Christians kindly remind Mitt: You’re not one of us
posted at 2:54 pm on October 30, 2007 by Allahpundit
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.
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 2 3 4 5 Next »
Nicely said. In addition, the Gospels had distinct readers and purposes in mind e.g. Mark was aimed at a Roman/Gentile audience. Which is why it had to “explain” or translate Hebrew/Aramaic terms into latin. Luke sought to provide a historical account of Christianity. And, it was the precursor of Acts. John, on the other hand, dealt more with the theological aspect of Jesus Christ – his divinity, etc.
There are differences in the Gospels, because the message of each Gospel is different. Otherwise, only One (1) Gospel would’ve been written – the others being simply redundant. The fact that certain historical or theological matters are not found in all of the Gospels, or that they are explained in a different manner, has no bearing on their accuracy – only on their purpose.
OhEssYouCowboys on October 30, 2007 at 4:34 PM
Harpazo on October 30, 2007 at 4:32 PM
The point is that is not what will probably happen in real life. I’m afraid there are too many fundamentalists and secularists that don’t trust Mormons.
bnelson44 on October 30, 2007 at 4:35 PM
Two things for you self proclaimed “christians” who think you are qualified to judge the nuances of other persons beliefs….
Matt: 7:16 By their fruits ye shall know them.
Matt 16:4 It is an evil and adulterous generation that seeks a sign.
This bigotry is sickening.
csdeven on October 30, 2007 at 4:36 PM
Yes, you’re right.
JiangxiDad on October 30, 2007 at 4:36 PM
csdeven on October 30, 2007 at 4:36 PM
I think the point of the comments is that people will judge Mitt by his religion in 2008. It is just the nature of where the country is at. Possibly in the not so distant future that will not be the case, but we have to live with the facts of today. By the way, before you discount even looking at someone’s religion, would you really want a devout Scientologist running the country?
bnelson44 on October 30, 2007 at 4:39 PM
Harpazo: You certainly sounded like you base your faith on creedal beliefs. You may hold to sola scriptura, but how you are interpreting your scriptures sounds like it’s based on the Creeds. That said, you sound like an intelligent debator, and Hotair isn’t the place (nor does it have the capability) to adequately address these points.
Your last point, the one thing to take away from this comments thread, though, is a good one. Which is why I am puzzled why so many people want to bash or criticize Mormonism because of Romney. Allahpundit started this thread because he was puzzled (if I’m reading him right) why evangelicals feel the need to periodically insult Mormons and Romney in particular–as this article points out. If him being LDS doesn’t matter, then why bring it up?
Vanceone on October 30, 2007 at 4:39 PM
I’m suggesting that it’s not about the minutiae of theological beliefs. It is more because they are like members of a family and they are proud of one of their members.
He’s an attractive, brilliant guy and he has a conservative ideology with unimpeachable “family values”. Why wouldn’t they support him?
Buy Danish on October 30, 2007 at 4:39 PM
Well, that’s my point. If there’s nothing wrong with Mormons supporting Mitt because he’s of the same religion, is it so wrong for mainstream (non-Mormon) Christians to want one of their own in office?
Hollowpoint on October 30, 2007 at 4:39 PM
Vanceone, I’d say we disagree on all three points. I’m suggesting that your definition of those three statements and mine is, at its foundation, different. Take for instance my belief in one God. I mean one and only one exists now, has always existed, and always will. Joseph Smith believed otherwise.
Take as another example your statement “3). Jesus IS the only Son of God in the flesh.” That’s not the same as “his only son”. Mormons believe that God had many children, and at least one wife. I find no biblical basis for this belief.
I’m just saying the equating the two religions does a disservice to both.
High Desert Wanderer on October 30, 2007 at 4:40 PM
Okay hang on a second here- this is a guy who has claimed to change from a LIBERAL to a CONSERVATIVE just in time to run for POTUS in the GOP! About the only thing this guy HASN’T changed is his wife and his FAITH. See’n how his Mormanism seems to be one of the only constants in his personal philosophy, I’d like to know a little more about it.
Like for instance DOES the Mormon Church HAVE orthodoxy re: abortion, death penalty, gay marriage, etc. AND if it DOES has Mitt always been in line with said orthodoxy? Or has he abandoned the positions of his church at any time in order to get elected?
Ex-tex on October 30, 2007 at 4:40 PM
Hollowpoint on October 30, 2007 at 3:22 PM….
I hope your right, but, living in Eagan has taught me otherwise.
MNDavenotPC on October 30, 2007 at 4:40 PM
Please give examples of “flip-flops.” Becoming more conservative over time doesn’t count. By definition, “flip-flop” implies “back and forth” — meaning, move in one direction, then change and move in another direction. As far as I can tell, Romney has consistently become more conservative over time. But if you have evidence to the contrary, I’ll listen.
As to “pandering, slickster persona,” that’s in the eye of the beholder, and isn’t a valid, objective criticism. I view Thompson that way, but I’d never try to convince a Thompson supporter of that. Just try to convince Bill Clinton’s fans that he’s really “Slick Willie.” They’ll counter that he’s a genius.
Any other “major faults” you’d care to elucidate?
Splashman on October 30, 2007 at 4:43 PM
For the same non-religious reasons that a lot of us non-Mormons don’t support him.
There’s a bit of hypocrisy with Mormons who support Mitt over traditional Christians because he’s one of their own complaining that traditional Christians aren’t supporting Mitt because he’s not one of their own.
Hollowpoint on October 30, 2007 at 4:44 PM
I am not saying it is wrong. I am saying enough non-Mormons don’t trust a devout Mormon in the presidency enough to vote for him to run the country. It isn’t a matter of right or wrong, it is a matter of trust and a lot of fundamentalists don’t trust SLC and a lot of secularists are afraid of the morality of SLC infiltrating presidential judgments.
bnelson44 on October 30, 2007 at 4:45 PM
All this is exactly why Romney has NO chance in the general election, even though he’d probably make a great president. Principles are great, but getting a Republican in the White House is foremost a matter of strategery. If I didn’t know in my gut that the MSM/Clinton machine will easily savage Mormonism to bring Romney down, and that the electoral margins are too small to take that chance with Mitt, I’d probably be rooting for him. Giuliani has a few drawbacks, but none like the “Mormon issue” in the hands of Clinton’s flying monkeys.
Halley on October 30, 2007 at 4:48 PM
Oh please- he didn’t become more conservative “over time”, he became more conservative overnight when he decided to run.
As to the pandering, he claims to be fiscally conservative, but he’s in favor of ag subsidies for Iowa farmers, corporate welfare for the Michigan auto industry, tells the NRA he supports the 2nd Amendment though he’s in favor of a federal gun ban- etc, etc, etc.
Hollowpoint on October 30, 2007 at 4:50 PM
And they would do while keeping their hands clean in the process.
bnelson44 on October 30, 2007 at 4:50 PM
It’s called bigotry. I know as a person of the LDS faith you would be hard pressed to accuse these bigots for being bigots because you follow the teachings of Christ.
Not withstanding that, they are bigots…..plain and simple.
csdeven on October 30, 2007 at 4:51 PM
I think I have an insight to offer the Mormon participants on this thread.
Imagine a Baptist preacher visits a Jewish community center. Opening his Bible to any of the first few books, he cheerfully declares, “Hey, we read the Torah too! I’m a Jew as much as you are!”
Now you know how most conservative Christians view Mormon claims.
I know you guys sincerely believe that you are a Christian church. But you shouldn’t bother trying to prove it to those of us who sincerely believe you are not. From my perspective, the statement, “Mormons are not Christians” is a simple theological fact. I don’t say it with malice or hate. I say it with the same matter-of-fact tone that I would use to say, “Jews are not Christians” or “Hindus are not Christians.”
Now, for my fellow evangelicals: I don’t understand why this particular religious issue should get in the way of presidential politics. Given his record, I would vote for Mitt any day against any Democrat. I still haven’t made up my mind about the primaries, but if Mitt is the candidate, I am going to be more interested in his positions on national defense and taxation than his opinions on Joseph Smith.
Anton on October 30, 2007 at 4:55 PM
I’ll jump in on this thread, though I’m at work so I can’t speed a lot of time.
From my understanding, Christianity is not the result of books or tablets revealing the truth about God. It is the result of Christ’s life and resurrection on Earth. That event is recorded and corroborated by many authors, both Christian and secular. The documents in the Bible and other histories agree that Christ existed, and the Bible records his message of salvation through grace. He clearly demonstrates that the he is the fulfillment of God’s revelation to man, and nothing else is needed.
Joseph Smith claims to have found some tablets, which he claimed came to him from God. What corroboration is there of his discovery? As far as I know, he claims to be a “prophet” from God, and there is no other evidence to prove or disprove his supposed revelation. It’s his word against everybody else’s. Joseph Smith was repackaging a strain of Christianity from the first centuries that God is not three in one, but that The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are there separate beings. The Council of Nicea clarified that God is three-in-one.
I’m sure the Mormons on the site will clarify/rip apart my understanding of Joseph Smith. The point is that Christianity arose directly from Jesus and the accounts of his time on Earth have been corroborated and accepted. Mormonism arose from Joseph Smith’s “revelation” and contains aspects that are in contradiction to the Bible. His source has much less verification than the accounts of the revelations of Jesus.
Mallard T. Drake on October 30, 2007 at 4:56 PM
I’m just wondering, are the Dems just waiting for Mitt to be the Republican nomination, so they can jump all over the fact that LDS has a long history of considering African-Americans as “cursed with a black skin” and have yet to make an announcement or get a “revelation” to remove it?
They aren’t going to bother getting in his face about it now, they might as well wait until he’s the pick before they bring that out.
jjjen on October 30, 2007 at 4:56 PM
In other words, you agree there was no flip-flopping. Thanks!
Splashman on October 30, 2007 at 5:01 PM
Your right… Hill won’t attack Rudi on all the things Conservatives don’t like… because they are liberal beliefs.
One of the interesting things going on in America right now is that we are trying to politicly dimiss religion as important… at the same time we are being attacked by a Religion (Islam).
Secularists want religion out of politics… and many in Washington don’t want to deal with it… but people core beliefs ARE very important, because its the core beliefs they will base actions on when they need to make a critical decision with limited time or knowledge… like… oh… in a crises?
I’m NOT a Christian… Theist at best… but the depth of his beliefs ARE a matter of public concern… and what he profeses those beliefs to be IS important…
Romney can go secular… but he can’t potray himself as part of the LDS without it meaning somthing…
Just like Rudi giving to Planned Parenthood, while calling himself a Catholic tells you somthing…
Or Hillary claiming to be part of a church which is against abortion… yep supports it…
Go’s to character, belief, and credibility.
Romeo13 on October 30, 2007 at 5:01 PM
Ramesh has some more thoughts on Mormonism and electability here. He points out polling showing evangelical voters were only slightly more hostile to Mormon candidates than the population at large, while Democratic voters were much more hostile.
bnelson44 on October 30, 2007 at 5:02 PM
Anton: Interesting analogy. But, isn’t the Baptist right? We SHOULD be Jews, shouldn’t we? Or at least participants in the covenants of the House of Israel… or do you believe that God changed His mind on how people were to be saved? From the point of view of the Baptist, one would hope he would claim to be Jewish in the sense of having the correct knowledge of God, which admits to the Torah as well. It’s not Christianity’s fault most Jews rejected (what I believe) to be their Messiah.
From my perspective, Christianity is still the (correct) Judaism. I can fully claim fellowship with the prophets in the Old Testament, because I believe they were messengers of the same Deity I worship.
True religion is the same, whether it was preached by Abraham, Moses, Malachi, Peter, or Joseph Smith. I hope you can see how I view that we ARE Christian as well.
Vanceone on October 30, 2007 at 5:03 PM
Huh? Translation please.
Not according to USA Today. In a new USA TODAY/Gallup Poll, 72% say they would vote for a qualified nominee who is Mormon.
And as I was saying:
This is where ideology comes in. Most Scientologists are Liberals, not conservatives.
Buy Danish on October 30, 2007 at 5:05 PM
Woops, forgot to preview. I didn’t do a good job of separating quotes from the USA Today article with Bnelson 44′s question. Sorry!
Buy Danish on October 30, 2007 at 5:06 PM
If these bigots think they are the final arbiters of truth, how do they explain the discovery of ancient Hebrew text written on a boulder in New Mexico in the 1880′s?
The Los Lunas Inscription is an intriguing inscription and begs the question….if the inscription was 100 years old when first studied by a scientist in 1930, who in the 1830′s knew ancient Hebrew enough to chisel the inscription?
If it is authentic, it lends more credibility to the Book of Mormon’s authenticity.
csdeven on October 30, 2007 at 5:08 PM
Ah, devout Scientologists believe a creature from another world is about to attack earth. A devout Scientologist as CIC would probably dramatically change our defense posture.
But I appreciate the USA Today article. 24% of those polled had a problem with Mormons, that is a pretty large percentage that we can’t afford next year. We will be very lucky to squeek out a win next year against Hillary’s machine.
bnelson44 on October 30, 2007 at 5:13 PM
He’s learning mormonism at the feet of his bigoted pastor or an anti-mormon website.
csdeven on October 30, 2007 at 5:14 PM
Yeah, and the Jewish leaders of Christs time said he wasn’t the Messiah either.
csdeven on October 30, 2007 at 5:16 PM
Asking AP is ironic, given his role in Rathergate. There are very serious questions concerning the use of carets and other punctuation in that inscription.
JiangxiDad on October 30, 2007 at 5:18 PM
Have Dingy Harry run for President and see what kind of support he gets from the LDS community.
csdeven on October 30, 2007 at 5:18 PM
What little I know of Reid, I would not consider him a devout Mormon, and apparently neither do a lot of LDS.
bnelson44 on October 30, 2007 at 5:21 PM
You don’t have to imagine. Jews for Jesus and so-called Messianic Jewish congregations receive moral and financial support from Baptists and other Evangelical groups toward their efforts to evangelize the Jewish people. Many of the people involved in these groups, perhaps a majority, come from Gentile backgrounds.
aunursa on October 30, 2007 at 5:22 PM
I can’t support Mitt because I live in Utah and I see everyday how Mormons do politics. We have more messed up laws in this state than any other. Mormons, whether legislative or judicial, like to instill their own version of morality on others.
We have a saying around here: “Eat, Drink, and be merry! For tomorrow you may be in Utah.”
Thank God Utah is a beautiful state because that is all it has going for it. I especially thank God Nevada is only 75 miles away!!
Sammy316 on October 30, 2007 at 5:23 PM
Hey, if the Baptists are stupid enough tools to shoot Romney down and vote for Judy-ani because of the supposed Christian-ness of their theological underpinnings as opposed to their policy positions and the way they live their lives, we should thank them for President Hillary.
Cause hey baptists, I’m pretty sure Hillary is a “true Christian” when it comes to the Baptist barometer.
Me, I think this whole “Mormon OH NOES!” thing is garbage.
BKennedy on October 30, 2007 at 5:23 PM
Are statements of fact bigotry? No mainstram Christian denomination accepts Mormamism as a Christain faith because of fundamental differences in theology. I believe Christians get to decide what theological fundamentals define their faith and just because another religion wants to be called Christian doesn’t mean Christians have to set aside these fundamental differences and accept this other group as Christians. This isn’t bigotry, and to imply that it is is either willful misunderstanding of the situation or an attempt to villify those you disagree with.
Buford on October 30, 2007 at 5:23 PM
Can you elaborate?
JiangxiDad on October 30, 2007 at 5:24 PM
Is he/she going to foist their beliefs on me or turn the government into a Scientologist entity? If not, I don’t give a rats patootie. One thing I would certainly NOT do is vote for a so called “Christian” that holds such bigoted views of others and makes that part of their criteria for a presidential candidate.
csdeven on October 30, 2007 at 5:24 PM
I noticed that it is a lot easier to get to Los Vegas from Utah than Flagstaff!
bnelson44 on October 30, 2007 at 5:25 PM
Is that a take-off on the pronunciation, or something else?
JiangxiDad on October 30, 2007 at 5:26 PM
Harpazo, thank you for your comments.
To add to Mallard T. Drake’s comment above, for those interested, here is a link to F. F. Bruce’s book, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? which in available for reading online.
INC on October 30, 2007 at 5:27 PM
Seems like there is enough question about the artifact that you might not want to hang too much on it’s authenticity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Lunas_Decalogue_Stone
http://www.ramtops.co.uk/loslunas.html
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=78
Mallard T. Drake on October 30, 2007 at 5:27 PM
If you are devout, you live your beliefs, otherwise you are a hypocrite and not devout. The example I gave is pertinent. If I firmly believed that Xenu was about to attack my country, then as president, I owe it to my country to protect it from the immanent attack. Either I believe or I don’t. If I don’t believe, I am not devout.
bnelson44 on October 30, 2007 at 5:28 PM
Is this an example of Replacement theology as distinguished from Dispensationalism?
aunursa on October 30, 2007 at 5:30 PM
Okay, let’s try that again……
Seems like there is enough question about the artifact that you might not want to hang too much on it’s authenticity.
Link 1
Link 2
Link 3
Mallard T. Drake on October 30, 2007 at 5:27 PM
Mallard T. Drake on October 30, 2007 at 5:30 PM
It’s mostly a reference to that horrid cross-dressing video on Youtube where Rudy hits on Donald Trump.
Given how idiotic this line of Baptist thinking is, basically some of them would say:
“Vote for the cross-dressing excommunicated [second divorce was never annulled, nothing to do with policy positions] pro-abortion pro-gay rights Catholic over that damned pro-life pro-traditional marriage examplar of family values Mormon!”
BKennedy on October 30, 2007 at 5:30 PM
Just exactly how do you envision the Clinton smear machine will go about savaging Mitt over his faith? How do they do that without drawing the castigation of regular folks who aren’t bigoted like these so called “Christians” are who think they get to decide who is a “real” Christian?
csdeven on October 30, 2007 at 5:32 PM
Buford,
You’re begging the question. Who gets to decide what is considered a mainstream Christian denomination?
aunursa on October 30, 2007 at 5:32 PM
You are right, but here is an indication that there is some gradual change taking place, most clearly among independents.
dedalus on October 30, 2007 at 5:32 PM
Got it. That’s funny.
JiangxiDad on October 30, 2007 at 5:33 PM
You can dislike Mitt for any reason you like, what I’m saying is if those people who are obviously against Mit because of their utter contempt of Mormons were instead for Mitt because he’s a Christian who’s closer to social Con ideals than Rudy, that Mitt would then be way ahead in the polls.
There’s no denying Christian on Christian prejudice in this case.
Speakup on October 30, 2007 at 5:34 PM
Baptists who won’t vote for Romney are unlikely to vote for Rudy. They’ll stay home and give it away to Hillary out of “principle”.
For the record, I like Rudy and would vote for him. He is kicking butt on the campaign trail right now. He had a great interview with Cavuto. One gem: “We should give the death penalty to the death tax”.
Buy Danish on October 30, 2007 at 5:35 PM
I hope you guys work it out. I think Mitt would make a good President.
JiangxiDad on October 30, 2007 at 5:35 PM
This townThe Republican party needs an enema!- Jack Napier
MB4 on October 30, 2007 at 5:37 PM
That’s 24% of the population. 50% of won’t vote for Hillary. We win!
Buy Danish on October 30, 2007 at 5:38 PM
Really? How many websites run by Jews smear Christians? I haven’t seen any. Yet I have seen HUNDREDS of websites run by so called “Christians” propagating the same lies about Mormons over and over again.
The Mormons are no threat to “Christian” churches unless you add the context of tithing into it. Pastors who live off the donations of their flock have a vested interest in keeping the flock in the pews. These pastors create bad guys that their members need protection from. They sell CD’s and DVD’s showing their members how to avoid the pitfalls of reading Harry Potter or studying other religions outside of his/her skewed view.
csdeven on October 30, 2007 at 5:38 PM
I would like to see a breakdown of the poll.
bnelson44 on October 30, 2007 at 5:39 PM
I’ve been reading this thread for a half hour now and here are my conclusions so far. Mormonism is NOT Christianity. For Mormons to claim otherwise is either ignorance or, at worst, deception. Devout Mormons are very conservative. That’s a very good thing! I agree with a lot of what Mitt says (although I wonder why he hasn’t always been so conservative). I’m not sure who I support in the Primaries yet, but if Mitt is the Republican nominee, he has my vote!
Ordinary1 on October 30, 2007 at 5:41 PM
There are a number of websites that defend Jewish theology from assaults by Christian theologians, apologists, and evangelists.
To my knowledge, however, there are no websites run by Jews that are designed or intended to smear Christians.
aunursa on October 30, 2007 at 5:44 PM
Some Evangelical Christians seem to “passionately hate” Mormons (Church of Jesus Christ of later day Saints). Freud’s term for the passionate hating of people very like oneself — but different in some minor degree — was the “narcissism of small differences”. The Shiites and Sunnis in Iraq have it and it looks like some Evangelical Christians have it to.
MB4 on October 30, 2007 at 5:45 PM
So? Who would have chiseled it? Who would have enough knowledge of ancient Hebrew to create it, yet, would make those mistakes? Was there a certain train of thought that was teaching ancient Hebrew WRONGLY during the 1880′s?
It’s entirely more likely that the text is genuine and we are the ones who are ignorant of the people who did in fact write that way.
csdeven on October 30, 2007 at 5:47 PM
Relatively few Christians will refuse to vote for a Mormon who shares most of their political and moral concerns, just because he’s a Mormon.
But a great many get irritated when Mormons insist they are Christians. If Mitt’s going to do that, we might as well call a big conclave of theologians to settle it now, because that’s what it will take.
NellE on October 30, 2007 at 5:47 PM
To add to one of the side topics, I would strongly be against any Scientologist running the country. Though they may legally be given the status of a religion, there is nothing religious about them. Moreover, they behave more along the lines of cult members than anything else.
Also, to Scientologists, psychiatry is nearly the most evil thing in the world. They also claim to be tolerant of other religions, they are not. It is hard to be tolerant of other religions when it is written in their doctrine that religions like Christianity are manufactured lies.
And just to clear things up, it isn’t that there is some monster that’s coming to attack the US, earth is essentially a prison planet (think of a galactic version of Australia) and it is kept that way by something that happened millions of years ago. It involves ice cubes, volcanoes, and H-Bombs. Really.
Weebork on October 30, 2007 at 5:49 PM
OK, this is personal experience only, so take it for what it is worth. My experience with members of the LDS church is that they are very conservative, but do not impose their conservative views on others. They tend to live and let live. They evangelize, sure, but they are polite about it. That doesn’t mean they are quick to let go of their beliefs, I have found them very hard fast in what they believe and if we try to impose our wishes on them. But they, in turn do not try to impose their wishes on us (outside the ballot box). N.B., I don’t live in Utah.
bnelson44 on October 30, 2007 at 5:49 PM
I have absolutely nothing helpful to say in response to that. Simply meant to inform that it is a matter of great controversy.
JiangxiDad on October 30, 2007 at 5:51 PM
He is very active in all the trappings of the LDS lifestyle. His problem is he is a stone liberal and believes that he can be dishonest because he acts on behalf of his party. THAT is why LDS folks wont support him any longer. He is an entirely different beast than he was when he was simply a senator from Nevada.
csdeven on October 30, 2007 at 5:52 PM
Mitt has some good things going for him and honestly I’m trying him on as a possible POTUS to see if his conversion to conservatism holds more water than Rudy’s does. So far so good but honestly I’d feel a lot better about it if he’d go more hardcore on illegal immigration, maybe utter the D word like Fred has.
It won’t bother me that he’s a Mormon if it doesn’t bother him that I’m a Methodist. I’m looking for a rock ribbed conservative to lead this nation from the brink of vanishing not someone to give me a sermon.
Buzzy on October 30, 2007 at 5:52 PM
I second that.
JiangxiDad on October 30, 2007 at 5:54 PM
Given that fact that there are errors in it, and that the degredation of the patina makes it impossible to date, my guess is that it was done in the 20th Century by someone who knew a little Hebrew. I like the speculation that it was a Christian because of the mixture of Greek and Hebrew letters. The fact that there are other petroglyphs nearby leads me to think that some modern person on the property wanted to leave the mark of their religion as the ancient Anasazis did in the past.
bnelson44 on October 30, 2007 at 5:55 PM
And you believe that makes what they say a fact? Perhaps you should go be a Jew since the Jewish leaders of Christ’s time said he wasn’t the Messiah.
csdeven on October 30, 2007 at 5:55 PM
csdeven on October 30, 2007 at 5:52 PM
If I recall, he had problems with members of his church in the 1990s as well.
bnelson44 on October 30, 2007 at 5:57 PM
Having been raised a Baptist, I have always understood the basic requirement for being a Christian is believing in Jesus Christ and taking him as your savior, correct me if I’m wrong but I don’t think much else matters.
Speakup on October 30, 2007 at 5:58 PM
csdeven on October 30, 2007 at 5:55 PM
I think he is correct. Can you name a mainstream denomination that accepts the LDS as Christian?
bnelson44 on October 30, 2007 at 5:58 PM
Weebork on October 30, 2007 at 5:49 PM
Every religion that is exclusive claims that at least portions of every other religion are manufactured lies. Rejection of another religion’s validity does not constitute intolerance.
aunursa on October 30, 2007 at 5:58 PM
Do Scientologists believe that their duty to their country is greater than their duty to their beliefs when they are seeking public office? That’s what Mitt believes and if Scientologists believe the same thing, then no, I don’t give a crap what they believe.
Our elected officials should follow the constitution AND if they do that, what they believe is irrelevant. To do otherwise is bigotry.
csdeven on October 30, 2007 at 6:00 PM
Which part of it don’t you believe? The 24% who won’t vote for Romney or the 50% who won’t vote for Hillary?
So what’s the problem then? And why would you expect Mormons, or anyone to change their beliefs anyway?
I read a great anecdote about Mitt’s father George in Newsweek. They had an Italian Catholic boy living with them one summer and the first thing Mitt’s dad did was to deposit him at the Catholic Church door on Sunday, and he made sure he went to his church every Sunday. They even let him smoke cigarettes in their home!
Buy Danish on October 30, 2007 at 6:00 PM
csdeven on October 30, 2007 at 6:00 PM
My debate on the topic of Mitt isn’t what Mitt believes, it is what people believe and trust about an LDS candidate. From what I can tell, Mitt seems like a very nice guy, a devout Mormon, a good Republican and a good US citizen. I just don’t think he can beat Hillary because there are certain people in this country that would normally vote for a Republican against Hillary, but won’t vote for a Mormon. We can’t afford to lose a lot of votes next year. The party isn’t exactly sitting pretty right now.
bnelson44 on October 30, 2007 at 6:03 PM
Mike Huckabee says you’re full of crap.
Hollowpoint on October 30, 2007 at 6:04 PM
High Desert Wanderer:
It is interesting that many Mormons will add the “in the flesh” part without knowing why it is there. A Christian will know that Jesus is God, the only God of entire creation, in flesh (John 1). Jesus is not a literal son from a god that used to be like us. This is an absolutely huge distinction.
Another huge distinction is that Mormons will say works are grace because works grant salvation. Christians will say that works do not bring you closer to salvation. Salvation is a one time legal-like transaction that payed the price for our sin. The grace is that God made possible that transaction. He is simultaneously just and graceful. Just — in that sin must be punished. Grace — in that the price was payed by Jesus. It is not what we do, it is what He has done. We can do nothing, because grace is a gift. This is the absolute core of Christianity and makes it unique among faiths.
Anything that says that *you* in and of yourself can find favor with God is not Christian, it is a religious system.
BTW, the creeds are just summaries of concepts in the Bible. It isn’t that someone came along and thought this stuff up and voted on it. There was severe arguments to make sure the creeds clearly paralleled the Bible.
thule on October 30, 2007 at 6:05 PM
Unless we’re firmly convinced that Mormonism does not lead to salvation. In which case, Christians and Mormons are most certainly working at cross purposes.
There is a very real question regarding Mitt and how deep the rabbit hole goes for him vis:Mormonism. Does he hold to the yearly revelations to the prophet? If his faith in Mormonism is real, he’s got a Pope, and that’s a big deal for me.
What we’re dancing around in this thread is that Christians who pay attention to Mormonism view it as a Satanic deception, Joseph Smith a false prophet. As such, we’re not fond of putting an adherent of this belief system at the reigns. It’s not personal, simply the logical conclusion of our perception of what LDS is.
TexasDan on October 30, 2007 at 6:06 PM
Aunura,
I see what you are saying, and I would say that is true for most people, but it is on a different level with Scientology regarding the validity of other religions. I should have said that they think all religions are “aberrations”, created exclusively to enslave man and to keep us here on earth. Implicitly, one will be removed of religion when one goes through Scientology training and counseling.
Again, how can one be tolerant of something that is believed to be a mechanism for enslavement?
Weebork on October 30, 2007 at 6:08 PM
What is glaringly obvious is that all the detractors of the authenticity of the stone, to a person, believe that ALL writers of Hebrew were of the exact same skill set. They do not allow that this could have been chiseled by an authentically early visitor who just so happened to not be very good at his craft.
csdeven on October 30, 2007 at 6:08 PM
There is a difference. The Shiite and Sunni actively engage in killing each other.
My experience with Mormons is that they do not react in kind. It’s a one way attack for the most part and these so called “Christians” are the aggressors.
csdeven on October 30, 2007 at 6:14 PM
To add, in Scientology policy, there is something called “Fair Game” that was written by their founder, Hubbard. It gives Scientologists the authority to destroy opponents and critics of Scientology by any means necessary. To emphasize, there is no limit to how far this can go.
Weebork on October 30, 2007 at 6:14 PM
This is a little off topic, but I started wondering about the George W and Laura interpretation of Christianity. I thought they believed the Bible was literally true. On the other hand, they are willing to go to bat for Islam. Aren’t they being inconsistent given this verse? Or am I splitting hairs?
thuja on October 30, 2007 at 6:15 PM
Forgive me for being so aggressive. These frapping Christian bigots really get my dander up.
csdeven on October 30, 2007 at 6:17 PM
Yeah, they’d never support Reid.
Hollowpoint on October 30, 2007 at 6:25 PM
Who would have been running around in Indian territory in the 1830′s that would know enough about ancient Hebrew to write it, but still make the mistakes?
csdeven on October 30, 2007 at 6:27 PM
I would agree. I wonder which is worse. A Conservative Mormon who adheres to the wrong theology, but is right on most issues, or a Liberal “Christian” who doesn’t stand with God on the issues like abortion, marriage, personal accountability, to name a few?
I think it is better to have someone in office who is a Conservative and really knows God and can be directed by Him. Probably why Huckabee is getting the attention he is.
I guess my fall back is, we are not electing theologian in chief, so I want a candidate who is conservative on the issues and will stand firm on those principals.
Ordinary1 on October 30, 2007 at 6:28 PM
I don’t remember any real big deals other than a 2nd amendment issue. And I lived in Las Vegas from 1990 until 2004. But yeah, the guy is certainly scum now.
csdeven on October 30, 2007 at 6:30 PM
Once again, the debate really boils down to:
What does he actualy believe?
And is he devout in those beliefs?
Now… if he believes the tenents of that church, where does that put him with realtion to the war?
Much like Rudi, abortion and the Catholic church…
Can you say you are part of a religion, and devout, but then not follow the tenents of that religion?
And what does that say about your character?
Romeo13 on October 30, 2007 at 6:32 PM
You missed the point. I meant to convey that the amount of people who believe a certain thing is not the proof that the belief is in fact the truth. The Jewish leaders out numbered Christ in the belief that he was the Messiah, but their strength in numbers didn’t make them correct.
csdeven on October 30, 2007 at 6:33 PM
My father literally shocked me the other day by telling me he was changing his vote from Rudy to Mitt! My dad is an old-time Pentecostal. I asked him if he is aware that Mitt is a *gasp* Mormon. He said he was aware. It’s the most toughest primary in recent memory for evangelicals!
SouthernGent on October 30, 2007 at 6:35 PM
I’m actually enjoying the tendency in this thread for evangelicals to assume they represent all of Christianity. The “Grace not works” argument being a case in point. As I understand it, Catholics and others also view works as important and necessary–does this mean they aren’t Christian?
Look–TexasDan had it right. The only reason this matters is because some Evangelicals are mortally afraid that somehow, some Mormon will become President and –what? I’m not actually sure. I really don’t know why they would be concerned–to me, a fake Christian like the Clintons who don’t live any of the Lord’s commandments would be much more concerning than whether or not Mitt Romney is correct in his beliefs if we look at whether or not Iraneas or other early church fathers believed XXXXXX doctrine or not–which is what this usually boils down to.
By their fruits ye shall know them. What are Mormonism’s fruits versus Democratic policy fruits? I would suggest there is no contest.
Vanceone on October 30, 2007 at 6:36 PM
They believe they get to decide who is saved and who is not. They believe they get to decide who is a real Christian and who is not. Yes, they are bigots. I don’t see the point of you repeating what I have already said.
csdeven on October 30, 2007 at 6:37 PM
Unlike bigoted Christians, Mormons don’t follow in lockstep with the leadership of their church. All that said was that the leadership sees him as an asset as far as the image of the church goes. They did not say the want him to continue to claim the war is lost and other such moonbatteries.
csdeven on October 30, 2007 at 6:41 PM
That should have read…..
Unlike bigoted Christians, Mormons don’t follow in lockstep with the leadership of their church on political issues.
csdeven on October 30, 2007 at 6:43 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »