Christians kindly remind Mitt: You’re not one of us
posted at 2:54 pm on October 30, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
What’s their problem? Do they take exception to being associated with Mormonism because they suspect it of fostering some nefarious behavior? Or is it an authenticity thing, a reaction to the perception that he’s exaggerating the Christian element in Mormonism for political gain? Normally people are allowed to characterize their own faith.
Seems kind of jerky to get up in the man’s face and tell him that while you may be neighbors, you’re not next-door neighbors. No matter how much he may wish it was so.
“I told him, you cannot equate Mormonism with Christianity; you cannot say, ‘I am a Christian just like you,”’ said Representative Bob Inglis of South Carolina, which is scheduled to hold the first primary among the Southern states. “If he does that, every Baptist preacher in the South is going to have to go to the pulpit on Sunday and explain the differences.”
This advice, which reflects the views of many Southern Baptists and other evangelicals, makes Romney’s co-religionists bristle. “The fact that we are Christians is non-negotiable,” said Kim Farah, a spokeswoman for the Salt Lake City-based Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints…
For evangelicals, many of whom believe the Bible is the literal word of God, the Mormons’ founding text, the “Book of Mormon,” makes it impossible for them to be considered Christians, according to Fred Smith, associate professor of Theology at Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia…
The Mormon faith was established in 1827 by Joseph Smith Jr., who claimed to have discovered the Book of Mormon engraved on golden plates buried near his house in western New York. The text asserts that American Indians are descended from a lost tribe of Jews who arrived in the Americas around 600 B.C., and that the Garden of Eden was in Jackson County, Missouri.
Those beginnings sound “farcical to most Americans,” said Brett Clifton, a professor of public policy at Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island.
That last point is key but often overlooked in the will-he-or-won’t-he chattering about Mitt’s much anticipated “these things I believe” explication of Mormonism. Everyone compares it to Kennedy’s speech, but Americans already knew the basics of Catholicism. All they needed to hear from JFK was church/state, the Pope’s not the boss of me, etc. Mitt’s got an entire theology to defend, and as the blockquote makes clear, one with no little amount of “nuance” among its basic tenets. The question is, if he gives the speech and glosses over some of those more colorful parts, will Christians think he tried to put one over on them when word gets around about what he left out? Or does he just deal with it squarely and go through the basics point by point, however incredulous Americans might be? You can already imagine the clip of him explaining that the garden of Eden is just south of Kansas City circulating on YouTube. A tough call for him and the campaign.
I’ll say this, though: a debate between Mormons and Christians about whose beliefs are more farcical is Christopher Hitchens’s wet dream. Dawkins may fly in just to be able to watch from ringside.
No matter. Most evangelical leaders seem already to have settled on the nanny stater.
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 ... 5 Next »
I betcha that Moses nevah hoid of Jackson County, MO.
OhEssYouCowboys on October 30, 2007 at 3:03 PM
Well, I agree Mitt’s got an issue–that article mischaracterizes Mormon beliefs, to be sure. It’s a subtle distinction, but the LDS church nowhere (and the Book of Mormon itself) never claims that all American Indians descended from Jewish people.
That said, I fail to see why the claims of the Book of Mormon are any more farcical than any other faith. Most religions rely on “do you believe this mans words”; the Book of Mormon presents a problem in that it has to be explained somehow. I.E. Joseph Smith not only claimed to be a prophet, he provided tangible proof of his communication with Deity.
So the question then becomes, “how do you explain the Book of Mormon?” To those who think that it is an easy answer, I respectfully suggest that the fact the LDS church is growing stronger and stronger daily mitigates against that.
Vanceone on October 30, 2007 at 3:03 PM
Yeah, me too. The fresher and more familiar evidence is, the more compelling it is in a court of law. You’ve got a 2,000-year-old account from a land thousands of miles away on the one hand and a 200-year-old account from our own country on the other. Why is the first more persuasive?
Allahpundit on October 30, 2007 at 3:06 PM
At some point the evangelicals will have to unite on Fred or Mitt as the anti-Rudy. It would be smart of them to not have a public dust-up with Mitt just to entertain Hitch & Dawkins. If Fred’s part-time campaign fizzles out Mitt may be the only one standing between a Rudy/Hillary showdown.
dedalus on October 30, 2007 at 3:06 PM
Makes the most sense, right?
RW Wacko on October 30, 2007 at 3:07 PM
These folks do know that Romney’s not running for Pope, right? We’re not a conclave gathered to pick a spiritual leader – all I want is a guy who won’t raise my taxes and will kill terrorists.
Slublog on October 30, 2007 at 3:08 PM
So, they like Huckabee. A man who can’t win the general against Hillary and is a nanny-stater…
Brilliant.
amerpundit on October 30, 2007 at 3:08 PM
It wouldn’t be much of a debate. Mormonism is all the farcicalism of regular Christianity with tons of extra added farcicalism.
frankj on October 30, 2007 at 3:09 PM
The best part? The book of Mormon totally proves the Bible’s essential story accurate. All those people who dismiss the Bible as legend, myth, or tribal mythology can’t do that with the Book of Mormon, so in fact I as a Christian am in a much stronger position to preach the reality of Christ as opposed to other Christians. I can prove the Bible by relying on the Book of Mormon as well as the contents of the Bible. In fact, that is one of the main purposes of the book. So in reality, Christians should thank us some, rather than attack us. Most other attacks on the reality of Christianity falter against the LDS faith, to be honest. And that’s a good thing.
Vanceone on October 30, 2007 at 3:09 PM
You sure you’re an evangelical, dude?
Allahpundit on October 30, 2007 at 3:09 PM
Catholics would vote for Mitt. He won as a Republican in Massachusetts, so he had to have some of the Catholic vote.
I don’t think Baptists would ever vote for a Mormon. I wonder What James Baker has to say about Romney? What does Richard Land say about Romney?
A Catholic like Jindal was electable in a southern state like Louisiana, but that’s only because Louisiana is historically a Catholic state.
gabriel sutherland on October 30, 2007 at 3:10 PM
And don’t forget the secrecy. There’s something about secrecy mixed with religion that’s unsettling. If you’re going to devote your life to a belief, you want everything out front.
frankj on October 30, 2007 at 3:10 PM
Haha. I’m a Christian, first and foremost – I think of “evangelical” as a cultural term, not a religious one.
Slublog on October 30, 2007 at 3:11 PM
Mormonism is no more Christian that are members of The Church of Christ, Scientists. The Nicene Creed of 325AD summarizes the basic tenets of Christian faith and anyone claiming the title should affirm the Creed.
The question, however, is how a candidate’s religious beliefs bear upon their suitability for office. I am much more concerned about Romney’s past record than his current religious beliefs.
drewas on October 30, 2007 at 3:11 PM
You know the Religious Right has far too much influence in the GOP. Go Rudy!!!
Hilts on October 30, 2007 at 3:12 PM
More recent actually means more accounts to disprove it. The contrary opinion to Jesus from His time haven’t survived very well.
frankj on October 30, 2007 at 3:12 PM
That’s pretty much how I see things. I couldn’t vote for Romney as president of the Southern Baptist Convention, but I could vote for him for President of the United States. Different offices, different standards apply.
Bryan on October 30, 2007 at 3:14 PM
The 2000 year old account is about the reason we have Christianity in the first place and it has withstood loads of critiques and criticisms. It’s sort of like Islam saying ‘we believe in Jesus too’.
There are verses in the Bible that say the text is not to be altered (either added to or taken from).
Needless to say, it does not say that this is a reason that they may not vote for him. Mountain out of a molehill again. There is only ONE Bible that Christians use (ALL CHRISTIANS). It would be like saying there are several Torahs that make different sects of Jews.
But this has no bearing on whether or not they say you should vote for Mitt. They are just clarifying that Christianity is based on the ONLY Bible.
Are there two Korans?
ThackerAgency on October 30, 2007 at 3:14 PM
AP, you’re going to love this :
As a Catholic who has been the recipient of virulent Protestant and born again Christian let alone atheistic attacks and insults during my life, especially here in MN, I sympathize with the Romneys. Yes, I’m even having a ” What The?” moment in my thoughts. To be honest, I tend to leave the religious factors of a candidate to the side, except for Islamic candidates( and I have a right to do that) but now I think I’ll do the smell test to any candidate that is attacked and /or supported by the most fanatical of Christians, however and when they present themselves. Oh to the Mitten fans? I haven’t decided yet.
MNDavenotPC on October 30, 2007 at 3:14 PM
Why does he have to? He’s running for President, so on any area concerning religion all I need to know is how he interpets the first amendment.
sweeper on October 30, 2007 at 3:15 PM
True, but at least it earns a hearing. The statute of limitations exists only because the law distrusts evidence that’s older than six years or so for most crimes. It’s basic recognition of the principle that age = not credible.
Allahpundit on October 30, 2007 at 3:15 PM
Oh, I totally sympathize with him in this respect. Atheists can’t get elected dogcatcher.
Allahpundit on October 30, 2007 at 3:17 PM
It may be unfair that he’s being judged in part on his religous beliefs that mainstream Christians don’t share… but is it then also unfair that he’s getting so much support and money from the Mormon community because they share his religious beliefs?
Is it not OK for Christians to want to support one of their own, but completely OK for Mormons to do the same?
Hollowpoint on October 30, 2007 at 3:17 PM
Just look at Robert Byrd.
All kidding aside, I agree with Bryan (and the majority) here.
amerpundit on October 30, 2007 at 3:18 PM
Frankj–we are not secret, we have sacred things. There’s a difference. Really, think about it–one reason Evangelicals tend to scream about Romney is they think that Romney will influence more people to become Mormon–thus experiencing all those “secret” things. If we were trying to be secret, we’d not want to proselytize much–keep it all in house, as it were.
More accounts to disprove? Perhaps…. but far more evidence to prove, too. In fact, there’s more empirical evidence to support the Book of Mormon as a divine work than there is the Bible. That’s due to witnesses, a certain source, custody, and other traits.
Vanceone on October 30, 2007 at 3:18 PM
Great point.
dedalus on October 30, 2007 at 3:19 PM
Amen to that. I’m getting sick of evangelicals trying to get rid of the best CONSERVATIVE candidates in favor of the most fitting of their specific religious beliefs.
NTWR on October 30, 2007 at 3:20 PM
Well stated victimhood on a thread that once again vilifies ‘evangelicals’ as ‘kooks’ while giving the Catholic Church that believes the same way a pass.
I love the anti-’evangelical’ bigotry in the media that is glossed over as the majority of America.
ThackerAgency on October 30, 2007 at 3:21 PM
The only thing more unelectable than a Mormom is an Atheist. :(
I have no dog in the race re: religion, they are all farcical to me although Mormonism is a little more blatantly so than most, however, from a purely strategic standpoint his religion will cost him enough votes to make him unelectable.
Rudy will lose out a few of the hard core Christians and folks like HA Poster Hollowpoint but will pick up a massive swell of support from the moderates in the general election that Mitt will not get.
Sorry, Mitt, you seem to be a good man, but you are in an unpopular minority that people will be nervous about when it comes time to vote. Almost as unpopular as the one I’m in.
JayHaw Phrenzie on October 30, 2007 at 3:22 PM
Huh? I’ve lived my entire life in MN, growing up in a small town of less than 3000 people. I’m not Catholic, but I’ve never heard of Catholics being attacked by Jello-wielding Protestants. It’s certainly possible, but hardly a common occurance.
Hollowpoint on October 30, 2007 at 3:22 PM
Oh, just to make it clear–we DO use the Bible. King James Version. In fact, I taught a lesson on the book of James in the New Testament just this last Sunday. We fully accept the Bible. To say we ignore or denigrate the Bible is totally absurd.
To the larger question–really, we shouldn’t have to be having this “Mormon’s aren’t Christian” discussion. Why on earth it matters for Romney’s candidacy is beyond me. Culturally speaking, the LDS church and most evangelicals are allies. We share the same values and mindset for the most part. Why be afraid of a LDS president?
Vanceone on October 30, 2007 at 3:23 PM
True.
They actually throw lutefisk.
Slublog on October 30, 2007 at 3:23 PM
There is no evidence either is divine and massive evidence that both were produced by humans.
Can I take a look at these golden plates? I might change my mind if I could see them.
JayHaw Phrenzie on October 30, 2007 at 3:24 PM
These are theological arguments, legitimate, but theological. This ain’t a perfect universe and we’re flawed creations. So close enough is good enough for government work. People need to be a bit more pragmatic. Dictate terms after you win.
Huck is running for Veep and he should just be honest about it. Although I’m still holding out for Lynne Chenney for President. I’d love to see her debate Her Thighness.
Iblis on October 30, 2007 at 3:25 PM
Allah, surely we can agree that, objectively speaking, some religions have more preposterous beliefs than others (I’m not arguing which ones here) Religions don’t necessarily all have to be on the same level of “believability” do they?
When you talk about things that have to be taken as faith, age doesn’t really matter a whole lot to people.
RW Wacko on October 30, 2007 at 3:25 PM
That would be taking it way too far- don’t even joke about the use of WMDs like that.
Hollowpoint on October 30, 2007 at 3:25 PM
Didn’t like four people see the gold tablets and then they disappeared? That sounds like a hard sell there.
frankj on October 30, 2007 at 3:26 PM
Every religion is based on faith, therefore you cannot hope to use rational thinking to bear when comparing them to each other or to atheism.
When deeply – held religious beliefs are described in scientific terms, they often seem more bizarre.
A famous literary example, of course, is Heinlein, in “Stranger in a Strange Land”, noting that Catholics, as opposed to other Christians, firmly believe that during communion the wafer and wine are transmuted into the actual flesh and blood of Christ, and therefore this can be described as ritual cannibalism. Harsh – sounding of course, but is it not true? I remember being shocked when reading this book as a (non-Catholic) teen.
JFK never had to defend this major tenet of his religion, and as much as any one religion may have one or more specific beliefs that may be bizarre to others, who will cast the first stone?
fred5678 on October 30, 2007 at 3:26 PM
Just a matter of time before they go all “West Side Story” on each other. Knives and chains in the parking lot. Last one standing is a Christian.
ronsfi on October 30, 2007 at 3:27 PM
I get the logic of age=not credible, but should it apply to original sources that are known to have been written by eye witnesses within a decade or two of the events in question, when other witnesses were still around to question and challenge inaccuracies? I don’t want to get into a theological or textual debate, but if you apply that lawyerly thinking to history (quite apart from religion, at least for now), then no historical primary source is credible at all just because it’s old.
I guess the difference here is in one’s disposition. I majored in history, so to me an older source is closer to the events it describes and therefore ought to be more credible. A lawyer looks at it from an evidentiary point of view, where old information is tainted by time.
Bryan on October 30, 2007 at 3:28 PM
When they go after Rudy or Romney, they’re not talking about conservative candidates.
Hollowpoint on October 30, 2007 at 3:29 PM
AP, you’ve settled this issue in your mind when you can’t even answer your own question? That is not the mark of a scholar or an honest intellect.
Splashman on October 30, 2007 at 3:30 PM
No Republican can win a general without the support of the Baptists.
This is why it matters.
The Baptists are to Republicans what Unions are to Democrats. You want their endorsement because THEY ARE EVERYWHERE. They will be your leather footed army getting out the vote, your finger dialing army raising funds.
gabriel sutherland on October 30, 2007 at 3:31 PM
Frankj: nope–a total of 11 did. They all signed sworn statements and never recanted them, despite intense, horrific pressure to do so–and when lots of them were disaffected with Joseph Smith and had every reason to expose him as a fraud.
Jayhaw: Somehow, I doubt you’d change your mind if you saw them. You’d come up with something else, like, “So he got lucky and found something he tried to pawn off a religion on.” I mean, you wouldn’t convert to Catholicism if you found a Roman report from the Centurion who crucified Jesus and then talked with him face to face four days later, would you?
Yes, there were humans involved–no one is denying that. The actual content of both the Bible and the Book of Mormon was written by humans (so is every other book, for that matter). The divine portion is involved in bringing the books forward, preserving them, and the messages inside the books.
Vanceone on October 30, 2007 at 3:32 PM
Regarding what it means to be a Christian, I’ll take the words of Jesus over the scholars who wrote the Nicene creed. Better source, greater authority.
Wingo on October 30, 2007 at 3:33 PM
Galatians 1:8-9
Mormonism is Christian. It’s just rank heresy.
I’d still vote for the man. I believe he’s a good man; he’s just in error doctrinally.
spmat on October 30, 2007 at 3:34 PM
Interesting point on the lawyer versus historical distinction, Bryan.
I guess that points out that at least the LDS church CAN use legal standards of evidence in our behalf. That’s something Islam, etc. cannot do.
Vanceone on October 30, 2007 at 3:35 PM
BTW, I’m a conservative Christian who won’t even consider voting for Huckabee in the primary. Mitt is my man. To misquote Forrest Gump, “conservative is as conservative does.” Huck is a mediocre governor of a minor state, while Mitt’s got a “can-do” track record and has been getting consistently more conservative over the years (no, he’s not a flip-flopper).
For me, there’s simply no contest.
Splashman on October 30, 2007 at 3:35 PM
The more I learn about Huckabee the less I like him.
JayHaw Phrenzie on October 30, 2007 at 3:36 PM
The point is, only a handful saw it. It would be quite different if Jesus only performed miracles in front of a select few.
frankj on October 30, 2007 at 3:37 PM
This country is not ready to elect a practicing Mormon.
bnelson44 on October 30, 2007 at 3:37 PM
I second that. He doesn’t have a lock on the Mormon vote for this very reason (his past record).
As far as the religion question goes, I think if more evangelicals understood what really matters about the LDS faith when it comes to political values, they would happily vote for any Mormon. If the man’s values means he will vote to defend traditional marriage, stop abortion on demand, defend the country from current threats, and let people keep the money they earn, then who gives a rip where he thinks the Garden of Eden is? I think it’s vulgar to so closely tie religion and politics that doctrinal questions preclude a candidate. I think it’s wrong for a candidate to be stumping from the pulpit. Liberals have made government their religion. Let’s not make the same mistake.
sweetlipsbutterhoney on October 30, 2007 at 3:38 PM
I guess I’m in the camp that Romney will be better off not directly confronting this issue. All the Mormons I know are great people and it’s best left at that. When you get to the particulars, it will be hard for most Christians not to take Mormonism as a direct affront to them. It’s like with the Muslims who think they have the real story about Jesus.
frankj on October 30, 2007 at 3:40 PM
Mitt is probably as Mormon as other candidates are Christian. Which is to say, not very at all. Doesn’t bother me any more or less than an atheist or Catholic president does.
As for the debate of how farcical Mormonism is. Well, I just direct you to the South Park episode on Mormonism. Says it all.
CorinthianJest on October 30, 2007 at 3:40 PM
The guy’s from South Carolina. Maybe it’s lack of exposure. There are a sizable number of Mormons in the midwest, and I’ve been talking with some evangelical friends back in Indiana and they’re mystified by this antagonism. After all, when it comes to values, Mormons make Southern Baptists look like a bunch of libertines.
rightwingprof on October 30, 2007 at 3:40 PM
Some info on the “golden plates”
bnelson44 on October 30, 2007 at 3:41 PM
No, Mitt was very active in his church and from all accounts, holds very strong beliefs today.
Romney graduated from Brigham Young University and did a missionary stint in France. Prior to his election as governor, the father of five and grandfather on nine served as a regional stake president overseeing Mormon congregations and led his church as a bishop.
bnelson44 on October 30, 2007 at 3:44 PM
Since when has a general distrust of Mormons by competing Christian denominations been a newsworthy event? This sort of sentiment has been going on since the founding of Mormonism.
Personally, I couldn’t care less if he’s a Mormon. I value his reasoning, and competence over personal beliefs.
It must be a slow news day to be discussing religious credentials of presidential candidates. Which is fine with me, it’s better to discuss an issue such as this than some dumb legislation Congress is attempting to ram down our throats (hello, S-CHIP/DREAM)!
Weebork on October 30, 2007 at 3:44 PM
I think the reason that some evangelicals and other conservative Christians are going to have a problem with him is that so many of them feel the need for the President to be in touch with and influenced by faith. And if that faith is a quirky heavily modified version of Christianity — well, that just isn’t going to fly.
Mark Jaquith on October 30, 2007 at 3:44 PM
More farcical than being thrown out of Eden for eating an apple and seeking the truth?
Except for a misplaced Christian on Christian prejudice Mitt who is far ahead of Rudy on social Con issues would be far ahead in the polls also.
The evangelicals should realize that Mitt Romney is a better choice for them than the guy that’s in the Whitehouse now.
As a hands on leader Mitt outshines even Rudy, who is a little better public speaker but when it comes to organization and Executive ability Mitt gets the job done.
Speakup on October 30, 2007 at 3:45 PM
Frankj; that might have more weight if that was the only evidence. But it’s not. The books contents are the primary witness of it’s authenticity. And there were plenty of miracles witnessed by lots of people as well.
Has anyone in this thread besides me even read the Book of Mormon? To attack Mormons as non-Christian rings a bit false once you actually read the book.
But still, tying Mitt’s chances to his religion is a bit silly. Yes, if he was some Imam, it would probably be important. But the actual contents of the LDS faith shouldn’t frighten anyone who isn’t a member. We teach strong families, personal responsibility, working hard, moderation in all things, charity, all attributes that I personally feel would be well served if they were taught more.
I ask again–why would having a Mormon president be a horrible thing? And if it wouldn’t be, then why are so many people bashing Mitt for his religion?
Vanceone on October 30, 2007 at 3:45 PM
For those who don’t know, a Stake President is similar to a Christian bishop.
bnelson44 on October 30, 2007 at 3:45 PM
One does not become a Christian by simply sticking the term “Christ” in the organizational name (See Also “Church of Christ, Scientist”).
The theology, history, and dogma set up by (primarily) Joseph Smith and Brigham Young is not Christianity. It’s not even 3rd-century Christian-esque gnosticism. Traditional Mormonism deviates sharply from Christianity in its theology, soteriology, and anthropology in major ways. Attempting to reconcile the theology of traditional Mormonism (i.e., that taught by Joseph and Brigham) with Biblical Christianity is an exercise in either futility or compromised doctrines.
I say “traditional Mormonism” because I understand that the Reorganized branch of Mormonism (now called the “Community of Christ,” I believe) has broken from early LDS teachings in several areas and clearly wishes to reconcile itself with Christianity.
While I disagree with any assertion that Mormonism and Christianity are compatible, I do believe that a great many people in the LDS churches want to and/or are trying to be good disciples of Christ; all that separates them from we Christians are the theology and doctrines of Mormonism — much of which, I’m sure, is unknown or discreetly ignored by many devout Mormons.
We Christians need to love the Mormons and show them where the LDS theology keeps them separated from Christianity.
As far as the POTUS goes, Slublog nails it:
I wholeheartedly agree. The political philosophy and personal morality is more important to the office of the Presidency of our non-theocratic government than the President’s particular religious affiliation.
I’ll take a small-government Mormon over a nanny-state Baptist every day of the week and twice on Sunday. And if the Mormon is a nanny-stater as well, I vote for someone else.
If I want spiritual enlightenment I’ll go to the Bible, the great Christian writers, or my pastor (in that order).
Harpazo on October 30, 2007 at 3:45 PM
Taking this view, it is impossible to believe the New Testament, specifically the 4 gospels, historically speaking. They agree on the events that occurred, but not the order in which they occurred. It’s almost as if the apostles had a case of the Scooters.
People will disagree about what is written in the the Bible until time ends and will never make a single bit of headway. Showing, ultimately, that the history isn’t the point. The doctrine is. And proof is discovered on an individual basis by those who chose to live it.
Wingo on October 30, 2007 at 3:47 PM
No more than it would be for many Jews. I’ll start the popcorn.
A Jewish counter-missionary joke:
Q: Why did God create Mormons?
A: To give Christians a taste of their own medicine.
aunursa on October 30, 2007 at 3:51 PM
I had no idea that Christians were “kindly reminding” Romney that he’s “not one of us.”
I live in Oklahoma City; and, Ernest Istook [R, Oklahoma] was elected to the United States House of Representatives – for SEVEN TERMS – and he’s a Mormon.
Damn those evangelical hicks in Oklahoma. Let’s tell them who they won’t vote for, and why.
OhEssYouCowboys on October 30, 2007 at 3:51 PM
Fair enough, if it’s the only evidence you have to go on. Mormons are offering new evidence, though. I’m trying to look at it from the perspective of someone trying to decide between competing claims. The age=not credible would also come up independently within the context of how far removed the accounts were from the events they describe. That’s why the statute of limitations applies notwithstanding the fact that you have eyewitness willing and able to testify. The law doesn’t trust their memories after a certain span of years.
Allahpundit on October 30, 2007 at 3:52 PM
You left out the flip-flops and his pandering, slickster persona. There’s plenty of reason to dislike Mitt without considering his religion. Blaming his poll numbers on his religion is a cop-out that ignores his other major faults.
Hollowpoint on October 30, 2007 at 3:52 PM
I have (too many times to count, in 3 languages). And I’m guessing bnleson has, too.
Wingo on October 30, 2007 at 3:59 PM
Has anyone in this thread besides me even read the Book of Mormon? To attack Mormons as non-Christian rings a bit false once you actually read the book.
Vanceone on October 30, 2007 at 3:45 PM
Yes, I have. And I’ve read both Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price. I’ve also studied the early history of the LDS church, and its theology.
Identifying Mormonism as heterodox to Christianity (and thus, Mormons as not-Christians) is not per se an attack on Mormons. It is an acknowledgement of the fact that LDS theology has irreconcilable differences with Christianity at a fundamental level.
Traditional LDS theology differs with Christianity on the nature of God, the nature of humankind, the role & destiny of the Church, the nature of the conception of Jesus, the way of salvation for the believer, and the ultimate destiny of the believer, among other places.
To ignore those major areas of dispute and claim that there is no essential difference between Christianity and Mormonism — and thus between what makes Mormons Mormons and Christians Christians) is at best intellectually obtuse and at worst intentionally dishonest.
Harpazo on October 30, 2007 at 4:00 PM
Yes. Several times in English, once in Spanish. ;-)
Ha! Not any devout Mormons I know. I bet you can’t name a true Mormon doctrine they haven’t heard of. Don’t marginalize us as a bunch of ignorant sheep.
However, your other points in the post are well taken. I think I would probably even vote for a Muslim who had the right political values, though I would definitely want to make sure he didn’t go to some crazy Wahabi madrassa or whatever.
sweetlipsbutterhoney on October 30, 2007 at 4:00 PM
i think you really gotta be on LSD to truly appreciate LDS…
too bad all the scientologists are lefties, though Mitt would have them in the palm of his, well mitt….
max1 on October 30, 2007 at 4:01 PM
I was just thinking today, you know, it’s interesting that all of this media attention is paid to the fact that Mitt Romney is a Mormon and virtually no attention is paid to the fact that Harry Reid is. Just sayin’.
CP on October 30, 2007 at 4:02 PM
Yes, I have read it. But, alas, not in 3 languages.
bnelson44 on October 30, 2007 at 4:02 PM
That assumes a lot. Beyond the question of when the gospels were written and whether the authors were eyewitnesses; it presumes that the Christian sect was widespread enough that enough non-Christians would be aware of it and would care enough to challenge it, and that these challenges would be recorded and passed down to the present day.
aunursa on October 30, 2007 at 4:03 PM
I read through several chapters. But I’m Jewish, so my opinion on the question of whether Mormons are Christians is irrelevant.
aunursa on October 30, 2007 at 4:04 PM
Romney’s theological beliefs don’t matter. What matters are his ideological beliefs and how he demonstrates his beliefs through his own life and the actions he takes.
The Southern Baptists are fools to attack him over theological disputes, and it’s a very slippery slope they are sliding down.
The MSM will be salivating over the prospect of quizzing, say, Huckabee over his theological beliefs. We’ve already had the shamelessly loaded, “Raise your hand if you believe in Evolution” question asked at a debate. They are opening the door to all sorts of questions which are properly out of bounds in the political arena.
All bets are off if they play this dogmatic game. They may get themselves the primary candidate of their choice but it would be a huge negative if theology is pursued in the general election.
Buy Danish on October 30, 2007 at 4:05 PM
Good analysis and why many fundamentalist pastors would not endorse LDS beliefs as what we know as Christianity. There is just enough mistrust among “fundamentalists” and “secularists” against Mormons and the myteries of Temple Square in SLC to lead me to conclude that this country is not ready to elect a practicing Mormon to the presidency.
bnelson44 on October 30, 2007 at 4:10 PM
Harpazo: The LDS church does not try to say we are traditional Christians. We base our beliefs on the Bible, not the creeds. You are correct in that traditional Christianity looks to the creeds for their authoritative doctrines; where we don’t.
The “Mormon not equal Christian argument” rests completely and solely on this one thing: that Creedal Christianity is the Only Christianity. I’m not sure I want to base my doctrinal salvation on the ruminations of a political council that claimed no authority or revelation from God. If you set aside your “creeds=Christian, and nothing more,” you might be able to recognize that the LDS church finds a LOT of support in the Bible as well.
Vanceone on October 30, 2007 at 4:10 PM
Thank you, I was hoping someone would jump in on that. I don’t have trouble with people of any faith, but I do have trouble with people misrepresenting what they are. I’m not saying Mitt is, but that his faith is often misrepresented by both insiders and outsiders as something it’s not. Christianity’s basic tenants are:
1. We believe in one God (and only one)
2. Jesus was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary
3. and Jesus Christ was the only Son of God
I can’t see how a Mormon can agree with any of those three statements.
That said, I’d consider voting for Mitt. I have nothing against him, I just disagree with how his faith is currently being represented.
High Desert Wanderer on October 30, 2007 at 4:11 PM
You’re imposing a Modernist view of historical record on authors that lived, thought, and wrote about 1500 years before Modernity took hold. We’re used to history that attempts to be an objective, dispassionate, chronological record of events. In the Greco-Roman culture, however, history was taught academically as a subset of rhetoric.
Each of the four Gospel writers is making a presentation, not of events, but of a person — Jesus of Nazareth. As such, every detail of a gospel’s narrative is placed there to advance the view of Jesus the author is trying to present. In the New Testament, we have four distinct presentations of Jesus — Jewish Messiah-King, Suffering Servant-king, Son of Man, Son of God — with unique details and narrative structures that reinforce each gospel’s core presentation.
“Who Jesus was” was more important to the writers than who, what, where, and when.
Harpazo on October 30, 2007 at 4:11 PM
They are still the second largest religious group in the US
bnelson44 on October 30, 2007 at 4:12 PM
Mormonism is not Christianity.
Mormons perform many good works, and tend to have a strong moral character, and I believe that they contribute a lot to society. However, Mormon doctrine is not Christian. You have a problem with a simple statement of truth?
dominigan on October 30, 2007 at 4:13 PM
High Desert Wanderer: We too believe in one God.
2). We believe that Jesus was born from the Virgin Mary as the literal Son of God, and that was accomplished by the power of the Holy Ghost.
3). Jesus IS the only Son of God in the flesh.
Not sure where we disagree with any of that.
Vanceone on October 30, 2007 at 4:14 PM
Good point. The logic behind the actions of evangelical leaders lately is puzzling, at best. There is already considerable tension between the libertarians and the social conservatives in the Republican party, and it’s a pretty poor time to pick a fight.
Standing on principle makes sense, but so far it seems no one is perfect enough to pass their test.
Slublog on October 30, 2007 at 4:14 PM
You stole the words right off my keyboard!
jdawg on October 30, 2007 at 4:15 PM
Maybe they believe in low taxes, prosperity, being on the offense against Islamofascism, a strong national defense, “family values”, et cetera?
How shocking!
Buy Danish on October 30, 2007 at 4:17 PM
Well said Harpazo. I was really surprised that it took this many posts to get to the fact that Mormonism, at its core is very different than all Christian denominations. People, it may come as a surprise, but NO Christian denomination accepts Mormonism as a Christian faith. It isn’t just Baptists. So the advice to not equate Mormonism with Christianity is good advice, because if Mitt does this, preachers, and probably priests, all over the country are going to have to address this to their congregation/parish. If there are LDS people that want to argue this, I just want to point out that the people that get to decide what is called a Christian religion or not is all the other recognized Christian groups. When ALL of them say your religion is not Christian, it isn’t.
I frankly don’t care what religion he is. I am not going to vote for or against him because of it. There is a separation of church and state in this country, and because of that I will vote based on how I think he will run the government. I also agree with Slublog.
Buford on October 30, 2007 at 4:19 PM
I don’t think they want an evil Pope. As for this…honestly people why reject Romney for being a Mormon? There are so many legitimate reasons for conservaatives to criticize the guy.
As for the evangelicals pick, Huck Sucks, I ain’t about that open borders Nanny Stater.
Bad Candy on October 30, 2007 at 4:21 PM
You’re suggesting that his support in the Mormon community has nothing to do with the fact that he’s a Mormon? Is that what you’re implying?
Hollowpoint on October 30, 2007 at 4:23 PM
Are you referring to Protestants or sub groups of Protestants?
Buy Danish on October 30, 2007 at 4:28 PM
Where did I say that Christianity=creeds? I certainly don’t base my faith on the creeds; the foundational principle of my theology is the sola scriptura of the Reformation, and the core of my faith is the Bible.
False. I can (and have in the past) make the very same argument using only the Bible, The Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, Pearl of Great Price, and the sermons of Joseph and Brigham. The ancient creeds need not factor in a single whit.
You are, however, starting from a presupposition about the ancient Christian creeds and councils that has no historical basis: namely, that the purpose of the creeds was to warp or corrupt the theological principles and truths that are self-evident in the Bible, rather than being thoughtfully-crafted and memorable summations of the key tenets of Biblical Christian theology that all disciples could understand (and not just the philosophers and theologians).
If you set aside your “creeds=Christian, and nothing more,” you might be able to recognize that the LDS church finds a LOT of support in the Bible as well.
You’re speaking out of ignorance here, as you wrongly assumed I hold a “creeds=Christian, and nothing more” mentality. You’ve done nothing but create a straw man and projected onto it your preconceptions about “Christians”.
Harpazo on October 30, 2007 at 4:29 PM
I see nothing wrong with Mormons supporting Mitt. If I were Mormon, I would support a Mormon candidate, for no other reason than the novelty of having one of my brothers in office.
bnelson44 on October 30, 2007 at 4:29 PM
Baptists
bnelson44 on October 30, 2007 at 4:30 PM
I hope you are kidding. That one criterion would be enough?
JiangxiDad on October 30, 2007 at 4:31 PM
Well as a Catholic Christian, I do not ;-)
bnelson44 on October 30, 2007 at 4:31 PM
If there’s one thing to take away from this comments thread, it’s summed up here:
This is what Vanceone and any other Mormons out there should take away about what Christians think about Romney.
Harpazo on October 30, 2007 at 4:32 PM
Bring that debate on! This is a real point of contention and it does no good to simply deny or ignore it and lump Mormons in with the rest of the Christian denominations. It’s the same crap that is occurring when people try to gloss over Rudy’s stand(s) on abortion and gun control. Let the differences be discussed openly.
Only then can the GOP legitimately go out after Obama for his sometimes Muslim and sometimes racist Christianity faith or Hillary Clinton for apparently being agnostic at best.
And, while on the subject of faith, the GOP should not let people like Hitchens dictate the terms in which these issues are discussed. There is plenty of tolerance for different faiths within the GOP without having the moonbats dividing those that probably agree on 80% of the key issues and can find common ground on many others. One issue candidates are not good for either the poltical parties or the nation.
highhopes on October 30, 2007 at 4:33 PM
If I were Mormon, possibly. Mitt seems to me to be a pretty traditional Mormon in his beliefs. That speaks volumes and encompasses a lot of criteria.
bnelson44 on October 30, 2007 at 4:34 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 3 ... 5 Next »