Smith a false prophet, and you can’t trust the great Greek and Hebrew linguists of our time.
Oh heres a good one:
Looks like God is just a temporary worker, looks like the great prophet forgot that God said “I Am”, oops must of made a mistake…but he can’t, he is a prophet and by biblical standards a prophet is 100% correct. So God is a liar or Joseph Smith is a liar…go ahead you can choose Joe, I’ll take my chances with God.
My advice, stick to the Nicene Creed, it has withstood the test of almost 2,000 years. No academic has ever refuted it, just people who want to destroy the Christian church. A few people who google hate sites, or dictionary will find solace that the creed is wrong, but no theologian will say it is not biblically sound.
I will leave you with this gem:
Jesus was married (news to me) and he has several wives (more news to me). My what a biblically based religion. Where did he get that information? …KooKoo…KooKoo…KooKoo
right2bright on September 1, 2007 at 2:32 AM
I heard the Nicene Creed recited by a church full of Charismatics at a Praise and Worship service. It is a powerful statement of faith. It sums it all up.
Rose on September 1, 2007 at 3:02 AM
If Mitt Romney made mormonism his mainstay and showed by the way he voted that it was to make moromonism to become a dominant religion..I may buy the bias. But watching him, I don’t see it. bunch of hoopla. He seems ok. I don’t judge the guy on mormonism, I’ll judge him on his policy and voting record instead.
Highrise on September 1, 2007 at 4:09 AM
Hey guys, ignore the Bible and just go with what the militant, polygimst, profiteering, racist booze peddler and convicted con man cult leader says! csdeven says so!
Hollowpoint on September 1, 2007 at 4:27 AM
I gave enormous respect for Mitt Romney and think he is one of the two or three best candidates in this race, possibly the best.
A great businessman, a loving family man, physically fit and capable, he’s a self-disciplined ahiever through and through.
Most of us here who oppose Mormonism don’t oppose Mitt, at least not for that reason.
I think the founder of the Mormon church was a violent, sexually abusive, con artist who prayed upon people’s desire to be powerful by telling them they could be Gods.
I don’t hold Mitt responsible for that.
Christoph on September 1, 2007 at 6:03 AM
I appreciate the thoughtful question. Jesus appeared to JS and ordained him a prophet in the restored church. In turn, having received priesthood authority from Jesus, JS ordained others to the office of Elder and they in turn have ordained others. This process has continued uninterrupted to this day.
The reason why the Catholics and the LDS focus on priesthood authority is they can trace their line of authority to Jesus himself.
Evangelical Christians can not, so they ignore the fuller understanding of the gospel in favor for that which they believe is the assured path back to God. I know that sounds snarky, but it is not meant to be. I am just explaining to you my understanding of their beliefs. There are many biblical scripture that support their beliefs, but I am not a missionary, so I will not quote you chapter and verse.
This is a very common belief among those who only get their information about the LDS faith from those who have a vested interest in casting them in the worse possible light. The members put ALL faith in him and him alone. Their prophets are revered just as the prophets of old were. They do not worship JS or Moroni or any other Prophet. They have very much faith that JS was a prophet and that their canon is the truth. That is not the same as worshiping them. It’s no different in many respects than how evangelicals exercise their faith in the prophets etc.
csdeven on September 1, 2007 at 6:34 AM
You have been brainwashed by your paid pastor who has a vested interest in keeping you aggressive against and scared of that which will take you (and your tithings) out of his church and to another church of your choosing. His motivation is money because he needs it to survive. I don’t trust the words of those who need to deride another faith in order to buoy up their own, and scare their followers into action.
Can you bigots EVER just come into one of this topics and explain your beliefs without pointing to others? In my experience you cannot, because that is how you are told to approach those of the LDS faith.
The LDS do not need to, and rarely do attack evangelicals. In general they view them as brothers in the faith (except for the bigots, and even then they do not lash out at them for their vile behavior towards the church). They liken the difference between evangelicals and the LDS this way….the evangelicals have one instrument in Gods plan, whereas the LDS have the orchestra.
My suggestion to you is to shut your mouth until you get the facts about the authorized teachings of the LDS faith, because none of your citations are part of authorized canon of the LDS church.
csdeven on September 1, 2007 at 7:00 AM
It sums up what you have been TOLD it sums up. The bible tells you it will be preserved through the years. Every time an error is pointed out to many of you, you fall back to that scripture. That is flawed circular reasoning. If the bible were a flawed book and unauthorized followers wanted to give it total credibility, that is the exact scripture they would add in there or at the least skew the original meaning.
Good luck with justifying that with more scriptures from the bible.
csdeven on September 1, 2007 at 7:04 AM
Out of curiousity, why was the prophet of God given 33 women in marriage including 2 14-year old girls?
Reward for services rendered?
Yes, Joseph Smith was of God as opposed to Satan.</sarcasm>
And he got those without having to martyr himself for the privilege.
Well done, Joseph, you MAGNIFICENT bastard!
Christoph on September 1, 2007 at 7:12 AM
I think that if you look through the comments, you will see that most people have not condemned the Mormon faith, but have been keen to point out the differences between Christianity and Mormonism.
nailinmyeye on September 1, 2007 at 9:45 AM
So – let’s just get this straight. Traditional Christians are not allowed to cast any doubt whatsoever as to whether Mormons adhere to traditional Christian doctrine, or we are demonic bigots, which seems to be your favorite word.
However, you, as a Mormon, are completely justified in doing what you just accused us of doing. Your argument sounds like: I’m rubber you’re glue…
nailinmyeye on September 1, 2007 at 9:49 AM
So – your answer to all of right2bright’s questions is, basically, “shut up because you suck and you don’t understand”? That’s cool. Thanks for clearing that up.
nailinmyeye on September 1, 2007 at 9:52 AM
Two things here –
1) So, are you saying that the Bible is not the world of God?
2) By your reasoning here, couldn’t I just respond that “the Book of Mormon sums up what you have been TOLD it sums up, or means, or whatever”?
Tell me – what part of the Nicene Creed is not found in the Bible?
You’ll say this part, right:
nailinmyeye on September 1, 2007 at 9:58 AM
While the word condemn is overly strong, I deny that Mormonism is a true faith, it is not the only or any true church on the face of the Earth, and the people in it were deceived and are deceived by false prophets.
Christoph on September 1, 2007 at 10:05 AM
WTFWJD?
I know. I got nuthin.
daveintexas on September 1, 2007 at 10:08 AM
Anatomy of a thread like this:
1. A public figure (usually left-wing) says something ignorant and hateful about Mormons.
2. Anti-Mormons chime in with “She may be a liberal, but she’s right.”
3. Incensed Mormons return fire.
4. 600 comments
5. Allah gets his iPhone.
WasatchMan on September 1, 2007 at 10:16 AM
WasatchMan, a much simpler explanation is the United States was largely founded by people fleeing persecution so they could practice religion as they choose.
Mormonism was also persecuted so they fled to Utah to practice freely by seizing land of settlers already there in very many cases. Just like, of course, Westerners seized lands held by natives.
Passions on religion run high and people disagree strongly so they debate them, often in emotional and sometimes cutting terms.
It is, after all, the most important thing in life if true. If Mormonism IS a false faith and it WAS founded by a false and evil prophet, then I am doing a woeful disservice to its members by not pointing this out loudly and strongly and would be a sure sign I do not love them.
Of course, you can think it’s started by “left-wingers” (I’m not) or those who don’t know Mormons (I do very well as established previously) and on and on.
Now IF Mormonism is a true religion, then they have an obligation to spread it throughout the world. One thing I respect enormously about Mormons, even as I disagree with their religion, is them putting themselves on the line to do their missionary work. I invariably stop to have friendly conversations with missionaries whenever I see them and, yes, bit my tongue while in church with Mormons which is a few times a year.
We debate after, if we do, but mostly discuss other things.
However, this isn’t a church social or a game of Monopoly at home, both things I enjoy with my Mormon friends and their families.
This was a debate about whether Mormons are Christians as indicated by the title.
Christoph on September 1, 2007 at 10:36 AM
I’m trying to be the first 600th commentator here.
Mcguyver on September 1, 2007 at 11:21 AM
Well keep going here….
Mcguyver on September 1, 2007 at 11:21 AM
I’ll help.
Christoph on September 1, 2007 at 11:21 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 ... 4 5 6 7 Next »