Baptists cool to Mitt because Mormons keep luring away their congregation?
posted at 8:30 pm on November 20, 2007 by Allahpundit
So says Reuters. Is this really an issue? LDS apparently doesn’t keep numbers so we’re flying purely on anecdote here.
I thought conservatives liked competition.
The reason Romney faces difficulties with Southern Baptists, according to many experts, is his Mormon faith. Not only do many Southern Baptists regard the Mormon church as a cult, they also regard it as a competitor that is winning — or poaching — converts from among the evangelical flock.
“There are now more Mormons that used to be Southern Baptist than any other denomination,” said Dr. Richard Land, president of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, a 16-million strong group.
“As a consequence, Southern Baptists and other evangelicals have taught their people what Mormons believe and why it’s beyond the boundaries of the Christian faith, to inoculate them against those Mormon missionaries,” he told Reuters…
“Some Southern Baptists will live near Mormon communities functioning at their best, where they will see in practice the kind of family-oriented, sober, diligent, and disciplined lives that Southern Baptists preach but do not always display,” said Mark Noll of the University of Notre Dame.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
my god is better than your god – plus you get more women!
lorien1973 on November 20, 2007 at 8:32 PM
Then it must be true! LoL…
Reuters doesn’t have any bad news to report in Iraq, so they’re making up a new controversy?
Lawrence on November 20, 2007 at 8:37 PM
They do have a quote from Richard Land and a few academics, dude. They’re not pulling this out of their ass.
Allahpundit on November 20, 2007 at 8:38 PM
No, same old controversy with a new spin. Apparently the old spins aren’t working.
Sebastian on November 20, 2007 at 8:39 PM
“Dick Land” still sounds like a gay amusement park, so I still can’t take that guy seriously.
ReubenJCogburn on November 20, 2007 at 8:41 PM
As a member of the LDS Church, and a former missionary, I know that the Church doesn’t keep those kinds of statistics (former religion of new converts). So unless they did a survey of LDS converts, the numbers may be suspect.
chrissv on November 20, 2007 at 8:42 PM
Mi collection plate is not su collection plate!
SouthernGent on November 20, 2007 at 8:45 PM
I was raised a Baptist but then went Presbyterian then back to Baptist and lastly I was traded to a Non denominational church for 2 converts to be named later.
EnochCain on November 20, 2007 at 8:50 PM
South Park was on this ages ago:
http://www.southparkzone.com/episodes/712/All-about-the-Mormons?.html
BJ* on November 20, 2007 at 8:59 PM
When I was an LDS missionary knocking on doors, the most antagonistic people we met were evangelicals. They were always spoiling for a fight, which I refused to give them since it doesn’t accomplish anything; it just creates bad feelings. So yeah, it wasn’t fun to be a Mormon elder sometimes.
WasatchMan on November 20, 2007 at 9:04 PM
*Tries to think of sarcastic comment involving golden plates and fails*
JayHaw Phrenzie on November 20, 2007 at 9:04 PM
Hell hath no fury like a
womanreligion scorned.MB4 on November 20, 2007 at 9:09 PM
Even though the LDS, or the SBC, doesn’t keep statistics – it is a reasonable belief that the LDS targets members of Christian churches for conversion. I have had numerous LDS missionaries knock on my door over the years, and seek to get me to attend the local LDS church, even though I made it clear that I was a member of a local (non-LDS) Christian church. This is particularly interesting to me as, the LDS faith will say that it is a Christian faith – which begs the question as to why they are trying to proselytize those who are already Christians. But, I digress.
It also makes sense that the SBC, or any Christian denomination, would be upset when a faith that they consider incompatible with basic Christian belief – traditional orthodox Christian faith – succeeds in converting its members. In that sort of situation, it would be hard for the church as a whole to endorse a candidate who adheres to a faith that they have tried to teach their members is not the same as its own. It is a form of legitimization.
Also – I have always struggled with that aspect of hypocrisy that Noll identifies in his quote. (I really like Mark Noll by the way. The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind was an excellent book). Mormons, in many instances, do seem to rise above the hypocrisy that too often plagues Evangelical churches and families.
nailinmyeye on November 20, 2007 at 9:12 PM
As one who was once steeped in the Southern Baptist world, it is true that many southern Baptists find their way to the LDS. We noticed the trend nearly a decade ago, back when I was doing my undergrad in biblical studies. My profs. and fellow students believed that the problem was an inability to communicate effectively high theology to the various congregations. Many of these professors, were also pastors and were trying to do their part in changing that. But it is a big bus, and it has been going in one direction for a long time; and it is going to take time to convince people that Sunday school can’t just be, “how to be a good guy/gal,” but it is also going to have to discuss things such as Trinitarian doctrines. For what would the Christian say to the Muslim that charges the latter with polytheism?
Weight of Glory on November 20, 2007 at 9:12 PM
AP, this is RANK PROPAGANDA without a shred of truth to it. I can’t believe that someone like Reuters would actually print such a story. Here’s why. . .
This story points to the ignorance of the ‘elite’ with regard to who the Southern Baptists are. Actually I thought their numbers were closer to 30 million in America, but I don’t care because I am not now, nor have I ever been Southern Baptist. . . though I agree with most of what they believe.
To the ignorance point. MANY Southern Baptists are BLACK. Why would blacks migrate to a church that sanctions and encourages overt racism? LDS people are fine people, but their beliefs are suspect because they don’t just use the Bible. It says specifically in the Bible that you are not to add or take away from the texts.
But there is no evidence to suggest that Southern Baptists are migrating en masse to LDS. It is possible that many new Mormons were former Baptists, but that implies that people are joining the Mormon Church in droves (they aren’t). The reason they sanctioned bigomy is so that they could grow the church. Every new baby was a new Mormon. They aren’t ‘raiding the Southern Baptists’ in any stretch of the imagination.
I’m more than shocked that a major news publication would run such a story. . . but again it points to the ignorance of the elites concerning the ‘racist Southerners’.
ThackerAgency on November 20, 2007 at 9:55 PM
Which raises the possibility that The Southern Baptist Convention could be behind the push-polling phone calls. They have the funds to do it too.
Buy Danish on November 20, 2007 at 9:56 PM
From what I understand, the three fastest-growing religious groups in the US (and world) are Muslims, Mormons, and Evangelicals.
Considering that the SBC is one of the largest Protestant denominations in the US, it is not surprising that there would be Southern Baptists converting to LDS.
The Reuters article, not surprisingly, does not address two other important questions: How many SoBaptists are former LDS? And how many LDS converts are from other denominations? And, if Romney’s Mormonism is such an issue, what about the religious beliefs (or lack thereof) of the other candidates? As a Baptist myself, I am extremely leery of basing my vote on what a candidate’s religious membership is-considering that the last two Southern Baptists in the Oval Office were Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton.
If that fact does not give my fellow Baptists a certain amount of humility in the political arena, I don’t know what will.
Lancer on November 20, 2007 at 10:12 PM
You’re going to be hard pressed to find any Christians willing to support him in the Primary.
AP, as an Atheist this might not seem like a big deal to you, but believe us – it is. There’s a little something called the Nicene Creed – which is not just a set of words someone made up, but rather a creed developed over a number of hundred years to sum up the most important, core beliefs of the Christian faith.
Mormons do not hold to the creed.
Other than that, nice folks. A little pushy, the young ‘elders’ are.
RiverCocytus on November 20, 2007 at 10:24 PM
The unexpected LOL is always appreciated.
baldilocks on November 20, 2007 at 10:25 PM
Always glad to help out. :D
ReubenJCogburn on November 20, 2007 at 10:44 PM
Hmmm,
True the the LDS church doesn’t keep such stats, but I recall seeing some numbers about the amount of new congegations created in the US over a 20 year period and the largest grouth was in the southern tier of states.
Of course on could say that this also coincided with the increase in population growth in those same regions during the same period. (Shrugs)
Anyhoo, this Mormon isn’t going to vote for a lib like Romney, no matter what religion he is.
opusrex on November 20, 2007 at 11:25 PM
Wow. I wonder if Gladys Knight knows about all the overt racism while she’s hobnobbing with all the Mormon elites. How does she put up with it? Or is she just ignorant to it?
Sebastian on November 20, 2007 at 11:34 PM
opusrex: Yes, it is indeed odd that pretty much two of the biggest R primary contenders are basically liberals.
Many wish Duncan Hunter was a bigger fish.
RiverCocytus on November 20, 2007 at 11:39 PM
Look, when I took the family to Dick Land last year I didn’t see anything gay about it… and the “George Takei Glory wormHole” ride was fabulous.
And as long as Romney can keep taxes low and kill terrorists, I really don’t see the problem with his LDS beliefs.
Seriously, I haven’t met a Mormon that wasn’t a nice person to be around. This is probably because I haven’t been anywhere near Harry Reid.
ScottMcC on November 21, 2007 at 12:07 AM
The reason why people migrate to the LDS church isn’t because of the failure of the church they are migrating from. They find a belief system that is compatible with the way we were created. It’s like going home. All those weird scriptures that can’t be explained are explained by LDS teachings, and lo and behold, many of the dots finally connect.
csdeven on November 21, 2007 at 12:51 AM
A guy named Walter Martin broke it down decades ago for Christian in a book titled “Kingdom of the Cults,” a classic. I highly suggest it as it exposes not only Mormonism but other cults like Jehovah Witness, Christian Science, and others.
Now for non-Christians this seems like an in-house debate over arcane biblical minutia but it’s really not. This is a fight for people’s very souls. The best work over the long haul has been done by the Tanners. The Tanners are famous ex-Mormons (infamous to some). There’s a plethora of books, CD’s, and DVD’s explaining exactly why Mormonism is a cult. Like Jesus said, if you seek you will find. Or in X-File language, the truth is out there.
Mojave Mark on November 21, 2007 at 1:07 AM
Their is no doubt the average Mormon knows much more about their religion, then most any Baptist. Everyday for years, before school, the Mormon students study their religion. And along with that, learn to counter and spin any argument to there way. You also have the huge burden of not leaving the Mormon church, to do so alienates you from your family. But most Christians do allow family members to cross over to other Christian religions without the ostracizing. Then you have the drive to convert, it is part of the works section of being a “good” Mormon.
As far as them being great people, Mormons are the same as anyone else…and if you haven’t done business with them, well there are better role models. Basically, if you are Mormon, you have business, if you are not, then you get the business if there are no Mormons to compete with.
Hence the majority of business supporters, and campaign officials in Mitts group are Mormon’s.
Every aggressive proselytizing religious group grows at the cost of others, but generally at the cost of the weaker faith people. Jehovah’s Witnesses are a good example, they gain huge numbers in the south, and the inner cities.
And the Southern Baptists know that their are other denominations of Christian churches…they are just fooled into believing that the Christian Jesus is the sames as the Mormon Jesus, that salvation means the same in each religion; they don’t realize that words co-opted by the Mormons have completely different meanings then the Baptists think.
“One Nation Under Gods” by Richard Abanes is a great book, for learning about the Mormon religion. Grant Palmer (three-time director ofGrant Palmer LDS Institutes of Religion in California and Utah, and many other accolades fromt he Mormon Church) has written some great books, one being “An Insider’s View of Mormon Origins”.
right2bright on November 21, 2007 at 1:26 AM
Yeah, right2bright and others all cite apostates, who make money off their “tell all!” stuff.
They don’t cite all the answers to the stuff these apostates bring up though, do they? Wonder why…..
As for Mormons “poaching” southern baptists the most, I have no idea. I do remember the Southern Baptists coming in mass to Utah a few years ago, to tell us all that we were going to Hell, however. Handy tip, boys: people really resent that. Doesn’t help the conversion rate.
As for proselyting other Christians in general, didn’t Peter, Paul, etc. preach to the Jews? The Jews had the correct faith too, or at least part of it. Peter never went around saying the Jews were going to hell, etc… he just preached prophecy fulfilled. Same thing we LDS people do.
I would encourage people to read a book called “How wide the divide” which has a prominent evangelical and also a prominent LDS scholar. They find much more common ground than they thought they would. Of course, the poor evangelical scholar has been metaphorically tarred and feathered because he actually (Gasp!) found some common ground with us evil LDS cultists (who everyone knows are just advancing Satanic doctrines like loving your neighbor, being kind and doing good works, rather than televangelism, and saying you don’t have to change your ways, just say that Christ is your savior and you can sin all you want because to do good works is evil and cannot get you to heaven, so don’t bother).
Vanceone on November 21, 2007 at 1:44 AM
packsoldier on November 21, 2007 at 1:44 AM
In other words, WasatchMan, unless you sit passively through an LDS missionary lesson you’re exhibiting a “spirit of contention”, right? I live in Utah and I’ve read your book, you not-so-magnificent bastards…
packsoldier on November 21, 2007 at 1:47 AM
Wasatchman is right. I have seen “Christians” stand outside of LDS chapels on Sundays PICKETING with signs with vile slogans on them. I’ve seen “Christians” pass out anti-Mormon literature to the minor CHILDREN of LDS families WITHOUT the parents permission.
Disgusting vile people for sure. I have NEVER seen an LDS person do that. Nor will anyone ever hear a Sunday talk in an LDS chapel where another faith is disparaged.
csdeven on November 21, 2007 at 2:09 AM
Speaking only for myself and my own experiences: if a missionary finds someone wants to listen, great. If they have questions, great. if their questions are asked sincerely because they’re struggling to believe what we’re teaching, that’s not “contention,” even if the questions can often be intense and pointed. (as many have pointed out, LDS doctrine is not Mainstream/Orthodox Christian.)
But if all someone wants to do is get into a scriptural smackdown, that’s “contention” – endless, monotonous talking points thwapped back and forth over the net like a tennis ball, each trying to score off the other. Generally speaking, if there’s a lot of name-calling and “oh yeah? well…” moments, then it’s NOT a constructive conversation.
Some missionaries I knew loved the Bible battles, and loved talking about the times they out-argued this person or that. They were often very smart…but not that likable.
It’s one reason I rarely rise to the bait when I hear my church criticized; no point, really. If it’s a valid criticism, I can learn from it. If it’s not, then reasonable people will see through it easily enough.
sulla on November 21, 2007 at 2:42 AM
My dad’s the only non Baptist on his side of the family – became LDS in the military – and my mom’s side is distantly related to the above-mentioned Tanners. I’ve heard it all, but eventually Conflict Fatigue set in and we all learned to get along. Holidays are much more enjoyable now.
sulla on November 21, 2007 at 3:32 AM
Religion, aside.
I *do not* want to spend 4 whole years spending political capital engaging in Mormon apologetics, and personally defending a Republican LDS President. I couldn’t do it anyway; there’s just too much indefensible racist roots to the religion.
This is *assuming* Romney could win the general. Realistically, the Clintons would shred him to pieces in terms of the real political landscape.
silverfox on November 21, 2007 at 4:28 AM
One could say Mitt has risen above these failings and served admirably as governor of MA, blah blah.
Governor is different from President… Biography is extremely important to the job. Being governor is about competence, and being President is very much about being an example.
If Romney is aware or sensitive about racism and *his vulnerability* in this area, then where is the 60 minutes interview? Bill O’Reilly? Oprah? Whatever!
He should have been out front on this. Until 1978, blacks could not be leaders of the church — official policy. Democrats can say of Romney: While we were campaigning in the 60′s for expanded civil rights for blacks and others, Mitt Romney was an enthusiastic missionary in France for a racist (officially) church. How is that statement factually wrong?
That he has not gotten out front on this vulnerability becomes an open question about his political perception and acumen.
I think Mitt Romney is a good man, but he is not the right man for this job.
silverfox on November 21, 2007 at 4:48 AM
In the LDS church blacks were allowed to me members but were denied the priesthood. That was fixed in 1978. BUT, it seems the evangelicals took longer.
Baptist racism until 1991.
The SBC finally get it
Carters take on it in 2000.
I will never support an evangelical for president again; there’s just too much indefensible racist roots to the religion.
csdeven on November 21, 2007 at 7:30 AM
I’m about as Baptist as they come (P.K.), I’m looking for a President, not a religious leader. As far as I can tell, Mormons have no jihad against Americans.
Not a problem to me. And my Dad, (the Baptist preacher) is voting for Mitt over Hike-your-taxes-Huckabee. So there you are.
stenwin77 on November 21, 2007 at 8:21 AM
Is that a punishment? One is hard enough to deal with!
AP, and others fooled by this and many other articles like this, we Baptists do not feel threatened by the Mormons. We have the Truth…we do not fear a lie. The reason we do not warm up to Mitt is because, 1. he flopped on abortion, 2. he flopped on econmic recovery, 3. he comes from a state that had the lack of sense to re-elect a horse’s face and a horse’s other end as its senators.
Sensei Ern on November 21, 2007 at 8:26 AM
No, they just come onto blogs and call Christians a cult, or call ministers whores for taking money. They teach that the Christian religion is abominable. I think it is more vile to hind behind a nameless entity and say filthy things about the Christian Church, but then be so arrogant as to say how wrong it is for people to openly protest something.
In other words, you think it is okay to attack religion under the cloak or disguise, and wrong to openly display it. Okay, if that is the way you like to protest…
right2bright on November 21, 2007 at 8:37 AM
Funny, you dismiss the people who I stated that wrote books about the Mormon religion (one being a best seller in the Mormon Desert bookstore for 2 years, until the church caught on that it was the truth). But then claim you have the book that the author was
Tell me, did your author make money?
Just to show you the difference…Grant Palmer (the apostate you called him: Apostasy is actively opposing and attempting to destroy the church) was ostracized by the Mormon Church for writing a best seller (in the Mormon bookstore), it was widely acclaimed and historically proved to be accurate. His credentials were impeccable. BYU masters in history,a three-time director of LDS Institutes of Religion in California and Utah, etc.
Named an apostate, ex-fellowship, or whatever you call it, but he was kicked out for writing an accurate history book.
Blomberg: Professor of theology (New Testament) at Denver, Co. Still honored…
Both men write a controversial book, revealing what they see as truth.
Mormons, tar and feather as you say. Christians, may not like everything written, but do not try to run their authors out of Dodge. We (Christians) encourage, vigorous healthy debate.
You chose a good example for Christians, a bad one for Mormons…thank you for your honesty, it must be difficult.
right2bright on November 21, 2007 at 9:09 AM
Yeah, tell me, how many wives did Jesus have?
Answer truthfully from the Mormon beliefs.
Now find that number in the Bible. Find any mention of Jesus being married, let alone the number you have to state.
Want a few dozen more discrepancies? Palmer, the man I quoted was the first to publish how the “gold tablets” were interpreted. He stated that stones pulled out of a hat were used by Smith. He was attacked and vilified, but then found to be correct (by Mormon teachings), and they allowed him back in, embraced him. Then he published his more comprehensive history book, Mormons accepted it for 2 years, then found it didn’t match up with their views, and now he is an apostate, not a heretic (one who differs in view) but an apostate (one who is trying to destroy the church).
No wonder everything “matches” up in the LDS, they get rid of anyone who questions them.
When was the last person you know called an apostate in the Christian church for having different views?
right2bright on November 21, 2007 at 9:21 AM
Show me a Mormon that does that. Better yet, show me where the LDS churches official position is to preach those things.
csdeven on November 21, 2007 at 9:27 AM
What is weirder, a golden box that can kill entire armies before it, of a guy looking at stones in a hat? A staff that can turn into a snake, or a burning bush that speaks?
csdeven on November 21, 2007 at 9:30 AM
Times in this thread Mormonism is referred to as a cult: 3
Times in this thread the rest of Christianity is referred to as a cult: 0
Dude, there are all sorts of valid criticisms of the LDS church, but to say they come online and demonize you as a cult member is full on crazy.
e-pirate on November 21, 2007 at 9:37 AM
Actually I was speaking, and he knows that, to one individual who has called Christians those names. A cult, Ministers as whores, bigots, etc.
If you want, I can go back and pull the archives. This individual has a habit of personally attacking, not just general statements.
I will make the common bet I make most people. I will send in $500 to HA and you send in $500. Make it out to a charity of your choice. I say I can come up with several instances of Christian’s being called a cult. If I can’t HA will give my check to the charity, and if I am right then yours is taken…you can’t lose because you know I am wrong.
That sounds like a good deal, you will have a charity receive $1,000…
When you say yes, we will work out the details.
right2bright on November 21, 2007 at 9:55 AM
Yeah…like this?
James on November 21, 2007 at 10:08 AM
I know you meant this rhetorically, but the Southern Baptists are engaging in fair competition (with an exception I’ll get to later). Just as manufacturers of cell phones will tell you the issues with their competitor’s cell phones, Southern Baptists churches should inform people about what Southern Baptist doctrine is and why it is better than the alternatives. Since the ideas most likely to lead the Southern Baptist flock away are religious apathy and Mormonism, the Southern Baptist churches are obviously going to emphasize the bad sides of these paths.
This will inevitably lead to some demonizing of atheists and Mormons, but for the most part the Southern Baptists do keep in the realm of the acceptable. Occasionally, a few Southern Baptist do step outside the bounds of fair competition and are rude or criminal to atheists. Such behavior is unacceptable and the Southern Baptists churches should make clear that it is unacceptable.
OT, but I would urge Southern Baptists to have at least one Sunday School lesson a year on the topic of Islam, as it also represents a threat to the faith.
thuja on November 21, 2007 at 10:12 AM
Never said it was exclusive did I? But common theology does place the word cult on other religions. The line is blurred, but many times it is referred to religions that just “pop-up”. During the age of enlightenment, many religions were started. Thoreau had his movement, Christian Science, Mormon’s, Jehovah’s Witness. It is more of descriptive term stating that it is a new religion, one created in a recent historical past. Which is why religions like Buddhism is not cult status. However, someone, somewhere would call them that. Mormon’s are a very recent religion and would fall into that, Christian has been established for over a couple of thousand years. See the difference? In a several hundred years, Mormon’s will be mainstream. It is not so derogatory, as descriptive to their establishment, anyway, that’s my take. Others use it as a hammer to shame.
They are just now finding out about the DNA problems with the Mormon’s, the lack of archaeological finds, these are things the originators never predicted could happen to undermine their religion. A couple of hundred years and the doctrine will change. It already has substantially. When the dust settles, the religions move from cult to mainstream.
right2bright on November 21, 2007 at 10:29 AM
1) A Republican cannot win without the support of the Southern Baptists. Not just luke warm support either.
2) It’s going to be almost impossible for the SBC to endorse Romney. I’ll put the odds at 1500-1.
3) Odds increase significantly if Clinton is the Democrat nominee. Clinton is the only candidate that the SBC will compromise their principles to defeat in a general.
Why the heck is Bill Owens advising Romney when he should be running? Owens is your middle man compromise between Romney the Mormon and Huckabee the Baptist.
gabriel sutherland on November 21, 2007 at 10:32 AM
csdeven
The LDS Church has NEVER apologized for its treatment of blacks…or the Mountain Meadows Massacre for that matter. When the Mormon exclusion of blacks became inconvenient they simply had a “revelation” that blacks could be allowed into the priesthood. Just like the “revelation” that polygamy was off-limits during Utah’s bid for statehood (although Mormon men can still have multiple wives sealed to them for eternity).
packsoldier on November 21, 2007 at 10:44 AM
Ah, but it is exclusive…just not in the direction you stated.
That’s odd, you seemed to take quite the offense to the idea of your own religion being called a cult, as if it was very derogatory. But when it’s Mormons, Christian Scientists, and Jehovah’s Witnesses, it’s just descriptive to their establishment?
James on November 21, 2007 at 10:58 AM
It helps if you read my entire post. Look at the area where I discuss time, and look where I say some use it as a derogatory term, and others as a descriptive.
Please read the posts before commenting. It will also help you understand the “exclusive” comment. If you still have a difficult time, post again and I will walk you through it.
Thanks,
right2bright on November 21, 2007 at 11:19 AM
Good post, look at the polls now. After million upon millions (record amount, a RECORD AMOUNT of money spent) and Mitt still has not cemented his position.
The reality, and it may suck, is that Mitt carries too much baggage. He waffles, his flip-flops on abortion and gun control alone will take him out. Then you add the “after Sunday church” whispering campaign, and he has a huge mountain to overcome. Fair?; well on the flip flopping it certainly is, that is well documented, but the religion, no, but ask any Jew…that’s life.
You know, an overly fat person could never be elected either, or an abnormally short person, or a very tall skinny person…the majority does not vote on just policy (which is good for Mitt).
right2bright on November 21, 2007 at 11:28 AM
The LDS churches position on blacks wasn’t based on feelings that they were inferior. Look it up.
They were always allowed to be members, but were barred from the priesthood.
The issue came to a head when it became clear that there were some members who looked white yet had an ancestor who was of black descent. This was discovered during genealogical research. The question arose that how much black was too much? The answer was it logically didn’t matter and the prophet went to the Lord in prayer and received revelation to extend the PH to all worthy male members.
They had nothing to apologize for.
The MMM is a black stain on the LDS church. They have acknowledged the actions of members of their faith, but it was not a sanctioned action by the leadership. Again, they had nothing to apologize for.
The same cannot be said for early evangelicals. They excluded blacks because they were inferior.
csdeven on November 21, 2007 at 11:57 AM
Compromise is a dirty word to us Baptists.
Sensei Ern on November 21, 2007 at 12:08 PM
Okay I will look it up…oh look what I found in abut 10 seconds. A quote from Brigham Young, a prophet who is perfection (by definition), when speaking for the church.
And another
Three’s a charm…
Three prophets…what are the odds?
Want more? Or is that enough.
right2bright on November 21, 2007 at 12:26 PM
In all do respect they do not all have that terrible view of blacks. Here is a quote that at least allows for some consideration. They will allow them a nice car.
right2bright on November 21, 2007 at 12:31 PM
Sorry, I guess it was satire and I missed that.
James on November 21, 2007 at 12:41 PM
Fair enough.
Good Point.
Joining LDS is one thing. But does anyone out there who quite LDS want to relate their story about how difficult it can be to leave LDS membership?
Case in point: An old associate of mine who’s family left the LDS church. It took 3 years to get their names removed from membership roles, and they had to threaten a lawsuit. Their eldest daughter was hounded throughout Jr and Sr highschool by LDS ‘friends’ trying to get her back into the fold. His wife was hounded by friends and family to the point where it finally broke up their marriage. And this isn’t the first marriage I know of that LDS broke up by getting between a husband and wife over church membership issues.
Is LDS a cult? In my book, yes. By doctrine, word and deed.
Do I hate Mormons, no. All the ones I know are generally pretty decent people, and I can understand the attractions for why people join.
Lawrence on November 21, 2007 at 12:51 PM
right2bright: I somehow highly, highly, doubt you use “mormons are cultists!!!!” as a “descriptive, not a shame.” I still don’t see why you hate Mormons so much. You attack our theology every chance you get, you assume the worst motives a priori, and you basically view us as less than dirt. Seriously, you spend far, far more time on Hotair bashing the LDS church than you do Hillary or any liberal.
I honestly think you really do fear the LDS church for some reason. There’s no rational explanation for the sheer amount of vitrol you spout, and the consistent, dogged determination to bash my faith.
Would you like me to treat YOUR faith the way you treat mine? Consistently attack it as unbiblical, apostate, amoral, and satanic? Every single time I read your words, it makes me say, “if this is the Republican party, why the heck do I belong to it?” Why in the world should I stay a member of a coalition that demonizes me, insults my basic beliefs and in a word, states that I’m ineligible for office because of the way I believe?
Seriously: if Mormons are as horrible as you are so determined to print (and you MUST think this is important, because every single time Mitt is brought up, you start attacking LDS beliefs), then we shouldn’t be allowed to hold any office, right? Including senator, govenor, etc.
Is that your position, right2bright? Can LDS people hold office faithfully? If we can be senators, why cannot a Mormon be president? And if you aren’t going to go so far as to say that a Mormon cannot be president, then why on earth on a political blog do you and your ilk bash the LDS church’s doctrines so much?
I don’t think you are going to say a Mormon cannot hold office. Your argument that, “But the Dem’s will bring it up” just legitimizes the idea that Mormon tenets disqualify a person from public office. If the Democrats bring it up, that’s one thing–they hate religion as a general rule. To them, ANY Christian faith disqualifies you from holding public office. It’s unconstitutional, but that never stopped them before.
But a republican shouldn’t agree with that. And you do, right2bright.
I’ll just note that the Democrat party has the highest ranking member of the LDS church right now. If the “evangelicals” force us out (and seriously, how long do you think we can tolerate all this venom spewed at us?), maybe we can try to be the moderating wing of the Democrat party, to balance out the leftists.
It’s clear you don’t want us.
Vanceone on November 21, 2007 at 1:01 PM
Are you talking about the challenge that csdeven threw out? He said go ahead and research, and I did. I came back with a different look at how the Mormons prophets think of blacks.
Or are you talking about the book, written by an accomplished and still Mormon?: he had incredible credentials, your the one who called him an apostate.
Or are you talking about the actual quotes from your prophets. They see the light of day, and you don’t want them seen? These are prophets who you hold to the highest regard, infallible when speaking for the church. And they turn out to be racists.
Here is one for you, Luther was a disgusting Jew hater. It doesn’t affect his 95 thesis or his reformation that he started. I am ashamed of his actions with Jews, but proud of his starting the reformation. But then he was not a prophet, just a fallible man.
I am hoping that you denounce some of the things your leaders do, and acknowledge the fallibility.
My attacking Mitt, is more along his weak flip-flops. If you really read what I write about Mitt, you would know that. The only thread I really attacked him on faith,was the thread were the challenge was, “what would liberals do with the Mormon issue”, and I showed how quickly they could divide…your still upset about it, even after stating several times I was playing the devils advocate. Mitt has flip-flopped on abortion, taxes, gun-control, most of what he states now, is different from a year ago. I even advocated him to be cabinet or VP, until he can resolve where he stands on issues. That’s some Mormon hater, tell my son’s best man (a Mormon) how much I hate him and his family. How did we become friends? he spent a vacation, and this is what he said “I was always taught that Christians are not as good of people as us, but to never say it, but your family is just like ours”. That was twenty years ago.
Let’s get back to “hating” Mormons. I like debating Mormons, because they debate so obtusely. They never quite get around to telling the whole truth. They have their six lessons, and they have a plan to expose their faith, but when challenged they resort to the “bigot” card. If you don’t think Jesus has multiple wives, just say so…that I am wrong, Jesus was never married, or say Jesus was married and had three wives. The problem is, your prophets say one thing, and you believe another. If Smith didn’t think blacks were a lower form of human, than say Smith was an idiot for believing that…but you can’t, rather embrace a lie then expose the truth. It goes on and on about men and gods, polytheism vs. monotheism. It is healthy for you to take a look at what you believe. And at first you reject it, but as the evidence builds, it will be shown to you.
That is what Luther did, he attacked the Catholic Church on 95 different areas (btw, he was not named an apostate like some authors), he changed the course of religion, and opened the bible to the masses. He opened the church for all, not a select few, he got rid of “special” classes of people that could only go to certain mass (sound familiar, as in temple Mormons?). And much more, but he was still a Jew hater…and the Lutheran’s church, although a sincere apology has been made, still has that as a mark of shame. But then great institutions own up to their errors, and expose their mistakes.
right2bright on November 21, 2007 at 1:40 PM
Right2bright:
You totally didn’t listen to a word of my post, did you? You just keep on smearing my faith and beliefs.
Why the heck does theological differences over the nature of God have any relevance at all to whether Mitt Romney should be elected president? Hollowpoint attacks Mitt all the time for various things, but Hollowpoint doesn’t attack the LDS church. You attack the LDS churchs’ beliefs first, foremost, and almost exclusively.
THIS IS NOT A RELIGIOUS FORUM. Get that? I’ll repeat: THIS IS NOT A RELIGIOUS FORUM. This is a political forum. Trying to claim that Mormons are polytheist, or that Grant Palmer is a poor persecuted man, is just not relevant. You keep bringing it up, though, so clearly you must think that it IS relevant. I.E. that mormon doctrine is relevant politically–or no Mormon should be allowed to hold office.
You say Mitt should be VP or cabinet? Then why attack his faith every chance you get–what possible relevance does it have?
I’m not here to debate my faith, I’ve not preached it–I just try to defend it from you and your fellow “compassionate Christians” who think that telling me I’m going to hell is a great way to show love.
Tell me: is there ANY possible way I can convince you to stop trying to print attacks on the LDS church anytime you get the chance? Are you that scared of us that you must smear us regardless of topic?
I’m well aware of my church’s history. I’m well aware of previous statements of church leaders. I’m also aware that I could easily attack your evangelical faith, but I’ve refused. You don’t realize, do you, that your attacks on the LDS church are just as valid against regular Christianity, do you? Do you want to get into who was the most racist in the 1800′s? Mormons never owned slaves….
It’s totally not relevant today, is it? It’s just another chance to try to hold the LDS church to a standard your own faith cannot possibly meet. Is your son’s best man a racist? According to you, apparently so! Is the poor black girl I baptized on my mission racist now?
Why the heck do you care if Jesus had one wife, no wife, or three? Just where is that relevant to the current presidential race? As it happens, the LDS church has made absolutely NO doctrinal pronouncements on the number of wives Jesus had, if any. We can speculate, but that’s all it is. Does it matter to me? No. Yet it seems to be a question of deathly importance to you. Tell me, why does it matter, except as a way to say, “Those mormons are evil apostates–they believe Christ was married!!!!” and then a bunch of frothing at the mouth about how foreign, cultish, and not-to be trusted non-Christian Mormons are.
Tell you what: why not reread Matthew 7: 2-5 and apply it in your own life with respect to the LDS church. You do believe that scripture, right?
As for me, I’m glad you are here. Why? Matthew 5: 10-12. I need all the blessings I can get.
Vanceone on November 21, 2007 at 2:21 PM
Oh oh. Michelle’s got some trash on Romney.
Gregor on November 21, 2007 at 2:23 PM
right2bright, I’m not going to get in to the various religious aspects, but I do want to correct you on certain mistakes of generalizations you have made.
During High School. I know for many that HS seemed like an many years, but for most of us it just four years. the same amount of time most spend to get an undergrad degree. I woul say that the seminary program is not much different then the Young Life program.
If there is any ostracizing, its the fault the individual family members and should not be done. The church frowns on this. All should have free will. that is what this life is all about right. Lucifer’s deal was to force all to come to the glory of God. Jesus gives us a choice. We are free to choose our own destinies and if some wish to leave, then they are free to go.
I never went on a church mission. I join the Army in High school back in 1984 and retired recently. (well, except the brass keep recalling me…) I am in good standing in my church.
BTW, I do agree with you about Mitt and his flip-flops. Fred! may be the more palatable if he can get his campaign together. I just wish Hunter stood a better chance.
opusrex on November 21, 2007 at 2:26 PM
Thanks for the response. Most baptists do not go to seminary, so my comment as far as schooling I think stands. Mormons are far and away the most educated in their beliefs. Which then shows up in other studies, very few Mormons are at the bottom of their class.
Free destinies, but they are controlled (especially in youth) by our peers, family, etc. That is the reason, in some cults (like Jim Jones)to “just walk away” isn’t a reality. But I get your premise.
Great keep the faith, but also read some of the new texts. Religion is changing, it is predominantly man made and that makes it fallible and not perfect. Don’t be afraid to challenge for the truth, and deny the wrong.
right2bright on November 21, 2007 at 2:40 PM
I’ve heard similar stories, only they were the actions of families when a someone left to join the Mormons. Are Baptists, Catholics, etc also a cult because a few of them disown their sons and daughters when they become Mormon?
I think friends and families of all religions can find it traumatic when someone leaves the faith of their family or community and some get irrational. Don’t judge the forest by a few trees. These things are individual and not institutionalized.
Sebastian on November 21, 2007 at 2:45 PM
Wow, all this for responding to csdeven challenge? So he throws out some half-truths, challenges us to research. I researched, and you don’t like it, and try to shut me up.
Get over it, you can’t print lies, and then get angry when someone displays them.
Talk to csdeven, he is the one who challenged us.
Boy you don’t listen to a thing I stated.
You little victim, better read closer in regards to how I feel about Mitt. He is a flipper, but if he had actions (works you would call it) then he could be redeemed.
Csdeven is the one who calls people racists, ministers whores, people who disagree bigots, Christians cults. My initial response was to his post, you popped in and made some comments about what he challenged me on.
and just in case you missed it:
That’s is the header…is that political or religious or both?
You can’t come on and make pronouncements like
And then cry and complain when I expose that statement as garbage. Well you can whine about it (and you have), but tough. I responded to a challenge.
And quit whining and playing the victim card.
In this case, this blog is tying in religion and politics.
I hope this settles it.
right2bright on November 21, 2007 at 3:01 PM
I answered the door on more than one occasion for an LDS missionary, as a minor, and he started right in. Didn’t ask for parents permission, etc etc.
Plus which, the WATCHTOWER is left all over the place for anybody to pick up. You sure you want to throw that stone, csd?
TexasDan on November 21, 2007 at 3:01 PM
Just to put this out there, but some who look at the race issue in regards to the Mormon church need to do some research on a man named Elijah Able.
opusrex on November 21, 2007 at 3:02 PM
Vanceone has spoken. All take heed.
TexasDan on November 21, 2007 at 3:03 PM
On the bright side, this thread hasn’t degenerated into a holy war over Mac v. PC v. Linux.
because then, those freak-job BSD people would come in with their heretical OS pitch and spoil all the fun.
sulla on November 21, 2007 at 3:19 PM
Bottom political line: if evangelicals are able to drive Mormons out of the GOP by sheer obnoxiousness, they definitely will take up with moderate Dems. It’s happened before. Google “Calvin Rampton” and “Scott Matheson”. If you want to lose the Mountain West in 2008, keep up the trash talking.
WasatchMan on November 21, 2007 at 3:30 PM
Fine. You people don’t like Mormons in the Republican party, that’s clear.
Right2bright: it’s not this post, it’s every post about Mitt–you turn it into a debate about the LDS church.
I’m not csdeven, but as I recall, he has never stated his faith. I don’t endorse his comments, nor his style of debate.
But you want to tango? Do you want me to treat you the way you treat LDS members and beliefs? Answer me that, right2bright. Are YOUR beliefs germane here? I’ve avoided attacking your beliefs (and I note your hysteria when someone else even mentions anything that could come close to such an attack). Should I start examining your faith to show how it doesn’t fit with the Bible? I assure you, I could. What’s that? Spluttering about how unfair or how I’m misreading the Bible to smear you? It’s not relevant? Gee, that sounds awfully familiar!
I also note you didn’t have anything to say about the mote/beam in your eye scripture.
You so-called “Christians” sometimes make me sick. Do you think Christ would approve of you? Oh, wait–that doesn’t matter: you are “saved” and thus can do whatever the heck you want, because there’s no consequences–once saved, works don’t matter!
I invite you to reread the sermon on the mount, right2bright. Exactly how does your conduct towards LDS members fit in what Christ asked His followers to do? If you represent “true Christianity” I don’t think I want to be a “true Christian.” I prefer not going around bashing people for their faith, thank you very much. I think being a Christian means working on my own foibles, repenting of my sins, and trying to be charitable. Apparently, a real “Christian” means to go around telling everyone who disagrees with me they are cultists, followers of satanic dogma, cannot go to heaven, and now, racists.
I’m sorry, but if that is Christianity, I don’t believe in it. Nor do I want to. You enjoy your “Christianity” while I believe in my Savior, and try to follow him.
Vanceone on November 21, 2007 at 3:31 PM
I get the impression that some posters here have never had their beliefs challenged and can’t handle the stress.
Rose on November 21, 2007 at 3:39 PM
Rose: I’ve had my beliefs challenged plenty of times. I’m no stranger to it.
But explain to me why I should have to defend my faith every. single. time. a. Mormon. tries. to. be. elected. somewhere. by. the. political. party. I. belong to.
If the evangelicals cannot stand Mormons, why should I vote for one of their guys? I voted for Bush. Should I have spent the entire primary season attacking his faith because it doesn’t match my own? Why does it matter?
If they want to attack my religious beliefs in a political setting, go ahead! But then don’t be surprised if the attacked people don’t vote with them….
Seriously, why should Mormons stay in the Republican party? If Evangelicals froth at the mouth this much, why should we stay? Why not go with the Blue Dog dems?
Vanceone on November 21, 2007 at 3:45 PM
You want to know something really wild- I don’t care what any of you Mormons think anymore about anything. I’m not going to ask any questions anymore- because I don’t care anymore and I’m sick of gittin’ called a bigot by you every time I ask a question or disagree with you. So I’m just gonna take what information that I have about Mormonism and USE THAT to make my informed decision about whether or not I want a Mormon president.
Ex-tex on November 21, 2007 at 3:46 PM
First. From an LDS perspective, yes, Baptists and Catholics (among others) are the cults.
Second. Disowning ones relatives as you illustrated is a personal choice by the families. Not specifically an organizational choice by the churche. LDS doesn’t disown anyone either, they are on the other end of the spectrum where they won’t let go.
To join a Baptist/Protestant or Catholic church one generally must participate in some type of instruction to learn what it is they are joining up with before joining. But if later they want to leave, the church lets them with minimal to no hassle (except maybe from family, as you point out.)
LDS membership works just the opposite in that pretty much anyone can just sign up, then find out what it’s all about later. But heaven help you if you decide to remove your name from the LDS roles. (With the whole family peer pressure thing going on also.)
I lived in Utah for a few years. I still have many friends there, nice people for sure, but also a bit xenophobic with regard to ‘outsiders’. I even observed xenophobia between Mormons born in Utah and Mormons not born in Utah. We had neighbors with families who had never ventured out of the state for work or for vacation.
Lawrence on November 21, 2007 at 3:47 PM
Why do you need to be so antagonistic? The atheists on this site constantly attacked those of us who have faith. We debate, they call us stupid, we call them ignorant and we go on. You make it too personal. This is a forum where people debate what they believe. If you don’t like the debate then don’t bother to respond.
Rose on November 21, 2007 at 3:49 PM
My response was to Vance, of course.
Rose on November 21, 2007 at 3:50 PM
And, if I had to make a choice, I would still pick Utah over pretty much any state east of the Mississippi river.
Lawrence on November 21, 2007 at 3:54 PM
Why do I need to be so antagonistic? I’m not antagonistic. I’ve tangled with Enrique and other atheists here as well, and those have been polite.
But it’s Evangelicals who (as a group) have the history of killing Mormons and driving us from our homes. It’s people like right2bright who cannot leave us alone. I’m more than happy to leave it alone, but they come in and try to “explain” my faith and they either in ignorance (which I doubt) or deliberately mislead people.
There’s been lots of good Christians here who aren’t Mormon, and we get along great. Then there’s the dedicated Mormon bashers like Right2bright. They make it their mission to defame my church at every turn possible. They, in effect, think it is their duty to defend the world from the evil Mormons. And I resent that.
Trust me, I’m pretty nice most of the time. But I’ve tangled with right2bright’s half truths, lies, and attempts to deceive for months now. I know he has ulterior motives, and is not being very honest about them. So why shouldn’t I call him (or her) out?
Vanceone on November 21, 2007 at 3:56 PM
The Mormon church claims to be the only true church. They claim all authority to baptize and claim to be the only ones who have the complete truth. As long as the Mormons make this claim they will be challenged. You cannot say that other Christians do not have the whole truth and expect them to just say, ok. You will be challenged. Unless you can handle those challenges, you are better off not trying to.
Rose on November 21, 2007 at 4:05 PM
But Rose: EVERY Christian church believes they are the truth, don’t they? If not, why do they exist? What, do the Lutherans say, “yeah, we only have a part of the truth–the Baptists have the other part?” No, they don’t. Each Christian faith believes they are the most correct.
So why single out the LDS church?
More importantly, why is this relevant in a political discussion? It’s a reason to not vote for Mitt Romney because he belongs to a church that says they have the truth? Then what candidate can be elected? Even Atheists believe they are right.
There’s a time and a place for theological discussion. But consistently bringing it up in a political forum isn’t it.
Heck, the LDS church’s beliefs are more investigated here on Hotair than Islam, and there’s lots of people claiming to be Muslims who want to kill us BECAUSE of their interpretation of their faith–but Mitt Romney’s Mormonism is, apparently, more threatening to many people here.
And that’s not right.
Vanceone on November 21, 2007 at 4:12 PM
Mormons are always willing to discuss their beliefs calmly and rationally with people who seem genuinely interested. But constant bitter attacks from people who don’t care what your answers are (and don’t listen anyway) can be wearing. So I sympathize with Vanceone’s attempts to deal with Mormon Derangement Syndrome in the comments at HotAir. But it’s futile. It’s like Elie Wiesel trying to reason with a Ku Klux Klan member.
WasatchMan on November 21, 2007 at 4:19 PM
Boors should be ignored. Trolls should not be fed. Bait should not be taken. Pigs should not be wrestled with, for they enjoy it too much.
A soft answer turneth away wrath. “Let God judge between me and thee.”
Your mileage may vary.
Now, can we all get back to stomping Democrats and Jihadists now? Please?
sulla on November 21, 2007 at 4:22 PM
Different protestant churches (Baptist, Lutheran, Foursquare, etc.) have some differences regarding theology (spiritual gifts, etc.) but they all agree that salvation comes only through faith in Jesus Christ’s death and resurrection. It doesn’t matter to a Baptist whether you are baptized at the beach by a youth pastor from a Foursquare church or a layman from the local independent church. It is the faith of the believer that gives the authority. The emphasis is on the person and deity of Jesus and His ministry not on lines of authority.
Rose on November 21, 2007 at 4:25 PM
And this is a thread regarding religion and how it is affecting this election. So it is relevant to this particular discussion.
Rose on November 21, 2007 at 4:27 PM
Rose: I’m not following. What relevance does that have? And the LDS church has never claimed to be Protestant, so judging us by the standards of Protestants is not really germane. If Protestant churches condemn us for not being Protestant; well, Christ wasn’t a Protestant either (how could He protest His own church?).
But that still doesn’t explain whether Mitt Romney’s religion should be discussed in a political setting.
Thanks WasatchMan, I appreciate it. I like the term Mormon Derangement Syndrome. And there’s lots of sufferers here at HotAir.
Sulla, I’d love to just have this be the last time we have people trying to drag Mormon doctrine into a political debate. If the LDS church was, you know, preaching violence against non-members or something, like the Jihadi’s, then it would be relevant. But we don’t.
Vanceone on November 21, 2007 at 4:31 PM
I.E. Rose: what does “lines of authority” have anything to do with whether Mitt would be a good president?
Vanceone on November 21, 2007 at 4:32 PM
It doesn’t. But many Christians have said they will not vote for a Mormon. Allahpundit has posted what he sees may be one reason why. We are discussing this. You may not see the relevance in what Mitt’s religion is but many do. You may not see that as fair, but it is a fact. I personally don’t think Mitt will make a good president but it is not because of his faith.
Rose on November 21, 2007 at 4:39 PM
I will state again…I was responding to a challenge that csdeven threw down. I responded with facts, quotes from prophets that you consider infallible, they speak for God. If those quotes are wrong, take me to task. If they are correct, then the prophets were wrong. Brigham Young, Taylor, Fielding Smith, all prophets felt blacks were inferior. That is what I was responding to. You are upset because I exposed that. Sorry, it was their quotes. You are the one that belongs to the “the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth” not me, I am not making those claims, nor does my church.
And I am even more taken aback (not really) that ask me to read scripture from a book that is a “second” class book in your pecking order. Why show me a verse from the bible, you only think it is correct if it doesn’t (and it does often), contradict your first book of religion. I don’t point out verses for you to read from the Book of Mormon…you wouldn’t want me to. If I pointed to a tribe that never existed you would whine about it.
And just to correct you (shows how little you understand Christians), I am a Lutheran and it is not the ultimate church, it is not the only church. The church is built on God’s word, not the other way around. God is the ultimate authority, not some president of a church, a Pope, a so-called prophet who is as wrong as often as right, not some charasmatic minister. The church is one of the conduits to receive God’s word and grace and to fellowship. We don’t keep people out of our services, all are welcome, and all debate is welcome. And you are especially welcome, but you can’t, your prophets have told you what to do, and believe me, I pray for you.
But you can’t be let off the hook for challenging, then running when the challenge was met.
That is the price you pay when you intercept someone else’s challenge and try to make it your own.
I notice csdeven has not entered, he threw the mud then ran and hid…typical.
right2bright on November 21, 2007 at 4:41 PM
Um, right2bright: NEVER have I said that our prophets are infallible. They have never said it. No man (aside from Christ) is infallible. Moses, Abraham, etc. were not perfect in this life, so why don’t you attack them?
You left out quotes from Brigham Young about how blacks would someday have all the privileges of any other member. A black man drove his wagon into the Salt Lake Valley. And for a very long time, Fijians, native Americans, etc. have been able to hold the Priesthood–since the beginning, in fact. And they are all “people of color”–Fijians are quite black, in fact. So clearly, it wasn’t racism, as you so ignorantly put it.
I’m glad to note you don’t believe you belong to a true church though, so why you attack me for my beliefs is odd.
You have some very misguided views about the Bible in the LDS church. It’s not “second class” at all. In fact, this week I teach a lesson on the Epistles of Peter. I love the Bible. It is equal to any other book of scripture. It has many precious things in it. I love the Sermon on the Mount, and we as a church strive to live up to Christ’s teachings found in the gospels. The Bible is scripture, so I use it.
I know that offends you that somehow, we Mormons could think the Bible is important, but yes, we do, and in fact, it is the foundation of our faith as well. The story of Christ, His mission, ministry, sacrifice for our sins, death, burial and resurrection is the core of the LDS faith, and the Bible is the record of Christ’s life and dealings with His people in that period of time and in that part of the world–why would I look down on it?
And I don’t think you really believe God is the ultimate authority for your church–How would God correct any errors? You don’t believe that God can speak today (that evil thing Mormons believe in–continuing revelation), so you cannot possibly expect me to believe you are built on God. You are built on your interpretation of God’s words given over 2000 years ago, is the more accurate answer.
I’m sure it’s a bit of a shock to you to hear that all people are welcome to our Sunday meetings as well.
And you STILL haven’t answered why you think any of this is relevant to the 2008 Presidential race, or why you consistently, repeatedly, and forever keep bringing up doctrinal differences with the LDS church in a forum meant for religion. Do you suffer from Mormon Derangement Syndrome?
Vanceone on November 21, 2007 at 5:01 PM
It won’t be the last time. But not every comment needs to be responded to, and if a particular commenter drives you nuts, just put him or her in your mental killfile. Follow Reagan’s example: smile, shake your head, say “there you go again…” and move on to the next comment.
Life is too short.
sulla on November 21, 2007 at 5:10 PM
I’ll be so glad when either Mitt gets knocked out, or, he gets nominated, and the general gets over with. Then maybe we can stop having these insane conversations where everyone thinks that everyone else hates them/him/her/whoever.
I am Christian and I think Mormon theology is incompatible with traditional Christian belief. You (generic, plural) are a Mormon and think that my faith is inadequate. Let’s get over it already. Fine. Whatever. Let’s everybody stop thinking everyone hates you/me. The fact is that nearly every Christian here would have no problem ticking the box for Mitt if his name were on the ballot against any one of the democratic contenders.
We should set up another forum altogether to discuss the nuances of orthodox Christian and Mormon theology.
nailinmyeye on November 21, 2007 at 5:19 PM
Does anyone else find it odd that certain LDS members would abandon all of their closely held non-religious (political) beliefs in order to somehow punish evil evangelicals for attacking their religion?
It is unfathomable to me that people would actually issue a “threat” to leave the GOP for the Dems because they were offended by what a few people on a blog posted.
Go ahead and vote for the party of unlimited abortion, income redistribution, government as god, absolute gun control, America as the greatest force for evil in the world, promotion of the homosexual agenda, all “cultures” as equal, complete indoctrination of all children via public schools only, etc, etc, etc – that will sure show those evil evangelicals! I am sure it might even get a few of them to change their belief: “Oh my, if I don’t stop criticizing a member of the LDS church the mormons are going to all join the Democrat party! I guess I better desist ever speaking about something that might have eternal consequences and change my tune right now or I’ll have to suffer through a few (more) years of Democratic rule! Oh, horrors!!”
Sheesh – you guys are weird.
Fatal on November 21, 2007 at 5:34 PM
nailinmyeye (how did you come up with that?) I appreciate your comments, however the only way to do that is to ignore all threads on this site regarding this issue. This is a forum for discussion and as long as these topics keep coming up people will discuss them. I am not criticizing the people who run this site for doing so. It is their right. I don’t understand why those who are offended don’t just stay away from them.
Rose on November 21, 2007 at 5:39 PM
This thread was done by reply #25, but you hardcore haters just had to keep tuggin’ on the chain to let the ladder down for the crazy “The Mormons are a devil worshipper cult” uncle to creep out of out of the attic…
Stooooooopid
ScottMcC on November 21, 2007 at 6:14 PM
If this thread was done by #25, why was it put in the top picks?
Rose on November 21, 2007 at 6:21 PM
Rose – I ‘m with you on that. Sure, people have a right. I never said people shouldn’t express their opinions. But, opinions with a little less name calling and victim playing would be cool. I know it is a news item – which is why I will be more than happy when it is not.
nailinmyeye on November 21, 2007 at 6:24 PM
I agree. But I have never called anyone a name, and I have never used foul language. I only discuss the subject.
Rose on November 21, 2007 at 6:25 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »