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: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »
*blinks* Romeo13, I’m not quite sure what you are trying to imply. The LDS church has been one of the strongest proponents of defending one’s home, nation, and family there is–with force, if need be. The Book of Mormon is filled with military heros.
The position is of course that peace is preferable to war, but war is not the worst of all things either. That talk you referenced quite clearly is talking about being a personal peacemaker, and how the Golden rule should be emphasized. I see nothing wrong with that. The talk is more of a plea to try to achieve all the nobel goals.
Vanceone on October 30, 2007 at 6:44 PM
Your arguing what should be. I am pointing out the state of the political world today.
bnelson44 on October 30, 2007 at 6:45 PM
csdeven, where is the bigotry in holding to my belief? I don’t really understand the foot stomping on the part of the LDS crowd insisting that they get to be in the same room as “Christians”. Pick a different title if it helps semantically, but neither one of us is being honest intellecutally if we don’t recognize that the tenets of Mormonism and traditional Christianity put them in separate categories.
TexasDan on October 30, 2007 at 6:46 PM
Now that isn’t true and you know it.
The Spanish were here in the 1500’s. Being from Nevada you should probably know this already.
Sammy316 on October 30, 2007 at 6:48 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
There is no proof the inscriptions come from the 1830s. If the patina is ruined, they could have been made yesterday and you wouldn’t know it. The way you date petroglyphs is you look for patina inside the inscription. Frequent cleaning with solvents, like what happened to this rock would dissolve patina inside the inscription. So basically, there ain’t any patina inside the inscription to prove it was around from the 1830s. My guess though is that it is much more recent than that. But it is only a guess.
bnelson44 on October 30, 2007 at 6:49 PM
Only for bigots. Everyone else watches how Mitt has dealt with his promises to his constituency and makes evaluations based on that. We aren’t electing a theocratic leader. We are electing a president that we expect to represent us and do what is best for the USA regardless of his religion.
csdeven on October 30, 2007 at 6:49 PM
There are some pretty fundamental differences between Mormonism and mainstream Christianity. Technically, I don’t think Mormonism=Christianity, as their theology is significantly different from those Christian churces that subscribe to the Nicene Creed. That said, Mormonism comes clearly out of the same tradition as Christianity. He shares the same values as all of us. Frankly, his Mormonism doesn’t bother me in the slighest, and in fact it pisses me off when people attack because of it (I’m Catholic and not a Romney supporter at all).
WillBarrett on October 30, 2007 at 6:49 PM
Foot stomping? If you re-read this thread you will find that bigoted Christians started the foot stomping because they think they have the exclusive right to define who is excluded from under the Christian tent.
csdeven on October 30, 2007 at 6:51 PM
And how many missions were named in ancient Hebrew?
csdeven on October 30, 2007 at 6:53 PM
I would like to see the Democratic vs Republican breakdown. It would give us more information to base an analysis of the poll on. If all the 24% are Dems that would vote for Hillary anyway, it doesn’t matter. If all the 24% is really 50% Republicans, than that tells us we have a big problem.
I don’t but then I am talking about the 24% that don’t like Mormons.
bnelson44 on October 30, 2007 at 6:53 PM
csdeven
I say foot stomping because you accuse us of being “exclusive”. That’s retarded. It’s a simple grasp of the reality of the two belief systems. We’re stating facts, not saying we won’t be your friends.
TexasDan on October 30, 2007 at 6:54 PM
As the token CCR I can say we’ve been through this a zillion times before. Mormonism is not born-again Christianity. “Evangelicals” have never/will never support Romney (unless he is the nom, then I HOPE they can be persuaded to support him.) This Christian thing is bigger than you think. There are millions of us and we don’t like anybody right now who is running for POTUS. Huck is too loose on immigration. Ugh..
PoliticallyIncorrectSandy on October 30, 2007 at 6:54 PM
Csdeven is exhibiting the usual Mormon “woe-is-me” persecution complex. Even here behind the Zion Curtain (Utah) Mormons continually whine about how persecuted they are (even though they run everything).
packsoldier on October 30, 2007 at 6:55 PM
I’m not a big fan of Mitt “Silly Putty” Romney, but unless his critics can show an example of how Mitt’s faith influenced his public actions in a way that was adverse to the people he was working for, they should leave this subject alone. The entire matter has become tiresome.
Either lay out a case in some lucid terms why this issue is important, or lay off.
jaime on October 30, 2007 at 6:55 PM
Thats still not true.
Sammy316 on October 30, 2007 at 6:56 PM
That date came from the first person to study it. The person who showed it to him first saw it in the 1880’s. He felt the inscription was about 100 years old. Others place the date from 500-2000 years ago.
csdeven on October 30, 2007 at 6:56 PM
Examples.
csdeven on October 30, 2007 at 6:58 PM
Who said I am a Mormon?
csdeven on October 30, 2007 at 6:58 PM
This argument is silly. The history of the Christian church is well documented historically. The start of each denomination and how they vary on theology is also well documented. The Catholic church, Roman and Eastern, have first claim, as they are direct descendents from the church started by the disciple Peter, whom Jesus Christ instructed to build (And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. Matthew 16:18 NIV).
Then came the Reformation, where Martin Luther pointed out unscriptural practices of the Roman Catholic Church, which the Pope did not react well to. This caused a split, and since then multiple denominations have formed. However, one key part of this is that they have all recognized each other as being Christian. This group gets to determine what groups are considered Christian and which aren’t, since they are allowed to define who they associate with. Any other group that claims to be a part of this group, but is not accepted by them, is not a part.
I am not arguing who will or will not be saved here, but who gets to be in the human defined group. A group of people gets to define who is a member of that group and who isn’t. If Christian organizations say the LDS aren’t a Christian organization, they aren’t. To think otherwise is akin to declaring yourself a member of the Augusta National Country Club and showing up there trying to play a round of golf. Just as the members of Augusta National get to define membership criteria, the existing group of Christian organizations gets to define the criteria for being considered a Christian organization.
When you have one entity insisting they are a member of a group, and all recognized members claim they aren’t a member, they aren’t.
Buford on October 30, 2007 at 6:59 PM
The article is absurd.
The people speaking on behalf of ‘christianity’ and pretending they know of what they speak is laughable.
This entire thread is just sad.
People here pretending to be Christians.
The truth of the Christ consciousness doesn’t have room for the pathetic, petty arguing and judging of others.
Hopefully, not many people even read this article, and those who do….are aware of how silly it is.
bridgetown on October 30, 2007 at 7:00 PM
TexasDan: Let me try to explain one reason why we insist we are Christian. It’s because when you casually say we are not, you basically claim we do not have Christ as our savior. Except, we DO believe in the Atonement of Christ. We believe he suffered for our sins, he died for us, and was resurrected on the third day, and thus we can have salvation.
By saying we are not Christian, you directly attack the foundation of our belief, and (implicitly) condemn us all. You are shutting the doors of salvation to us when you say “You guys are not Christian.” Jesus Christ is the author and finisher of our faith. If we are not Christian, then I have no hope of salvation at all.
And I strongly disagree that I am foreclosed from the Grace of Christ because I’m LDS, and therefore, “Not Christian.”
Take away our belief in Christ, and we have nothing. And I will fight to protect my belief in Christ. I believe in Him; He is my Savior. Do not try to take that away from me, or from my family.
That is what, after all, claiming that Mormon’s are not Christians is doing–removing us from the tender mercies of the Lord. How dare you try to slam the doors of salvation on me.
Perhaps you can see my point?
Vanceone on October 30, 2007 at 7:02 PM
I know this isn’t the main point of this thread, but I remember reading that Conversos sailed on the early Spanish expeditions to get away from the Inquisition. It’s very likely that any Jewish guy in Spain or Portugal at that time would have been able to do it–particularly badly, with errors, and with use of carets and periods and other “modern” stuff. Also, to do it infrequently isn’t a mystery either. I don’t think it was kosher to advertise your Judaism in the New World either.
JiangxiDad on October 30, 2007 at 7:02 PM
There are 4 differing gospels and it took hundreds of years for the Christian bishops to edit the Bible and decide which books should even be included and which were tossed in the trashcan of history. I can’t believe you are going to argue, from a scholarly perspective, that there is some historical highground here over the Book of Mormon.
Lets see! We had historical confusion about which books even made up the Bible, and which versions. The Eastern Orthodox Schism. The Protestant Reformation. How many different versions of the Bible do you find when you look in hotel rooms? But now finally Christians are putting thier foot down and declaring no more new material, The Book of Mormon is out. I guess it only took 18 centuries to get it right.
Resolute on October 30, 2007 at 7:02 PM
Good ole Huck has so many substance issues to deal with he’s not likely to ever get out of Mitt’s rear view mirror.
Speakup on October 30, 2007 at 7:02 PM
And how many missions were named in ancient Hebrew?
csdeven on October 30, 2007 at 6:53 PM
So there were Jews in America xxxx numbers of years ago according to Joseph Smith, but not one Jew was in Spain at the time they began traveling to America. Your logic says because there were no missions named in ancient Hebrew, there wasn’t a single Jew in America with the Spanish. Or conversly, if there was even a single Jew with the Spanish, every thing they did would be recorded in Hebrew.
C’mon, you can do better than that.
Mallard T. Drake on October 30, 2007 at 7:04 PM
The Hillary Stats. Don’t forget about “Independents”.
This is an older survey but I heard the same number last week.
Buy Danish on October 30, 2007 at 7:04 PM
That was a guess. Look at the stone and compare it to those other petroglyphs in the area. Note that the stone is completely wiped clean of patina. The person dating it from prior to 1880’s was trying to prove a point. That hardly makes it scientific.
bnelson44 on October 30, 2007 at 7:07 PM
Now we need the crosstabs… which, we don’t seem to have :(
bnelson44 on October 30, 2007 at 7:08 PM
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/West/10/06/mormon.conference.ap/index.html
I linked to it in the above comment… but it didn’t come out well…
And once again… it boils down to credibility.
If you say you are a devout Catholic… but then support abortion… it just does not make sense. The rules of the church, which you willingly belong to state that abortion is wrong… its not ambivilent… its not a question… its WRONG…
Now… you either need to stop calling yourself a Catholic… or follow the dictates of the church (gotta give Pope Benni Kudos on this…).
Same with Momonism… Hinduism… and any other ISM out there you want to call yourself.
Now, if you call youself a part of a religion… with all the benefits that acrue… but then don’t follow the tenents of that religion, you are a hypocrite, and a liar.
And if you are a member of a whack church with beliefs that do not fit in with American Culture? As a politician you have a problem, unless you convince them you are not “devout”…
Fact: Rudi gives money to Planned Parenthood and says he’s a Catholic…. married three times and still calls himself a Catholic… (not making a moral judgement on divorce… but it is agains the church rules).
Fact: Obama is a member of a RACIST church… go check out their website.
Fact: Romney is a Mormon, with all that entails…
Now, when push comes to shove… when the chips are down… people WILL use their beleif system, whatever that may be, to make decisions.
Don’t you think its fair game to know what our Presidential candidates BELIEVE?
Romeo13 on October 30, 2007 at 7:11 PM
Gotcha.
aunursa on October 30, 2007 at 7:12 PM
…. and happy Reformation Day!!! Okay… one day early, but, yes, it did create a huge division between the Roman church tradition and what Luther saw as what the Bible stated outright. The Roman Church had veered off course. People like John Huss were killed over issues like works and indulgences. The church needed reformation… and it eventually did come. This was not new revelation, Luther just read the Bible and posted points on where the Roman church deviated from it.
At it’s very core, the Roman Catholic church does proclaim the essentials of Christianity, but confuses them with “tradition” and dilutes them with concepts like purgatory.
BTW, works are important, but they are a response and a sign, *not* a mechanism for salvation like other religions teach. No matter how much a criminal says he’s sorry or point out all the good he did, it does not wipe out the crime. We are all guilty and there is nothing we can do about it except trust that Jesus payed the fine for us.
thule on October 30, 2007 at 7:12 PM
Do some research on the accepted validity of the biblical writings. There is great consensus on the validity of the writings and the consistency of the doctrine. There have been grammatical and non-essential edits along the way, but the theology and message have remained untouched. What we have is incredibly precise by any standard of ancient literature.
Your statement, quoted above, makes it sound like the Bible has been in flux until the Book of Mormon was written. In reality, The Bible has been constant since the canon had been established. The Book of Mormon was written in a vacuum not as the result of on-going biblical revisions.
Mallard T. Drake on October 30, 2007 at 7:13 PM
The point is…where are all the other evidence of a Spanish Jew (who didn’t understand his own language) being in the southwestern US? It wasn’t that long ago and this can’t be the only thing the guy ever did.
csdeven on October 30, 2007 at 7:16 PM
Amazing today we have these purity tests.
Black Politicians can’t just be black, they have to be black enough. Down for the struggle. We talk about whose more the female candidate: Hillary or Edwards. What is a real conservative and who is really conservative enough?
Black and Female ought to be self-evident. But no one owns conservatism and no one owns christianity. Both of these terms will continue to change in meaning, as they have, as time progresses.
What we do have control over is defining what it means to be a Republican. There is a party platform. It should be rather simple to check the party platform and find out which candidates subscribe to it. If they don’t then maybe they should leave. If the platform needs to change, then lets change it. Make the tent as big or small as you like.
Sebastian on October 30, 2007 at 7:17 PM
So to put your perspective in a way to which I can relate … that would be similar to groups like Jews for Jesus and Messianic Jews claiming that they are Jewish, but all Jewish denominations reject them.
That’s helpful. Thanks.
aunursa on October 30, 2007 at 7:19 PM
They have used the other petroglyph’s to surmise that the stone is many, many years older than 100 years old.
csdeven on October 30, 2007 at 7:22 PM
But you can’t surmise any such thing. Look at the pictures again. There are “petroglyphs” there that are obviously modern graffiti. I live in an area where we have tons of petroglyphs and tons of modern graffiti. The best way you can tell the difference (other than the John *hearts* Joan ones) is the patina inside the petroglyph. If the patina is washed away, as in this case, you can’t as a fall back, use the other petroglyphs to try to date yours. Sorry, I’ve been around the Southwest way too long for that ploy.
bnelson44 on October 30, 2007 at 7:27 PM
We have always had purity tests.
bnelson44 on October 30, 2007 at 7:29 PM
The same could be said for Mitt. Point is- being lockstep with the social cons is hardly the guaranteed win you suggested. Mitt has issues that have nothing to do with his religion.
Hollowpoint on October 30, 2007 at 7:29 PM
Well, it is up to the Mormon church to provide proof that can be verified by independant sources, if they think this is a key relic to their faith. The bibilical and secular writings provide that regarding Jesus and his ressurection.
I am assuming that the Mormans are placing their entire case on the verbal testimony of the native that recalls seeing the stone as a younger man, probably around 1880. That is not very rigorous proof of validity.
Mallard T. Drake on October 30, 2007 at 7:30 PM
The Augusta National Country Club can declare that the members of the Malibu Country Club aren’t members of their club, but they don’t get to declare who are golfers and who aren’t.
Should the Royal Burgess Golf Society of 1735 get to declare that the Augusta National Country Club aren’t real golfers?
The sport of golf isn’t any more owned by golf organizations than christianity is owned by any church.
Sebastian on October 30, 2007 at 7:30 PM
Is that a denial? If you’re not, just say so.
Hollowpoint on October 30, 2007 at 7:32 PM
Sebastian on October 30, 2007 at 7:30 PM
For years the Unitarians called themselves Christians. Then one day they stopped doing it.
bnelson44 on October 30, 2007 at 7:32 PM
Well, I just read the news article this post comes from…
Fixed your blog headline for you, AP.
ScottMcC on October 30, 2007 at 7:33 PM
Yeah, but why have them if you can’t declare those who fail heretics and kill them. There just doesn’t seem much point. So you’d think they’d just go away.
Sebastian on October 30, 2007 at 7:34 PM
As far as I know, the Mormon church has no position on it. I wasn’t using it as a support of the LDS church but more of an indictment of the bigoted Christians on this site.
csdeven on October 30, 2007 at 7:39 PM
Ohhhh, geezums. The last thing we need is a theological spat to compound a conservative splintering.
Who needs lefties to marginalize us so long as we persist in eating our own?
Liberalism is a mental disease: Lemmingitis libertiphobia victimitis entitlementia.
Conservatism is looking like one too: Death wish.
petefrt on October 30, 2007 at 7:40 PM
I have not seen independent sources that confirm the New Testament claims regarding the resurrection of Jesus.
aunursa on October 30, 2007 at 7:41 PM
Can’t patch things up if we don’t have the spat.
JiangxiDad on October 30, 2007 at 7:42 PM
Au contraire, the golfer can just go down the road to any number of courses where the rules are the same, but the terrain and yardages are different.
It’s still golf.
Buy Danish on October 30, 2007 at 7:43 PM
“However, Moorehouse compares the surviving weathering on the inscription to that on a nearby modern graffito dating itself to 1930. He concludes that the Decalogue inscription is clearly many times older than this graffito, and that 500 to 2000 years would not be an unreasonable estimate of its age.”
Moorehouse is a geologist.
csdeven on October 30, 2007 at 7:43 PM
Why does it matter? I know why you think it matters, but I’m trying to find out if you’ll try to weasel out of it.
csdeven on October 30, 2007 at 7:45 PM
Whatever inscription csdeven is talking about is not something I know much about–Mormons do not use this as a significant defense. It’s interesting, yes, but as far as I know, it’s not really very germane to anything.
Nice if it were real, though. :) Never would be admitted if it was, however.
Vanceone on October 30, 2007 at 7:46 PM
True, but if the founder or creator of golf defines golf in a certain way and other people define it another, then look to the originator to find out who is right.
http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/1#30
Doctrine and Covenents 1:30:
“And also those to whom these commandments were given, might have power to lay the foundation of this church, and to bring it forth out of obscurity and out of darkness, the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth”
http://scriptures.lds.org/en/js_h/1#19
Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith-History 1:19
“I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight”
Not a founder, but:
President George Q. Cannon said: “After the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was organized, there were only two churches upon the earth. They were known respectively as the Church of the Lamb of God and Babylon. The various organizations which are called churches throughout Christendom, though differing in their creeds and organizations, have one common origin. They all belong to Babylon” (Gospel Truth, p.324).
These are strong statements. Clearly Joseph Smith and other Mormon leaders distanced themselves from Christianity. Why are Mormons trying to find harmony with Christianity when their founder was so against it? It is not creeds they have an argument with, it is the Bible itself which they say lost its meaning. This was before the Dead Sea Scrolls and thousands of New Testament fragments were found that proved the reliability of the documents.
thule on October 30, 2007 at 7:51 PM
When in Russia at the Church of the Blood It was a beautiful. The stain glass of the pictures all the way around the building were just great. But what I learned was that when the gospel first came north they used these pictures to teach the gospel and now they are worshiping the stain glass. Take a look at the Mormon temples. Full of occult symbols. Of course wouldn’t expect an atheist to pick up on it or the run of the mill so called Christian. Go for it folks and check it out there are a plenty of photos on the web, or just stay the way you are, I just really don’t care anymore, Go to Hell if you won’t to doesn’t and won’t burn me.
mjkazee on October 30, 2007 at 7:52 PM
Dawkins doesn’t believe in freedom of religion. He believes the state should prevent parents from raising their children with regard to religion as they see fit. So his opinions should be taken with a cholesterol-inducing pound of salt.
aengus on October 30, 2007 at 7:54 PM
Yep
Buford on October 30, 2007 at 7:58 PM
That reminds me that there is a wide spectrum among atheists regarding tolerance for theists. I’d like to see a ranking of atheists based on level of tolerance. I believe that Dawkins would be at or near the extreme intolerant end of the spectrum.
aunursa on October 30, 2007 at 7:59 PM
Rank
Richard Dawkins
Sam Harris
Christopher Hitchens
Who else???
aunursa on October 30, 2007 at 8:00 PM
An atheist’s assertion that God does not exist does not “remove me” from the tender mercies of my Lord.
Vance, I do hear how dear your faith is. And I dearly want you to be truly saved. If, however, I am convinced that you are not (based on my understanding of the Mormon church and terminology, which you assume is negligible) then I’m not really your friend if I smile and nod and watch you perish.
I would hope that the feedback Mormons (and JW’s, and and) get from the Church as a whole, which is that they are caught in a deadly heresy, would serve as a stern jolt to consider whether or not they are actually on the path to salvation. Cause man, I really really want you to be.
TexasDan on October 30, 2007 at 8:02 PM
The LDS Church today does not say what it’s founders said. Isn’t Polygamy now grounds for excommunication from the church? Does that make the modern church wrong?
Golf changes all the times, with different rules, different equipment, et cetera. Today’s rules are not “impure” just because it is different from the original version.
I’d say it’s time to try another analogy. When you do, maybe you can show what any of this has to do with whether Romney is qualified to be our President.
Buy Danish on October 30, 2007 at 8:08 PM
You will notice I didn’t say they weren’t golfers, but that they weren’t members of Augusta National, no matter how much they insist they are. Augusta National defines who is a member of Augusta National. I find it hard to believe you were thick enough to missunderstand the gist of my post this badly, so I am inclined to believe you purposely truncated the post to get a context more favorable to your reply, and did not give details of my orginal post (Buford on October 30, 2007 at 6:59 PM if anyone cares) so that others could find it fairly easy. A rather dishonest way to reply sir.
Buford on October 30, 2007 at 8:08 PM
csdeven
I do. No non-Mormon would waste his/her time and energy to justify such an incredible hoax.
packsoldier on October 30, 2007 at 8:09 PM
The creator of Christianity is dead and didn’t actually write down any of the rules. Or is the creator of Christianity Peter? or is it Paul? Maybe it’s John with all the apocalyptic.
Christianity has changed the rules for 2000 years and continues to change the rules.
And lacking the ability to “silence” the detractors in these civilized times, anyone can define Christianity however they want.
What is real Christianity these days?
Maybe I’ll wait for the next conference, convocation, or preacher who graduates from divinity school. They’ll all be Christian, but you won’t recognize them as the same.
“Let That Be Your Last Battlefield”
Sebastian on October 30, 2007 at 8:20 PM
WHO CARES if Mitt’s a Mormon? So it’s a weird religion to most of us–so are plenty of others, and every Christian denomination has its detractors, even from other Christians.
I know he’s said it before, but he was Governor of Massachusetts–which is hardly Utah. What are there, five Mormons in MA outside his own family? They didn’t seem to mind there, and it’s not like he turned MA into Provo East or banned alcohol or anything. And it’s not like he’s in one of those nutter Mormon sects that practice polygamy.
Mitt’s not my first choice, but I think it’s silly to worry about his religion. Look at his record.
bamapachyderm on October 30, 2007 at 8:20 PM
Look at the rock again, there is no surviving weathering. How could he possibly date it so? I think this needs further scientific study before it is conclusive proof of anything.
By the way, have you been to the Southwest? Do you know there are literally millions of petroglyphs in the Southwest? Doesn’t it seem strange to you that this is the only Hebrew one?
bnelson44 on October 30, 2007 at 8:22 PM
But, golf is essentially unchanged from the origins hundreds and hundreds of years ago. Hit the ball with a stick into a hole. Play the ball as it lies. Follow the rules intently to the point of calling a penalty on oneself. The player with the fewest strokes or who wins the most holes in a match is the victor. Sure there are diffences from time gone by, but they haven’t changed the essence of the game.
Now, you can say I don’t agree that golf is supposed to be played as it originally developed. You decide to play with cricket bats and instead of hitting the ball into a hole in the ground, it has to be bounced into a basket at the top of a pole. That would not be golf. Even if it resembles golf, to call it golf would be incorrect. And believe me, not golfer would acknowledge that type of game as golf.
The analogy applies…..
And yes, it has nothing to do with Mitt’s qualifications as President, unless he was going to try and establish a Mormon theocracy.
Mallard T. Drake on October 30, 2007 at 8:25 PM
Sorry, it just fits too perfectly. ;-P
bamapachyderm on October 30, 2007 at 8:27 PM
Heh.
Neither here nor there. It may not be art, but I like it.
Jaibones on October 30, 2007 at 8:31 PM
If you mean Christ there, where may I ask is his tomb? We know where Mohommed is buried, but as far as I know. Most Christians believe He is not dead. He WAS dead.
Maybe you are changing the rules.
ThackerAgency on October 30, 2007 at 8:32 PM
Re the “Nanny-stater” and Mitt the Mormon: I think this at Ace’s answers it best:
I wish the purists would remember that, for a change.
bamapachyderm on October 30, 2007 at 8:36 PM
TexasDan, I hope you know I appreciate those sentiments–if they are real.
But I’m firmly convinced that my faith is correct, thank you. To leave it, I’d have to, in essence, downgrade. I’d lose my family forever, I’d lost some of the plainest, clearest teachings of Christ I know of, I’d lose the benefits of the Priesthood; I’d have to conclude that God doesn’t care as much about anyone today as He did about some small group of slaves 3-4000 years ago–the list goes on. And which sect is correct, if not the LDS one? Is baptism important or not? What about the very clear command to do good deeds that Christ gave–I should ignore them? I should change my conception of God into something incomprehensible and unexplainable–thus divorcing me from any feeling of God’s mercy? I have to write my uncle who died at age 2 off to hell if I leave the LDS church.
“Traditional Christianity” is, from my perspective, a cold, harsh doctrine. Why would I worship such a being who has no body, parts or passions? Why would I love Him/her/it, and Him/Her/It me? In traditional Christianity, God so loved the world that He gave his only begotten son–as long as you were born in a time and place to hear about Christ. Otherwise, game over, man. Why did God hate the Jews enough to make them live the Law Of Moses with all it’s onerous restrictions, yet give “Christians” a free pass with Grace (no need to do anything! Just say you believe!)?
Those are just some of the many issues I have with “traditional Christianity”–why would I want to leave the LDS church?
Vanceone on October 30, 2007 at 8:36 PM
No, he is risen and overcame death. The biblical documents were written by those who saw Jesus, or are recordings of the Apostles who knew Jesus intimately. And, the whole gist of Christ’s revelation is that he has fulfilled the Law and put an end to relying on “rules.” There are no rules. There is only salvation by Grace through the blood of Christ.
They merely documented Christ’s teachings and shared his message with the Jews of Asia Minor.
Not sure what you are talking about, but as I said, there are no rules. The doctrine has remained the same since Christ was crucified and arose from the dead.
Sure, anyone can define Christianity anyway they want, but that doesn’t make them right. If I say an apple is a grape, I am not right.
The same thing it was 2000 years ago: For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
Yes there are some liberal scholars and divinity grads who have decided that Jesus needs “updating.” They are in the minority and they haven’t presented persuasive cases for their theses.
Mallard T. Drake on October 30, 2007 at 8:39 PM
Who ever thought Ace would be the voice of sweet reason:
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/245027.php
While we’re at it, let’s require Joe Lieberman to explicate every verse of Deuteronomy. Or let’s examine how Mario Cuomo’s explanation of the Virgin Birth determined the course of his governorship. Didn’t Jesus say something about straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel? (I guess the camel in this case would be President Hillary.) Why is Mitt, possibly the most personally decent man in the race, not acceptable because he doesn’t exactly fit the current evangelical definition of Christianity? Let me tell you something: there’s a reason the Democrats are having their convention in Denver in 2008. They see the Mountain West as being in play. If evangelicals keep this crap up and Mitt is perceived as being denied the Republican nomination because he is Mormon, the Mountain West (Utah, Idaho, Arizona, Colorado, Wyoming, and Nevada) may defect. And the GOP would be seriously damaged by LDS desertions in Montana, Washington, Oregon and California. So keep up your pernicious pursuit of a spurious doctrinal/political purity. It’s going to cost you dearly.
WasatchMan on October 30, 2007 at 8:49 PM
Everyone else figured it out. At least the non-thick ones.
Your faux offense doesn’t become you.
There were golfers before there was a golf club. There were Christians before there was Christianity, even Creedal Christianity.
The Arians were just as Christian as the Athanasians till the “Country Club” decided they didn’t play golf right and introduced them to a new meaning of Christian love, the slice.
Politicizing Christian beliefs. The Legacy of Nicene. Creedal Christianity alive and well in 2008.
Sebastian on October 30, 2007 at 8:53 PM
Mormonism is just as implausable as traditional christianity. Whether you beleive the garden of eden was in Mo. or you beleive there was a garden of eden at all are different degrees of the same reality. It is sort like saying your are less christion than I because your beleifs are more ridiculous than my ridiculous beleifs. either way, I think what is important are the ethics and morality of the candidate in question and not the essence of their beliefs.
paulsur on October 30, 2007 at 8:53 PM
You need to read some Christian apologetics if you think Christianity is a “fable” or myth. There is very compelling and corroborated evidence regarding the authenticity of the events recorded in the Gospels and New Testament.
You might want to start with C.S. Lewis, Josh Carpenter, or Lee Strobel. You can believe what you want, but I would think you would want that belief informed.
Mallard T. Drake on October 30, 2007 at 9:02 PM
That is also my perception.
MB4 on October 30, 2007 at 9:10 PM
I am LDS, born and raised.
In high school, one of my best friends was a saved Christian who attended a church where they were presented with “information” about the LDS faith at least once a month. As a result of this indoctrination, he set out to save me and another close friend, who is also LDS. This was fine with me because we ended up having many discussions regarding scripture and doctrine the likes of which I never held with friends who shared my faith.
His main sticking point was that we denied that grace was all that was necessary for salvation. I always agreed with him on this point. There is nothing he or I or anyone save Jesus alone could do to redeem me – everyone who is saved will be saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ.
The question is, how does a true believer show his or her faith? According to my understanding of the gospel, it is through your works. This is where I parted from my friend. He once told me it was important and even necessary for him to sin once in a while in order to show Jesus that he believed that His grace would save him.
So what was I supposed to do? Start sleeping around, smoking pot and shoplifting like my saved friend? Seems that Jesus, after forgiving sinners liked to say, “go thy way, and sin no more.”
Christians who want to define Christianity and whether or not I am a Christian by whether or not I adhere to a creed (which appears to me to have been a compromise in order to consolidate the various factions of Christianity into one church as a political ploy) can have their religion. I, like Vanceone stated above, will not give up the understanding I possess in hopes that I can get into heaven by doing less and believing more. Even if doing more doesn’t help my case at the final judgment, it certainly won’t hurt.
Wingo on October 30, 2007 at 9:14 PM
They were indeed heartfelt.
All I can say is that nothing you list matches with my experience of Jesus and life in his body, the Church. I get that you aren’t shopping for a new faith. If you’re right, then you can stand pat. But if I’m right, and you’re wrong, then
downgradeupgrade doesn’t begin to cover it.It sounds to me like much of your perception of the Church and her theology doesn’t come from personal interaction with those who hold to it. God doesn’t have passions? Dude. He’s Love.
TexasDan on October 30, 2007 at 9:15 PM
So how long have you known Bill Clinton?
MB4 on October 30, 2007 at 9:21 PM
Mitt has a rock’n machine that he built himself that outclasses Huckabee in no small way, its very unlikely Huck will achieve very much at this point.
I didn’t say anything about a win of any kind what I did do was point out Christian on Christian bias and the difference that would show up in the current polls if that bias didn’t exist.
I would personally love for Hunter to come on but that’s not so likely at this point either. Oh to be a billionaire.
If we added up all of the baggage of all of the Republican candidates and then threw in Newts baggage for good measure the sum total would not equal that of the skeleton collectors…HillBill.
Speakup on October 30, 2007 at 9:24 PM
Wingo on October 30, 2007 at 9:14 PM
Your christian friend was clearly in sin, and trying the dodge Paul warns against: shall we sin, that grace abound all the more? Certainly not.
TexasDan on October 30, 2007 at 9:31 PM
TexasDan: Most strong, faithful evangelicals I’ve met have usually been preoccupied by my evil cult of a belief system, and how I worship Satan or something similar, so maybe I’ve got a bit of a skewed perspective. Right now, my lasting image of Evangelicals are the people who fly in and protest outside LDS meetings by saying we are all going to hell. So forgive me for a slightly jaundiced view of things.
As for the “God doesn’t have passions”, that’s what the creeds say–I believe I’m specifically thinking of the Church of England creed, but most of the rest imply it. Is it biblical? Not at all–God is love, as you point out. But that’s the belief. Up to you to defend it, not me.
As for any upgrade, I fail to see how. I’d rather be wrong with all my fellow Mormons in hell than otherwise. I would rather be with all my family in friends in Hell solely because we are Mormon, since we would go to work to make it better.
Again, what provence is there in your faith to provide for my poor uncle, who died at age 2 without baptism? He’s doomed, isn’t he? He never confessed his faith either. He didn’t believe in Christ–how could he? Under your faith, God has doomed him to hell, or if you are Catholic, purgatory at best. Is my understanding wrong?
Vanceone on October 30, 2007 at 9:45 PM
I’ve been a Christian all my life, spending four years of it in a Bible College, and I have never heard that two year olds go to hell.
I don’t know where that comes from.
Rose on October 30, 2007 at 9:51 PM
just a few of the errors in Mormonism:
–god was a man, men may become gods
–Jesus was a child of Adam-god & one of his wives, Mary
–the blood of Jesus was insufficient to wash away some sins
–two words: magical underwear
jgapinoy on October 30, 2007 at 10:01 PM
Nice. Got any good “skullcap” jokes for the Catskill crowd?
sulla on October 30, 2007 at 10:10 PM
Rose: the logic is really simple. Salvation (or going to heaven) is only available through the name of Christ. This is true, and Mormons believe that as well. You can only be saved through the atonement of Jesus Christ.
Second, only those who follow Christ are eligible for the full saving effects of Christ’s sacrifice (else why did Christ bother to teach, and Peter, Paul etc). You have to follow Christ to be saved. All Christians believe that.
How can anyone who dies without hearing of Christ follow Him? Thus, the logic goes, they are damned. Catholics at least put them either in limbo or in purgatory, but as far as I know, if you aren’t saved in most other Christian faiths, you go to hell. Thus, the prevalent idea of baptizing infants to prevent that problem. It’s quite a common Christian belief that unbaptized children (if you think baptism is required) go to hell. Even if they aren’t baptized, how can they believe in Christ at the age of 2?
It all stems from original sin–all children are evil and damned (along with everyone else) so unless they can believe in Christ, they are damned via original sin, correct?
It’s not an issue in the LDS faith though.
Vanceone on October 30, 2007 at 10:12 PM
God is love. God is also perfect, just, holy, and righteous. If you were standing before a perfectly just judge and the evidence clearly has you dead to rights, what would you say? Would you say that you did a some good things before and he should let you go? How is that fair? Do the crime, pay the fine. You can’t pay the fine, but what if a stranger walked into the courtroom and payed the fine for you? He said that he gave up everything so he could afford to pay the fine. What would you think of that? Wouldn’t that be loving? Wouldn’t you be so grateful for that sacrifice?
That is Christianity. We can’t pay the fine because we violate God’s laws daily… hourly… If God is just (which He is), what should He do to satisfy His justice? If you think you’ve been pretty good, then you don’t see yourself as God does.
Christianity all goes back to this simple concept: Genesis 15:6 “Then he believed in the LORD, and He reckoned it to him as righteousness.”
It was not Abraham’s own righteousness that saved him, but God’s righteousness that was credited to him.
THIS is the upgrade:
I deserve punishment. I deserve hell. We all do, but God has a plan to satisfy His justice and proclaim His grace. My sins are payed by the immeasurable payment that Jesus payed on the cross. Quite an upgrade… I will not be seen as sinful on judgment day because I trust in the work of Jesus. Not my work, but His.
2Cor 5:21 “He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.”
You really don’t want to be in hell. Nothing we think of can describe what it would be like to be in a place where God’s grace is withdrawn.
thule on October 30, 2007 at 10:17 PM
We can only go by 2 Sam. 12:23 when David’s child died. The implication is that he will see his child someday. It seems that there is grace where there is no ability to understand God’s plan of salvation.
There is a tradition in Judaism for an age of accountability that lends some credence to this idea.
We all have a conscious that convicts us, so we know were are guilty. A child that cannot understand this cannot know to put their trust in Jesus. To everyone else, we know we are evil.
thule on October 30, 2007 at 10:28 PM
You’re arguing in support of Mormonism, but imply you aren’t when it was suggested you are yourself Mormon. You’ve been in the tank for the Mormon candidate from the beginning- though you’re not honest enough to admit the obvious.
Anyone who can’t be honest about their own beliefs, biases and opinions, lacks intellectual honesty and shouldn’t be taken seriously- on anything.
Are you dishonest, or just too ashamed of your own beliefs to acknowledge them?
Hollowpoint on October 30, 2007 at 10:38 PM
Vanceone, My sister used to be a Mormon (she is now a Charismatic). I know a lot about the Mormon religion and I have to agree with the other posters, there is a lot of doctrine within your faith that is not based in New Testament Christianity (secret washings, temple rituals, special under garments). I know that one of your beliefs is that you can baptize for the dead. I assume someone in your family has been baptized for your two year old relative. Christians do not believe anyone can be baptized for anyone else. I do not believe that infants or young children go to hell. The New Testament is not specific about it. But if your argument is that the child could not choose to believe and therefor was not saved, baptism for him is not going to work either because the child has not chosen the baptism of his own free will.
Rose on October 30, 2007 at 10:43 PM
Maybe you really are that thick. I wasn’t referring to the game of golf. I used Augusta National as an example. Take any club or group. The members of the group get to define what is required for membership. Just because you show up calling yourself a member of that group doesn’t make you one, and until the members of that group accept you as a member, you are not. Surely you can follow this logic.
Christians as a group have been around for ~2,000 years. When a new group shows up and says I am a Christian group and all the existing groups that recognize each other as Christian say, “No you are not a Christian group.” They are not. You can’t do this with any group. You can’t show up one day in uniform and say, “I’m in the army now,” when you haven’t been officially signed up. You can’t show up at a country club and say, “I’m a member now,” when they haven’t accepted you. You can’t show up in another country and say, “I am a citizen now,” and make it so. The existing group must accept you as a member for you to be one. This is an extremely simple concept.
This has nothing to do with theology. This is the right of free association. So while the Baptists might be the most outspoken about not accepting Mormons as Christians, since no other denomination recognizes them as such, you cannot say that they are.
Buford on October 30, 2007 at 10:43 PM
Vanceone says they got a dozen witnesses to their plates.
Hmmmm. Whom to believe. The guys who lived 200 years ago or the ones who lived 2000 years ago.
If that’s all Christianity is, than why aren’t the Mormons Christian again?
There must be more. Like that Nicene thing?
Oh wait there’s no rules.
Did you sleep through the day they taught the reformation?
How about: Women Priests, Gay Priests, Gay Marriage, Indulgences, Latin Mass, Baptism by Immersion, Baptism by Sprinkling, Infant Baptism, Baptism by laying on hands, No Baptism. Save by Grace, Saved By Works, Saved by Grace and Works, Once Saved Always Saved, Priesthood of the Believers. Rapture, Perdition, Limbo, Hell, Divorce, etc, etc.
Doctrine? Tradition? Doctrine? Tradition?
Christianity has been whatever the majority or powerful wanted it to mean. And now that we’re more civilized, even the minority and powerless get a chance at it too.
At least the Mormons have the religious integrity to change doctrine by way of additional revelation and not by thesis.
Sebastian on October 30, 2007 at 10:46 PM
Golfers is to Christians as Augusta National is to Baptists
Mormons can call themselves Christians without needing the Baptists permission just like millions of golfers don’t need Augusta National memberships.
If you don’t like the analogy, then don’t use it.
Sebastian on October 30, 2007 at 10:50 PM
It is because of statements like this I have heard from multiple members of the LDS that I believe that while the LDS as a religion cannot be considered Christian, it is also possible for individual members to be so. However, I must point out that Wingo, by his own admission, is not a true follower of the LDS religion as he picks and chooses which parts he chooses to follow. I think higher ups in the LDS organization would have a real problem with him and his beliefs.
Buford on October 30, 2007 at 10:51 PM
The point is to watch the bigots dance around denying something that if it were beneficial to their faith, they would be taking the opposite view. THAT is the way of the bigot.
csdeven on October 30, 2007 at 10:55 PM
As long as Mormons claim that they are the only ones with authority, they open themselves up for criticism by Christians. And since this belief is from Joseph Smith’s teachings as well as those of the church’s other leaders, it is the right of mainstream Christians to evaluate these founders and decide if they be of God. Christians believe they are not of God and hence the reason they see Mormonism as a cult. Mormons believe they are of God. There will always be a division between Mormons and Christians. It is a doctrinal division and will never be resolved.
Rose on October 30, 2007 at 10:55 PM
That isn’t the analogy I used, go back and read the original post (Buford on October 30, 2007 at 6:59 PM). I never once referred to golfers in general at all, just someone trying to claim they were a member of Augusta National when they weren’t.
Buford on October 30, 2007 at 10:55 PM
Ahhhhh….the obligatory “I dust off my feet to you” response from “Christians” whose arguments convince themselves and are completely frustrated that those arguments fool no one else.
csdeven on October 30, 2007 at 10:58 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »