Video: Mitt on America’s “symphony of faith”; Update: Inconsistent?
posted at 12:18 pm on December 6, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
Ramesh Ponnuru, Jonah Goldberg, and the Hammer all note a curious omission from his paean to tolerance. Or not so curious: I think it’s perfectly appropriate to omit atheists from a speech that was, after all, a pander, if an unusually lyrical one, since he doesn’t need to pander to us. We’ve been voting for believers for years and we’ll keep on doing so, even though Americans almost certainly would never return the favor. The grand irony in his message of religious harmony and mutual abiding respect is that he probably wouldn’t have delivered this speech at all if he wasn’t suddenly getting beat in Iowa by a left-ish candidate with no money whose main selling point to a large swath of the population is that he fits the traditional definition of Christian and Mitt Romney doesn’t. Will this change that and impress upon those evangelicals our common heritage of free exercise? He’d better hope so because the lefty’s suddenly exploding in South Carolina, too. The most memorable line in the speech isn’t any having to do with the Founding Fathers, it’s his declaration that if being a Mormon means the end of his candidacy, “so be it” — a poignant reminder of the facts on the ground, whatever his other rhetoric may be.
Still, well written and delivered if perhaps not quite magnificent, although feel free henceforth to regard me as someone “not to be trusted as an analyst” per that assessment. Oh — and for the record, Mitt did include atheists at one point, although not by name: “Any believer in religious freedom … has a friend and ally in me.”
Update: I was just thinking about this but David Frum — another analyst “not to be trusted,” evidently — beat me to it. The whole point of the speech, ostensibly, was to take the particularities of various religions’ doctrines off the table and focus on America’s common moral heritage. But in that case, what was up with this?
“There is one fundamental question about which I often am asked. What do I believe about Jesus Christ? I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Savior of mankind. My church’s beliefs about Christ may not all be the same as those of other faiths. Each religion has its own unique doctrines and history. These are not bases for criticism but rather a test of our tolerance.”
By reassuring Christians that he’s a Christian he’s suggesting that doctrine does matter. So remind me again, why can’t we ask him about, say, the Garden of Eden?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
Crushing, depressing cynicism and pessism?
That’s why we love you AP :-D
BKennedy on December 6, 2007 at 12:26 PM
AP you are my muse.
peski on December 6, 2007 at 12:27 PM
Thanks for getting this up, AP
infidelesto on December 6, 2007 at 12:29 PM
My complaint about Mitt has never been his religion. Heck, I don’t even know what religion most of our elected “leaders” are. I DO however question his character (sorry Rush).
I remember how he governed and what he said as Governor. He was about as far removed from Reagan style conservatism as well… Rudy Guliani!
He was either pandering to his base in Mass. or he’s pandering to the national Republican base now.
edgehead on December 6, 2007 at 12:30 PM
That is hilarious. It can’t be just good, but magnificent!
BillINDC on December 6, 2007 at 12:31 PM
But was it Harriet Miers magnificent?
Bryan on December 6, 2007 at 12:32 PM
Funny. Hewitt is about the most shameless Mitt cheerleader evah.
Bad Candy on December 6, 2007 at 12:33 PM
The thing that struck me was that he welcomes all those who embrace religious freedom. I would imagine some would fear that he embraces Islamic people to then–but doesn’t this exclude them because they DON’T believe in religious freedom?
I think it was a good speech. It won’t persuade the anti-Mormons, of course, who wouldn’t let it go if Christ Himself told them to, but I think it was a good speech.
Vanceone on December 6, 2007 at 12:34 PM
At least, if not moreso. It is Mitt after all.
Bad Candy on December 6, 2007 at 12:34 PM
There will never be a better time than now to proudly revisit the universe-quaking awesomeness that is the first entry in the Mormonator Trilogy.
saint kansas on December 6, 2007 at 12:34 PM
Not just a B+ but a B++.
Allahpundit on December 6, 2007 at 12:36 PM
Agreed. “…well written and delivered if perhaps not quite magnificent…” And calculated for effect.
Is the ‘mormon thang’ a deal breaker for most people? Nope. I don’t think so, but only because most people in this post Christian America have very little knowledge of that flavor of religion. Heck, for some, being religious is a reason not to vote for someone.
A re-statement of foundation. A personal proclamation. A rebuff of anti-theistic secularist.
I do believe this speech was made more for the nation at large than for Mr. Romney, in particular.
All in all – a hat trick.
Bravo.
locomotivebreath1901 on December 6, 2007 at 12:36 PM
That creates a sense of injustice in you, doesn’t it Allah? I Wonder where that sense of justice came from.
samuelrylander on December 6, 2007 at 12:36 PM
Just took a look at the stubs.
It was actually quite ironic how you ended that sentence Allah, considering it seems your linked commentators had joined with the rainbow tolerance legion with their whiny “what about atheists? He forgot atheists! Woe on Romney!” shtick.
Mitt Romney was addressing faith and politics. Atheists profess to have no faith. I hardly think any of them give a rip over this. In fact, my bet is soon enough Christopher Hitchens will blast Mitt for daring to suggest all religions are not as bad as radical Islam.
BKennedy on December 6, 2007 at 12:36 PM
Strong. Well done.
Vizzini on December 6, 2007 at 12:37 PM
Yeah, it would exclude radicals, I assume.
Bad Candy on December 6, 2007 at 12:37 PM
I think what is important to note, is that the surge that the “lefty” is seing among evangelicals means one thing.
That to evangelicals, religion trumps all. It trumps protecting the homeland against jihadists bent on destroying us all. It trumps protecting our borders and our national soveriegnty. It trumps defending the rule of law.
It trumps the limited goverment concept espoused by Ronald Reagan.
For those evangelicals that are voting for the “lefty Huckster”, their true colors have shown, voting for someone who has their faith is more important than voting for the most qualified person for the job.
Sad. Sad. Sad.
paulsur on December 6, 2007 at 12:38 PM
I thought the speech was excellent. Some of it, in my opinion, was subtly intended to contrast his respect for other faiths with the rhetoric of Mike Huckabee, who has been a bit too reluctant to speak out against the anti-Mormon sentiment among his supporters.
It was a very gentle calling-out of those who drive religious wedges. It will be interesting to see whether Romney now becomes the candidate of choice for Republicans who are uncomfortable with Huckabee’s more provincial view of faith.
Slublog on December 6, 2007 at 12:39 PM
Yes, but are they representative? Follow the links to the polls I gave you.
I don’t think anyone who wasn’t planning to vote against Mitt because of his faith much cares, actually. They’re not who the speech is aimed at.
Allahpundit on December 6, 2007 at 12:39 PM
It would be funny if this was the speech that finally got Hugh to convert.
Big S on December 6, 2007 at 12:40 PM
heh.
BillINDC on December 6, 2007 at 12:41 PM
Huckabee is a bit of a new-found media darling.
But once it comes to the fate meted out by actual voters I expect a full Deanification*.
MSM will then be left to ponder what ever happened???? Polls are polls. Only Votes matter.
*is that a word? well, you know what I mean.
cadetwithchips2 on December 6, 2007 at 12:42 PM
I know, and it drives me crazy and diminishes my respect for his opinion when he denies it so vehemently. It’s like he’s trying to do a Jedi mind trick, and it ain’t working.
For crying out loud, Hugh, just admit it. Sheesh.
Matticus Finch on December 6, 2007 at 12:45 PM
Something that struck me as odd…
Shouldn’t Mitt be placing his hand on the Book of Mormon?
Mike Honcho on December 6, 2007 at 12:48 PM
Well, what’s really ironic about Hewitt doubting the analysis of others is the fact that he put a post up after one of the 2004 debates chastising GOP-supporters folks for offering analysis that said Bush fared poorly.
His argument was that negative quotes served as ammunition to be used by lefty pundits, so folks should keep assessments positive.
So even when Hewitt’s analysis is right, I question it.
It causes me to mistrust his analysis.
BillINDC on December 6, 2007 at 12:50 PM
We’re going to HotAir, and Ace of Spades, and Slublog’s, to Mary Katherine Ham’s, and Instapundit, and Michelle Malkin, then we’re gonna go to doubleplusundead to boost his crappy traffic, RAAAAAAGH!
Am I that shameless…yes, yes I think I am.
Bad Candy on December 6, 2007 at 12:50 PM
The speech was so magnificent I soiled my magical undergarments.
Mike Honcho on December 6, 2007 at 12:51 PM
Excellent speech. Should be broadcast from the rooftops and read in all public and private schools.
Still, if he loses Iowa, he’s pretty much doomed.
Drum on December 6, 2007 at 12:51 PM
Unlike Keith Ellison, Romney does not believe his personal religious preferences should override American tradition.
Besides, Keith wanted to swear on the Koran because he knows many precepts in there run directly against Constitutional principles.
BKennedy on December 6, 2007 at 12:51 PM
I like Hugh but his love for Mitt has gone overboard.
Complete7 on December 6, 2007 at 12:52 PM
HH must have been in a giant hurry.
Haw, haw. Good thing no one over here at Hot Air has ever displatted.
RushBaby on December 6, 2007 at 12:53 PM
Isn’t the Book of Mormon considered an “amendment” to the Bible? Serious question; I’m not trying to be disrespectful.
edgehead on December 6, 2007 at 12:54 PM
Anyone know what Fred!’s up to today?
saint kansas on December 6, 2007 at 12:56 PM
Hard to type with one hand
Big S on December 6, 2007 at 12:57 PM
That’s so wrong…
Bad Candy on December 6, 2007 at 12:57 PM
Yep. He’s busy criticizing the NIE, and refusing to get drawn into the Romney situation.
Refreshing, eh.
RushBaby on December 6, 2007 at 12:59 PM
IMHO, This was the most troublesom part of the entire speech. Those who don’t know LDS doctrine will say “great” he is a Christian. But those who do will know there is a lot here he did not say that separates LDS from Christianity. To try to gloss over the differences of the two here, I think, was a mistake. It would have been better not to be mentioned at all.
bnelson44 on December 6, 2007 at 1:00 PM
Yeah but it’ll be fun to tease AP with.
RushBaby on December 6, 2007 at 1:01 PM
Maybe…
Bad Candy on December 6, 2007 at 1:01 PM
Frum’s point is well taken, but didn’t Romney give himself an out with the next line?
That said, it was the most troublesome part of the speech, but I don’t think it will be the deal-breaker that Frum seems to believe it will be.
Slublog on December 6, 2007 at 1:05 PM
I didn’t get to see the whole speech yet – but these highlights sound really solid.
And, Hewitt sounds pretty lame to me.
nailinmyeye on December 6, 2007 at 1:06 PM
Why even mention them? Did Joe Lieberman offer any Jewish readings on Jesus when he was nominated as VP?
Allahpundit on December 6, 2007 at 1:06 PM
Wow. How nice it is to hear optimism about the future of our country and pride about OUR heritage.
No hand-wringing about how the rest of the world views the US.
Just a nod to the righteous vision of our forefathers.
Thanks Mitt. A truly Prsidential speech.
NTWR on December 6, 2007 at 1:07 PM
Yea, I’ve been saying for a week now, don’t go there.
bnelson44 on December 6, 2007 at 1:07 PM
Taken from the other thread:
I really, really don’t care about where Mitt thinks the Garden of Eden is or whether his undergarments protect him from evil. None of those things are relevant to his role as President. Mitt was not giving a speech to educate the ignorant on the theological nuances of Mormonism because those are irrelevant to the presidency, he was giving a speech to emphasize and reaffirm the values of religious freedom and religious tolerance.
For those of you whining that Mitt didn’t prattle on for hours about Mormonism’s theological underpinnings, go look them up online if you care that much. As for me, I’m a Catholic who doesn’t believe in Mormonism and don’t care to learn much about it.
BKennedy on December 6, 2007 at 1:08 PM
Whether the Garden of Eden is in St Louis or not, is no less plausible than the question of was there a garden of Eden at all.
The key is belief, it is the key that binds mormons and traditional christians in faith.
paulsur on December 6, 2007 at 1:08 PM
Honestly, I’m not sure why he mentioned Jesus. I’ll wager that’s when most evangelicals talked to their televisions, as the line was kind of clunky and out of place.
I think the subsequent lines and the rest of the speech is solid enough to cover, and will likely keep him from getting too much grief over that one part.
Slublog on December 6, 2007 at 1:09 PM
I dunno about that, as stubborn as social cons are being? I’m not counting out anything.
Bad Candy on December 6, 2007 at 1:10 PM
Others might type faster, but there’s a scarce few whose writing contains more unerring, dead-on, and pithy observations. Allahpundit, you make us proud.
RushBaby on December 6, 2007 at 1:10 PM
I also liked how he called out Secularism as a religion.
Now if he would have mentioned the religion of Environmentalism, that would have been awesome.
NTWR on December 6, 2007 at 1:11 PM
I don’t think this speech was aimed at the die-hards. Romney’s smart enough to know he won’t convince those. This was entirely a ‘let’s level the playing field’ sort of speech and I think he carried it off well.
Slublog on December 6, 2007 at 1:12 PM
Sanitize…….
I was waiting to hear about Jesus and Satan being brothers.
I guess all atheists and agnostics don’t have a friend????
Hening on December 6, 2007 at 1:12 PM
Because like I said in the post, the speech was a pander. Hosannas to religious liberty aren’t going to convince evangelicals who are suspicious of him. The “religious liberty” stuff is all window dressing; he’s after Christian votes, but he also doesn’t want to get bogged down in Mormon minutiae lest it scare them away. So he gave Jesus the requisite shout out and then hypocritically spent 20 minutes declaring why it doesn’t matter.
A solid B-.
Allahpundit on December 6, 2007 at 1:12 PM
Hah.
I don’t think it was as much a pander, though. Just a call for fair play, and I think it will go over very well in New Hampshire.
Slublog on December 6, 2007 at 1:14 PM
Transcript here
bnelson44 on December 6, 2007 at 1:14 PM
Chris Mathews thought it was the first sign of greatness this whole campaign though.
bnelson44 on December 6, 2007 at 1:16 PM
That statement makes no sense. The JEW, Lieberman OF COURSE wouldn’t offer any readings on Jesus Christ. Duh.
Romney belongs to a branch of Christianity, so naturally he would. However, I am of the opinion that Christians often have the same argument about “Who is a Christian?”, that Jews do about “Who is a Jew?”.
Its sooooooo ironic that an atheist like AP is now a religious pundit. You attending regular Sunday worship now AP?
Andy in Agoura Hills on December 6, 2007 at 1:16 PM
Wouldn’t this, actually, depend on context?
In a Presidential race, yeah, I would tend to agree with that.
In a discussion of doctrine or the nature of Christ, or, another faith discussion, the particulars of doctrine are bases for criticism and debate.
nailinmyeye on December 6, 2007 at 1:19 PM
Shouldn’t Mitt be placing his hand on the Book of Mormon?
Mike Honcho on December 6, 2007 at 12:48 PM
I think all of the Mormons in congress use the Bible for this ceremony.
bnelson44 on December 6, 2007 at 1:19 PM
I think what we all REALLY want to know is:
What say you, Harry Reid?
NTWR on December 6, 2007 at 1:20 PM
From the NRO’s Romney guy:
On the reaction to The Speech: “Four-fifths of the commentary about the speech will be about what wasn’t in it. I guess that makes the speech important. Also notice that he gives his speech, and we’re going to end up having a big national conversation about faith and political leadership for the next two, three, or maybe even five days.”
http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/
Which tells me he shouldn’t have given it.
bnelson44 on December 6, 2007 at 1:21 PM
As for “Swearing on the Book of Mormon, not the Bible,” why? I wish the prevailing anti-Mormon attacks weren’t such conventional wisdom. This isn’t an anti-mormon attack, but it comes from the idea that LDS people don’t believe the Bible.
Which is wrong–the Bible is scripture in the LDS church; just as the Book of Mormon is.
The Bible is the foundation of LDS doctrine as well, you know. No one has ever suggested that the Book of Mormon replace it as the thing upon which oaths are sworn. We really DO mean it when we say we are Christian. We believe in Christ, and His story is contained in the Bible. So we revere the Bible; we don’t ignore it or think it’s of no worth as some allege.
So Mitt would swear his oath on the Bible, and I would expect him to. So would the rest of the LDS church, and there’s nothing wrong with that–it is the right thing to do. We hold the Bible just as sacred as the next Christian sect.
Vanceone on December 6, 2007 at 1:24 PM
From From’s piece:
That Dog Won’t Hunt
Sorry to dissent from my colleagues on the Corner, but once the murmurs over the oratory subside, people are going to realize: that speech did not work. Here’s why:
“There is one fundamental question about which I often am asked. What do I believe about Jesus Christ? I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Savior of mankind. My church’s beliefs about Christ may not all be the same as those of other faiths. Each religion has its own unique doctrines and history. These are not bases for criticism but rather a test of our tolerance.”
To be blunt, Romney is saying:
It is legitimate to ask a candidate, “Is Jesus the son of God?”
But it is illegitimate to ask a candidate, “Is Jesus the brother of Lucifer?”
It is hard for me to see a principled difference between these two questions
http://frum.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NTUzYTIwZWNiMDg1YWJjMjE1MWI1MWJhYTI0OWU4OWM=
bnelson44 on December 6, 2007 at 1:27 PM
The Bible is not the same. One major point is that Mormons do not believe that Jesus Christ is the door to salvation. That alone knocks it out of the park. Mormons believe that temple sacrifices and works bring godhood. They do not believe in NT salvation.
I would ask, which religion has a higher place for Jesus, Islam or Mormonism?
Hening on December 6, 2007 at 1:30 PM
The Garden of Eden is in Missouri, duh.
elBarto on December 6, 2007 at 1:30 PM
Doesn’t the Book of Mormon take precidence over the Bible in any conflicting passages?
bnelson44 on December 6, 2007 at 1:30 PM
I’m with AP, I think it was a pander, and a side swipe at Huckster. Probably relatively effective, and he didn’t step in any turds.
peski on December 6, 2007 at 1:35 PM
B/c talk to any Mormon and they get royally pissed when people say they are not Christians. I’mnot saying they are or are not Christians, just stating a fact about what they believe they are. They believe in Christ, and I think Mitt wanted to clear up the most common misconception out there about Mormons. But I see your point, too.
RW Wacko on December 6, 2007 at 1:36 PM
Islam holds Jesus Christ as one of their great prophets.
Does that mean Islam is just another Christian sect?
Can Muslims say that they are Christians, too?
silverfox on December 6, 2007 at 1:37 PM
Hening, you are wrong. Mormons believe in salvation through Jesus Christ.
elBarto on December 6, 2007 at 1:37 PM
Atheists and Agnostics, Ctd. [Ramesh Ponnuru]
Kathryn, I don’t believe that President Bush is “apologizing” for considering religion important or believing in God when he says that non-believing Americans can be good, upright citizens. He is saying something he believes, keeping people from misunderstanding him, and adding a dimension to what he thinks about the proper role of religion in public life. I wish Romney had done the same thing.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OTk5OGRkNjE0YjQzNDVjMjUwZjk5M2FlMGRkMjk5ZGE=
bnelson44 on December 6, 2007 at 1:38 PM
So, are most of you saying that religion is now the litmus test for running for office?
Personally, I’m hypocritical on the issue because if he were Muslim I would have a problem, you know, considering we’re at war with fundamentalist Islamists and all.
NTWR on December 6, 2007 at 1:40 PM
Hening–I most certainly DO believe in salvation through Jesus Christ.
Here is the 3rd article of Faith of the LDS church: “We believe that through the atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved; by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel. ”
As for the Book of Mormon conflicting with the Bible, it doesn’t. It conflicts with some interpretations of the Bible, yes…. but not the Bible itself.
Besides, then you have to ask, “which Bible is the standard by which you judge conflicts by?” And you’d get various answers.
Vanceone on December 6, 2007 at 1:41 PM
I AM a Rudy supporter.
I must applaud Mitt Romney for this speech and for his abilities.
This is magnificent American.
Congratulations Mr. Romney – you’re a great American.
jake-the-goose on December 6, 2007 at 1:42 PM
When does the pundit class ever talk about the substance of something rather than just shoving their various agendas at people using *anything* as a springboard?
BKennedy on December 6, 2007 at 1:45 PM
It seems like it was just yesterday that AP was telling us he didn’t vote and didn’t plan to vote, unless he thought it would tilt the race.
Karl on December 6, 2007 at 1:45 PM
No, because they Islam doesn’t accept Jesus as God and savior…lame smear.
Are we really gonna have another slapfight about Mormonism?
Bad Candy on December 6, 2007 at 1:46 PM
Site with Mormon information
Actually, that’s what they want Christians to believe to get them to convert. Mormons believe that a Mormon president signals the end of days, and Joseph Smith will appear in Missouri and decide who is saved.
Jesus is simply the son of a man-god, brother of Lucifer and came up with a way to save mankind that all the other man-gods voted on, and he won.
The Mormons use Christ, recently in history, to attract Christians. This is why evangelicals have such a hard time with Mormons, as do all legitimate Christian denominations.
Hening on December 6, 2007 at 1:46 PM
It’s nice that even a guy like Ramesh, who regularly drives me nuts, took note of the obvious omission. And the Hammer just warms my heart when she says that atheists can be patriotic (although that might just be because she knows AP).
Would it have hurt Mitt to include a reference to non-belief? After all, Christians are all “love thy neighbor,” right? :)
Enrique on December 6, 2007 at 1:49 PM
If I understand you correctly: Jesus allowed all mankind to be saved and you are saved by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel. If you perform certain rituals in the temple you go to higher heavens, is my understanding. Those rituals can also “seal” those who have died into higher heavens.
My understanding is you use the Book of Mormon to help you interpret the Bible. That would rank is as the more authoritive book in the canon.
For the Book of Mormon it was the KJV.
bnelson44 on December 6, 2007 at 1:51 PM
Hening: You totally lost any and all credibility with that link to Ed Decker. That man has been universally condemned by just about every Christian organization, as well as Jewish ones, for his utter falsities, hysterical rantings, and out and out lies about the LDS church. His videos have been almost universally regarded as nothing more than anti-mormon propaganda worthy of Goebbels. Ed Decker is about the last place to go to get anything even remotely in the same galaxy as truth regarding the LDS church.
The guy is literally the classic example of “anti-mormon”; he makes his living selling anti-mormon literature. That is his living! He has every incentive in the world to lie, twist, and distort LDS doctrines.
In other words, going to Ed Decker for “truths about Mormonism” is literally the equivalent of going to Saul (before he became Paul) for truths about Christianity. Or Caiphas.
Vanceone on December 6, 2007 at 1:56 PM
So he’s like Jack Chick? Honestly, you just have to laugh at crap like that. I’m Catholic, and I think Chick is hilarious.
Bad Candy on December 6, 2007 at 2:01 PM
Since the articles of faith of the LDS Church were brought up:
The Articles of Faith of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.
We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression.
We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.
We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.
We believe that a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof.
We believe in the same organization that existed in the Primitive Church, namely, apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, evangelists, and so forth.
We believe in the gift of tongues, prophecy, revelation, visions, healing, interpretation of tongues, and so forth.
We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.
We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.
We believe in the literal gathering of Israel and in the restoration of the Ten Tribes; that Zion (the New Jerusalem) will be built upon the American continent; that Christ will reign personally upon the earth; and, that the earth will be renewed and receive its paradisiacal glory.
We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.
We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.
We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men; indeed, we may say that we follow the admonition of Paul—We believe all things, we hope all things, we have endured many things, and hope to be able to endure all things. If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things.
bnelson44 on December 6, 2007 at 2:01 PM
Bnelson: Yes, we have works. But we also emphasize faith. They work together. I could go through the temple a million times, but without any faith, it is a dead work. The ceremonies are that, ceremonies. Without the lasting faith in our lives, they are rather meaningless.
What all of these things are is ordinances: or sacred covenants. I view it as a contract with God. Let’s look at the concept of Baptism. When you are baptized, at least in the LDS church, you make certain promises: to follow Christ, to live as a Christian. In turn, God promises that he has forgiven your sins.
Great. But then, if you don’t have the faith to live up to those promises, God is under no obligation to live up to His. Through His grace, your sins are forgiven up to that point, but if you renege, etc–God is under no obligation to forgive them. Why not? He’s no longer bound.
That’s the core concept of any of these “works” and it has been throughout time, including the Old Testament. God promised that if you, the individual made the sacrifice, He, God, would provide a blessing. When Christ came, He ended the sacrifice by shedding of blood, but required the higher sacrifice of your whole heart and soul. Each of these ordinances is basically your “sign on the dotted line” of a contract with God. You don’t get a signature from God, nor throughout history have many people been able to sign their own name anyway. So this ordinance, or sacred ceremony, serves as the symbolic act of agreeing to the contract or covenant with God.
That’s why going through the ceremony is of little value unless you live up to your end of the bargain. I.E. the ceremony only has any effect if you have faith and live up to your agreement.
I hope that helps!
Vanceone on December 6, 2007 at 2:03 PM
That is one of several people and sites (first one that came up on search engine) that all say the same thing. Decker was a temple leader, who converted to Christianity.
Amazon lists several books by several authors that all seem to have come to the same conclusion.
The points that I have found common between authors discussing Mormonism all have to do with Christ being the brother of Lucifer, the new garden being Missouri and godhood being the equal to salvation.
If you look at the history of Mormonism, Jesus Christ being used in their title is a more recent event. Trying to compare it to biblical Christianity is false.
Hening on December 6, 2007 at 2:04 PM
That sure leaves out any Muslim, except for apostates, BIG TIME.
MB4 on December 6, 2007 at 2:05 PM
Can’t he do both without being a hypocrite though?
I’m sure it can be considered pandering to Christians, but many Christians consider Mormons almost cult-like. They justify their religious intolerance of Mormons by making Mormonism less than a religion.
I read the Jesus Christ part to mean that he doesn’t consider Jesus the ruler of an alien planet and is in fact not a part of a cult.
To me, that’s fitting since even religious tolerance allows people to be suspicious of cults.
Esthier on December 6, 2007 at 2:09 PM
Hening: Decker was expelled from the LDS church for living in adultery for the majority of his marriage. If you want to take his word as a sort of spiritual guide, by all means. Oh, and he’s lied about what positions he’s held in the church too.
Vanceone on December 6, 2007 at 2:12 PM
Bad Candy on December 6, 2007 at 1:46 PM
I’m not trying to smear. But I don’t believe you get to call yourself Christian when you hold things to be true that every other church says are not. I find it dishonest.
If you decide I’m smearing you, so be it.
silverfox on December 6, 2007 at 2:14 PM
Thanks. Good info
bnelson44 on December 6, 2007 at 2:15 PM
Henning, This Sunday find an LDS Church and go to a service. See what is all about. Go to the source. They will not brainwash you. They may try to feed you green jellow with carrot shavings. (stay away from the jello)
elBarto on December 6, 2007 at 2:15 PM
To an extent, all churches have differences, but those differences are small enough to bridge and recognize “Christians” in other denominations. I realize that Mormons can be offended that we can’t “recognize” them as Christians. But the reverse is also true, I feel a bit offended when Mormons say they are Christians.
silverfox on December 6, 2007 at 2:24 PM
It’s in the Columbia River Gorge, Oregon.
MB4 on December 6, 2007 at 2:24 PM
Elbarto,
Actually have had a chance to speak with Mormon missionaries. Mentioned what we had discussed to a Jesuit friend, who suggested a few books. It was represented as Christianity, but with Christ appearing to native Americans. That is not the case.
Good luck with that Jell-o thing. I guessing that some sort of Mormon apologist ritual?
Hening on December 6, 2007 at 2:26 PM
Not if they want to keep their heads.
MB4 on December 6, 2007 at 2:26 PM
You’re both wrong. Check your mica.
RushBaby on December 6, 2007 at 2:28 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »