BTW, I like your latest posting at your website with your Bush/Reagan comparison, and I agree with your conclusion.

Thanks; I appreciate that.

Your disingenuousness is staggering.

sulla on November 27, 2007 at 3:19 PM

BINGO.

BTW, I like your latest posting at your website with your Bush/Reagan comparison, and I agree with your conclusion.

Not my words, but God’s.

In so saying, you come closer to being a ‘false prophet’ yourself than you realize. Your disingenuousness is staggering.

And we have seen they have made some terrible mistakes and comments. If the church comes up with a doctrine counter to the U.S., we have every right to not only ask Mitt what he would do, but look historically at what he has done. i.e. at 31 he still held true to the Mormon belief that blacks were less than whites. Doesn’t make him a racist, it makes him blindly. following.

right2bright on November 27, 2007 at 11:49 AM

Most churches have made “terrible mistakes” and many Christian churches have what could be termed a racist, or in the very least pro-slavery, history. Why are you singling Mitt Romney, the son of civil rights activists, out? This is insane.

On balance Christianity has been a force for good, has been a civilizing influence, and without Christianity this republic would not exist as founded. Clearly Mormons like Mitt are civilized and a force for good who cherish our Founding principles.

We should question Huckabee who he is following, can you name any prophet or church leader that he adheres too? That if he does not follow he will become an apostate (besides Jesus)?
And we have every right to ask Rudy about his relationship with the Pope. Would he go against an edict of the Pope (the answer is yes, with abortion)? Everything is fair game to investigate the potential President…can’t play the “victim” card, can’t afford it.

.

right2bright on November 27, 2007 at 11:49 AM

We most certainly should not be asking these questions unless one wants Huckabee to be their minister! As for the Rudy comment, do you imagine some secret relationship which conflicts with his allegiance to this country?

What on earth are you getting at?

This is not a question of “playing the victim card”.

Are we changing the translation sincerely on the basis of a more accurate translation or are we rejecting a miracle described by Daniel based on our modern view or race? If it’s the latter, we may be forced to revaluate our standing, as Daniel says, as are we among the wicked or the wise.

Sebastian on November 27, 2007 at 1:21 PM

It’s common knowledge that the King James Version is the least accurate of all of the translations.

Daniel was seeing the end of the world. Presumably that could include the time we are living in. His knowledge of people wouldn’t be limited to those in the Middle East.

So your claim is that he was mocking his own skin color, the same skin color of Christ?

I can’t help but believe you’re stretching here.

I’m thinking that’s got to be a metaphor. The Jews were Middle Eastern. Joseph, the one with the colorful coat, was even confused for an Egyptian by his own brothers.
Esthier on November 27, 2007 at 11:54 AM

Daniel was seeing the end of the world. Presumably that could include the time we are living in. His knowledge of people wouldn’t be limited to those in the Middle East.

That is the problem with the KJV of the bible. It was interpreted the best it could at the time. Since then scholars have better resources to more accuratly take the Hebrew and translate it.
White, is purity (in this instance). Used in form of the Old Testament Hebrew.
right2bright on November 27, 2007 at 12:14 PM

My exegesis may be worthless, but Strong’s shows that the same phrase is used by Isaiah and the Psalmist in metaphors to literally mean to make white. It seems to me that Daniel would be redundant in using both purified and spotless.

Are we changing the translation sincerely on the basis of a more accurate translation or are we rejecting a miracle described by Daniel based on our modern view or race? If it’s the latter, we may be forced to revaluate our standing, as Daniel says, as are we among the wicked or the wise.

This is not a discussion of good and evil, but of fitness to serve in the highest office of our free and religiously influenced Representative Republic. I have already said that I respect benign Atheists who are not on a mission to change this Republic to fit a secular progressive vision.

The key for me is the concept of our rights being endowed by our creator. If they are God-given rights they cannot be taken away from us, but rights given by men can be taken away by men. If one is a benign Atheist, this is of no concern to them one way or another so it becomes a matter of neutrality. If one is a malignant Atheist then this belief is heresy.

Better look up the Hebrew for spotless, it meant clean of spirit, not white. As in the “spotless Lamb of God”.

That’s my point.

Thats the problem Buy Danish. We think you are wrong. You think we are Evil.

ronsfi on November 27, 2007 at 12:21 PM

I can’t speak for anyone but myself, but that’s not entirely accurate. We believe mankind cannot be Good without divine intervention. That doesn’t make mankind Evil, and it doesn’t mean that mankind cannot be good.

Surely we agree on one thing. I’ve never heard an atheist proclaim that man can ever be Good. We both seem to agree that man can be corrupted. We just disagree on what to do about it.

A false prophet is one who deliberately seeks to lead people away from the Lord’s path with his “prophesies.” See Jeremiah chapter 29 for a concrete example of this, and specifically verses 29-32 for the consequences. (think “false witness” or perjury – lying to convict an innocent man). Shemaiah the Nehelamite presumed to speak in the name of the LORD, and demanded changes in priests and declared against Jeremiah…and Jeremiah prophesied right back, also in the name of the LORD. We saw who the LORD backed.

Joseph Smith’s life and words were more thoroughly documented than any biblical prophet’s, but that doesn’t mean his every utterance was prophecy. When he meant it to be accepted by the church as prophecy, he put it to a vote, either in leadership councils or before the whole church.

It’s not a false prophesy to say “good morning” on a rainy day. I’d say a closer analogue would be Al Gore swearing doom on us all if Bush doesn’t sign Kyoto. It’s not just saying something – it’s a command to action, invoking the divine, for a false cause.

The apostle Paul frequently offered his opinions in his letters. Do I really think God said, “cut your hair, hippie”? No, I think that was Paul’s personal preference. When the phrase “I speak as a man” appears in his epistles, he is distinguishing his counsel from divine counsel. Likewise, most of the things Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, Orson Pratt, Bruce R. McConkie and others have said or written were their opinion or speculation.

Esthier on November 27, 2007 at 11:54 AM

Better look up the Hebrew for spotless, it meant clean of spirit, not white. As in the “spotless Lamb of God”.

That is the problem with the KJV of the bible. It was interpreted the best it could at the time. Since then scholars have better resources to more accuratly take the Hebrew and translate it.
White, is purity (in this instance). Used in form of the Old Testament Hebrew.

KJV Daniel 12:10 Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried

Many will be purified, made spotless and refined,

Once again purified, spotless referring to the “spotless Lamb of God”.
That is why you have to go back to the original texts. And where some religions have gotten into trouble.
If you want I can give you the actual Hebrew text or links.

All Athiests are not what I would call “avowed” Atheists, and many Atheists have respect for the contributions Christians made to our institutions and culture. I,in turn, respect the right of those Atheists to hold their beliefs, or lack thereof.

Esthier on November 27, 2007 at 11:54 AM

You’re right, clearly “white” is being used as a metaphor there.

What this has to do with Mitt Romney is beyond me.

Gotta run…

right2bright on November 27, 2007 at 11:16 AM

Huckabee the Baptist’s prophets are indeed the prophets of the Old Testament, which was used by many Christians to justify slavery.

That was, and is, my point. You seem to forget that when you publish your anti-Mormon manifestos.

For every example of “racism” within the Mormon Church, I can point to episodes of historical intolerance in Christian Churches, not to mention the complicity of some Atheists who used “belief systems” such as Eugenics to guide them.

This would be a very boring and fruitless exercise, which I have no intention of participating in, beyond what I have already stated and offered as a means to combat some of this lunacy.

ronsfi on November 27, 2007 at 11:43 AM

Hitch has written a book entitled, God is Not Great, so it would be fair to ask him about that, especially if he ran to preside over a nation whose roots are in Judeo-Christian values. Of course as a Brit, he cannot run, so it is a moot question.

Romney is not running as a Mormon and the Mormon Church explicitly refuses to insinuate itself in politics. There is no question as to where he stands when it comes to supporting and defending our Constitution, or in revering the principles of our Republic as first set forth in the Declaration of Independence.

The same reverence cannot be attributed to avowed Atheists – who deny the impact of our religious heritage on our established institutions, and attempt to rewrite history and the First Amendment.

Who’s being made white?

Sebastian on November 27, 2007 at 11:50 AM

I’m thinking that’s got to be a metaphor. The Jews were Middle Eastern. Joseph, the one with the colorful coat, was even confused for an Egyptian by his own brothers.

Try a different version.

Daniel 11:35:
Some of the wise will stumble, so that they may be refined, purified and made spotless until the time of the end, for it will still come at the appointed time.

Daniel 12:10:
Many will be purified, made spotless and refined, but the wicked will continue to be wicked. None of the wicked will understand, but those who are wise will understand.

Maybe the authors of the King James Version of the Bible believed white equaled purity, but that’s not a reflection on the original author.

KJV Daniel 11:35 And some of them of understanding shall fall, to try them, and to purge, and to make them white, even to the time of the end: because it is yet for a time appointed.

KJV Daniel 12:10 Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried; but the wicked shall do wickedly: and none of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand.

Who’s being made white?

Buy Danish was specifically stating Baptists prophets. She has a list, I am waiting for it.

right2bright on November 27, 2007 at 11:16 AM

I never got the impression that Buy Danish was referring to prophets that only Baptists have.

Who’s advocating denying him the presidency?The point of the post is whether it’s appropriate to ask questions relating to the aspects of his faith that make some voters uncomfortable.

ronsfi on November 27, 2007 at 10:18 AM

Other than Christopher Hitchens? Shall we hold Hitchens the Atheist responsible for the millions who died under the Godless tyranny of Communism? Malignant Atheists like Richard Dawkins crusade to get Christians to renounce the Holy Spirit. Do we want to go there? Will a day come when this is demanded of our candidates?

Many Hot Air commentators have stated flat out that they will not vote for Mitt Romney because he is a Mormon. Period. It’s clear that some people would not be satisfied until Romney denounced the Mormon Church and renounced all claims to Christianity.

To insist that Romney speak for the church’s position prior to 1978 means that we must also insist that all Christians explain historically pro-slavery views which it can be argued go back to the Old Testament – a demand which is of course impossible to satisfy.

But really, this is an absurd question. If Mitt Romney were not pursuing higher office, would he be asked to explain not only his faith, but asked to explain the history of the Mormon Church?

Other than J.F.K. who was asked to explain his Catholicism from anti-Catholic bigots, can you think of another candidate for the Presidency whose personal religious beliefs have undergone such scrutiny?

Did J.F.K. go into detail about Catholic dogma or its history? The answer is NO.

And I don’t know how many times this needs to be repeated, but the Romney’s were at the vanguard of the Civil Rights movement and his father, George, defied elders of the Mormon Church in that regard.

To follow the logic of these ridiculous demands, why is Huckabee, a Baptist Minister (who is explicitly running as a Christian) not being asked to explain his faith by Hot Air readers? Is the history of the Baptist Church free of racism, particularly Southern Baptists? Do we need to be reminded of why the Southern Baptist Convention was founded? After all, it took them until 1995 to formally renounce slavery!

Esthier on November 27, 2007 at 10:11 AM

Of course, but Baptists were not an organization during the Old Testament. The Prophets of the Old Testaments are Prophets for all Christians. There are no “new” prophets.
Buy Danish was specifically stating Baptists prophets. She has a list, I am waiting for it.

Buy Danish on November 27, 2007 at 10:17 AM

Thanks, those were good quotes.
Is the book History of the Church, have more authority than the Journal of Discourses or Mormon Doctrine?
Then was Smith wrong on his pronouncement? He seems (I don’t want to drag out all of his racists quotes, but there are many) to be confused. When he is thinking of running for President (when he made those quotes) they are certainly tempered.

“The negroes are not equal with other races where the receipt of certain spiritual blessings are concerned, particularly the priesthood and the temple blessings that flow therefrom…” (Mormon Doctrine, p.527, 1966 ed.)

But still, the prophets were wrong on defining the role of the “negroes”, or as some called the “ni**ers).
The early church was conflicted, by their statements, of whether the black race was acceptable. Remember, the church premise is on the belief that if people of color became Mormon, they would turn white and “delightsome”.

“I saw a striking contrast in the progress of the Indian people today as against that of only fifteen years ago. Truly the scales of darkness are allign from their eyes, and they are fast becoming a white and delightsome people….For years they have been growing delightsome, and they are now becoming white and delightsome, as they were promised…”(Spencer W. Kimball, Improvement Era, Dec. 1960, pp.922-3)

At least they see improvement in the “darkies”.

Who’s advocating denying him the presidency?

ronsfi on November 27, 2007 at 10:18 AM

Plenty of people.