Drudge fronts totally unsurprising story about Huckabee; Updated
posted at 10:40 am on December 10, 2007 by Bryan
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
I’ve read this story three or four times this morning and I still don’t see why Drudge is fronting it with a banner headline. It’s about a speech/sermon that Mike Huckabee delivered in 1998. He delivered the speech/sermon in Salt Lake City, but if that’s a reason to give it the banner treatment at Drudge, then that’s a suggestion that Baptist ministers should stay out of Mormon country. That would be absurd. If this next line is the problem, then so are most sermons delivered in most evangelical churches.
“The reason we have so much government is because we have so much broken humanity,” he said. “And the reason we have so much broken humanity is because sin reigns in the hearts and lives of human beings instead of the Savior.”
There’s a lot of spiritual common sense in that paragraph — sin leads for example to broken families, which leads to fatherless kids, which leads to out of control kids, which leads to crime and drugs and whatnot. This, by the way, is a powerful small-government argument against libertinism, though not necessarily against responsible libertarianism.
Drudge’s banner headline screams that Huck wants to “take America back for Christ.” Well, Huckabee was a pastor at the time, and that line is just an expression of the Great Commission. This is not a call to “take America” by the sword or by force or by any means necessary, it’s a statement that the church needs to get off the pews and out into the world to do some good. Huck reinforces that by saying that if the church was doing a better job, government wouldn’t have to be so big. I hate to break it to Drudge, but that’s true, and it’s not an indictment of America, it’s an indictment of the church for not doing its job. If that’s controversial now, then we’re headed for even more problems and acrimony then we currently have.
I’m no fan of home run hittin’ Huckabee, but Drudge seems to be screaming religious intolerance with that headline.
Update (AP): I agree with Bryan that Drudge is making a big deal out of what amounts to boilerplate, but I can’t resist noting this detail tucked away at the end of that old story:
Other books given to reporters at the convention Sunday included a how-to boycott book aimed at the Walt Disney Co. by Richard D. Land titled Sending a Message to Mickey: The ABC’s of Making Your Voice Heard at Disney. The back cover features an outline of the famous mouse’s round ears and the words: “He who has ears, let him hear.”
The other book was Mormonism Unmasked by R. Philip Roberts, who examines the beliefs of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Looks like an interesting read.
Update (AP): Like MK says, if Drudge is looking for religio-speak in politics, he doesn’t need to go back 10 years — or to the Republican Party — to find it.
Update: Huckabee was still governor when he made the comment that Drudge fronted. Nevertheless, as a minister what he said isn’t out of line. People have become way too sensitive about this sort of thing imho.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »
I’m trying to find examples of Mormons distributing anti-Christian literature and haven’t yet, but I did find this interesting WaPo story about Mormonism’s global reach.
I loved this quote which is apropos of nothing but I enjoyed it immensely:
Buy Danish on December 10, 2007 at 12:48 PM
Bad Candy: No, no books, pamphlets, or anything of the sort are passed out at LDS meetings attacking other faiths. We don’t have any “come hear why all these cults are wrong” days in the LDS church. I gather that most Protestants DO, though, and they invite professionals who’s job it is to bash other faiths to come speak for money. So it’s no wonder there are so many people like the book linked in this article–the guy is making money off of smearing the LDS church.
And here’s a question for right2bright: The LDS church has missionaries in the far east: Japan, Korea, Taiwan, India, Hong Kong, I believe Indonesia. If someone joins the LDS church from their Buddist, Hindu, or Islamic past, is that a victory or not? Are they better off? My guess is, you’d rather they stay Muslim than Mormon, even though even YOU have to admit we believe in Christ, His sacrifice. You just call it “another Jesus”, but it’s still Christ.
I actually honestly believe you’d rather see Indonesia full of Islamic types, than convert to the LDS church. I really do. Judging by your actions, you hate the LDS church with such passion, you would rather people be suicide bombers than join the LDS church, right2bright.
Vanceone on December 10, 2007 at 12:50 PM
If it wasn’t for the evangelicals irrational inability to rally behind a good , conservative, Mormon candidate, this formerly corpulent taxhappy windbag would be at about 2%, and even the Tanc would steamroll him!
Joey1974 on December 10, 2007 at 12:53 PM
Yeah interesting in that scary blind leading the blind sense of the word. Except for Hillary Clinton, I have absolutely no opinion on the wannabes as human beings but is this really the best we can do for leadership in this country? A former governor of Arkansas or a man who has a whopping two years in national politics and cites his college transcript when it comes to his experience in international affairs?
I don’t like any of the frontrunners from either party when it comes to feeling that they have the experience, temperment, and ability to lead this nation.
highhopes on December 10, 2007 at 12:55 PM
I’ve attended to over a dozen Protestant churches in my lifetime from Mississippi to Washington State and I’ve never seen an event like you “gather most Protestants” experience.
Lehosh on December 10, 2007 at 12:57 PM
FYI: I really think Rudy will be the Republican nominee. Huck will fizzle in the big states.
bnelson44 on December 10, 2007 at 12:58 PM
Yes, you have so much room accusing other people of misquoting or mischaracterizing things, after this little gem in the O’Donnell thread last night:
More than one of us called you on that, asking for quotes to back it up, but you never did–probably because the quotes don’t exist. But don’t let the facts get in the way of making wild completely unsupported allegations. Way to give real Christians a bad name, hypocrite.
ReubenJCogburn on December 10, 2007 at 1:00 PM
>
No intolerance there!
You are essentially saying that the “Jesus Freaks” should abandon their principles for political expediency despite the fact this group is probably the most faith-focused part of the electorate.
I’d say throwing stones at evangelicals is looking at it backwards. Romney has to sell himself to this group. Friday’s speech and statement from Dr. Dobson did a lot to help in this area.
highhopes on December 10, 2007 at 1:02 PM
Uh – oh
Spin away, spin away, spin away Dixie Land
In Arkansas where I was bored in, Huck-a-bee was pardin for them….
Another antichristian, antiGod, for all thats decent in the world why lord why would someone DARE, to look up the Pardens of good preacher
Why cause its THERE…. 1033 pardons ugg
Murderers, child murderers, molesters,
rapists, wife beaters, child beaters, drug dealers……
So take a look or bury your head in the sand and vote for him but lock up your women and children first….
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20071210/D8TEKRSO1.html
LITTLE ROCK, Ark. (AP) – As governor of Arkansas, Mike Huckabee had a hand in twice as many pardons and commutations as his three predecessors combined
more lawyers had to sue the govenor to keep murderers behind bars…
“It seems to be true at least anecdotally that if a minister is involved, (Huckabee) seems likely to grant clemency,” prosecutor Robert Herzfeld said in 2004 after successfully battling the then-governor over the release of a killer.
EricPWJohnson on December 10, 2007 at 1:03 PM
Lehosh: Like I said, I’m not sure. But SOMEONE has to be supporting the legions of professional anti-cultists, who make their living bashing every faith that doesn’t, I don’t know, pass their narrow litmus test. I’ve gone into so-called “Christian” bookstores, and a significant portion of the materials is “why members of these faiths will go to hell” style materials. It’s not just the LDS, it’s Jehovah Witnesses, Catholics, and Seventh Day-Adventists, among others.
I’ve heard of dozens of “cultist days” at some Evangelical churches. Maybe I should have clarified–I think this is more an Evangelical phenomenon than a Protestant one (I don’t think the Unitarians do this, for instance). Why they feel the need to preach about how everyone who disagrees with them on a certain point is going to hell, I don’t know, but they do.
For what it’s worth, I’m sure that if Mitt were a Jehovah’s witness, he’d be having the same issues. And again, no one that I know of can complain about their morals. It’s just that, again, he would belong to one of those “evil cults.”
Vanceone on December 10, 2007 at 1:04 PM
>
I call them as I see them and there is a distinct intolerance for Christians on this forum. It isn’t universal but there is definitely an undercurrent of Christian-bashing that goes on whenever a topic gets around to faith issues.
I am no hypocrite and I make no apologies for calling people out for their intolerance. The same holds true of political candidates who claim to be “Christian” but lead a decidedly un-Christian life or stand for un-Christian values. Rudy is a fraud being forced on the party by people who think nothing of attacking any candidate that shows the least bit of faith. I’d like to know exactly why people like you fear Christians so much? What did Christians ever do to you to make you hate them the way you clearly do. I’m very sad for those of your ilk, that you don’t know the joy of this Season and the message that comes with it.
highhopes on December 10, 2007 at 1:08 PM
I can’t speak for all Protestants, but I’ve never seen this in Episcopal or Presbyterian services in the North or South.
I’ve never had a Mormon knock on my door, but I gather that you have had your door knocked on many times. Do you happen to have copies of these materials? Maybe you could quote from some of them for us. Just looking for something to back up your claims.
Buy Danish on December 10, 2007 at 1:10 PM
Ah, I see–flat-out lying in accusing MB4 of celebrating the shootings yesterday–which he never did–is now “calling it as you see it”. Great. You never backed up your lies last night, and you still aren’t–because you can’t. Now I know why you love Huckabee so much, since you share his disregard for the truth. Disgusting.
ReubenJCogburn on December 10, 2007 at 1:13 PM
To anyone annoyed at HotAir for being “biased”: Ummmmm….it’s a BLOG, not the MSM. They’re allowed–nay, expected–to be biased! We come here to read their opinions and either agree with them or argue about it, yes?
So get off this “HA is biased for/against my candidate” BS whining, mmmkay? They’ve actually been surprisingly even-handed in their treatment of the candidates, and they’re certainly not shilling for anyone at this point. So quit peeing in the punch bowl every time HA points out a flaw or a problem with a candidate. Some of us actually came here to read it.
aero on December 10, 2007 at 1:18 PM
so if Mitt loses, will Utah sit out the 2008 general election?
bnelson44 on December 10, 2007 at 1:21 PM
Allahpundit on December 10, 2007 at 11:31 AM:
Because tying him to any and all beliefs espoused at a convention he was speaking at is fairly based on his record.
I refer you again to the Pelosi example I gave. And of course, you conveniently neglect to mention that I said I agree with Bryan that Drudge’s headline is much ado about nothing.
I can see the Huckabee supporters are going to be even whinier than the Fredheads. Looking forward to it.
……
As a teetering Huckabee supporter, balance is the most important thing so no whinery coming from me. If I think something is posted that crosses the line, I’ll say…makes me curious who defines whinery anyhow?!?!?
Dhornertx on December 10, 2007 at 1:22 PM
I find your accusations that there is “anti-Christian” sentiment at H.A. preposterous.
Generally speaking, the comments that are critical of Huckabee are based on two things: His policies, and the way he seems to use of religion to exploit voters. Too often he sounds more like a Baptist Minister more than a Presidential candidate.
That perception is not “anti-Christian”.
Buy Danish on December 10, 2007 at 1:23 PM
Ron Paul, of course. He’s right about everything.
Slublog on December 10, 2007 at 1:24 PM
I’ll admit to having only a vague understanding of the term “evangelical”… In my experience it seems to be a coverall pejorative like “neocon”. As to the actual definition, I try to keep to Reformed/Calvinist congregations myself and I haven’t seen much of all these wacky-ass activities that the evangelicals allegedly take part in, so I assume they don’t count as evangelical.
Lehosh on December 10, 2007 at 1:24 PM
Buy Danish: Right2bright can’t. S/he’s definition of “anti-Christian” is “anything a Mormon says is anti-Christian by definition” so we attack “christian faiths” by existing.
I’ve served a mission, and knocked on plenty of doors. I’ll tell you what I passed out. It was primarily copies of the Book of Mormon: Another testament of Jesus Christ.
That book contains such anti-Christian messages like this:
If people didn’t have a Bible, we also handed one of those out, if they would take it. Sometimes we handed out some videos, (primarily to people who responded to some of the advertisments). These videos taught principles such as how your family can be together forever, or a video about the last few days of Christ’s life, called the “lamb of God.” If you want to see this horrible example of “Anti-Christian” attacks, I encourage you to watch it here. Judge for yourself if it is anti-Christian. I personally think it’s one of the most touching portrayals of Christ’s last few days ever filmed, but that’s just me.
Vanceone on December 10, 2007 at 1:24 PM
Thank you for your objectivity. Personally I have no problem with Christians in general. I do, however, have an extremely low threshold for idiots, of any denomination–especially when they’re lying idiots.
ReubenJCogburn on December 10, 2007 at 1:30 PM
Hey, at least a couple of Huckabee supporters have actually come out of the shadows and admitted they’re supporting him. For awhile there, I think we were all wondering how in the world Huck could really be showing those poll numbers and yet none of us could find a single real-live Huckabee supporter in our lives or online. Seemed a bit fishy–still does, despite a couple of vocal supporters finally
speaking upwhining.aero on December 10, 2007 at 1:33 PM
Thanks – I bookmarked that video and will try to watch it later.
Buy Danish on December 10, 2007 at 2:06 PM
If broken humanity was a result of too much government, then a governmental problem likely would not have arisen from a humanity which was unbroken.
An undesirable civic system must be the product of an undesirable humanity.
Grafted on December 10, 2007 at 2:20 PM
That is just so rich coming from a taker not a giver.
MB4 on December 10, 2007 at 2:24 PM
Yes, I would still like to see some quote of mine where I said anything like “your defense of the criminals that gunned down human beings today”.
I do not even recall commenting on the matter. There are basically two possibilities here:
1) I am having blackouts.
2) “highopes” is under some kind of “Demonic procession”.
MB4 on December 10, 2007 at 2:53 PM
highhopes was just “calling it like he sees it” and showing you some “Christian love” by telling baldfaced lies about you. But remember, we’re the “intolerant” ones. Fortunately I’d never dream of judging millions of honest, decent Christians by this pathetic specimen. I just want them to use the same degree of scrutiny when they look at Huckabee.
ReubenJCogburn on December 10, 2007 at 3:07 PM
1998 Southern Baptist Convention agenda
I don’t see Gov. Huckabee on the agenda. For whom did he fill in?
If this kind of opinion really disqualifies a candidate, who can run? Allahpundit? One can only hope… but who runs against him? Kind of narrows the field to Venezuela-like size.
Jens on December 10, 2007 at 3:19 PM
I’ve had Mormons come to my door and when I explained to them that I was a Christian and didn’t see any reason to talk to them they said that there was more that I was missing and I needed to know what that was. I said that I was familiar with the beliefs of Mormonism and didn’t agree with them and they continued to tell me that they had the truth. I practically had to close the door in their faces to get them to leave. They do believe that Christians are lacking and that they have the answers that will make them complete. This is far more intrusive than a book.
Rose on December 10, 2007 at 3:50 PM
Try the Book of Mormon, honey. Try any other lit. that Mormon’s pass out. When you slur what Christians know as God, than that is anti-Christian. Christians do not think Jesus was a polygamist, as did Mormon founders, we abhor modern day living prophets taking 14 year olds as “wives” (Mormons embrace those leaders), we feel the death and resurrection of Christ is a cherished doctrine, not to be distorted. How about the many god’s that the Mormon’s believe in, we think of one perfect God, how could he be perfect if there were many God’s, kind of makes the Christian God just one of many? How about (suspended now) the baptism of Jews who have passed away. The Jews slapped (rightly so) the Mormon’s around for that. Or baptizing any one without their or their guardians permission.
Hi-jacking ones religion is a serious offense (as the Jews pointed out to your Mormon leaders).
right2bright on December 10, 2007 at 3:53 PM
If he’s speaking as a pastor, that’s one thing.
If he’s speaking as a presidential candidate – one who is supposed to do the right thing for EVERYONE in this country, even if it is informed by his faith – then I have a problem with this.
We’re electing a president, not a master pastor. He needs to show he has the wisdom to be president of ALL the people of the USA, not just one sect.
And I’m speaking as a Christian. I want who I consider the BEST candidate for president, not one who can parrot certain lines.
Mommynator on December 10, 2007 at 4:07 PM
If we start linking religious videos, we will never get out of here.
You say Book of Mormon is another testament to Christ. I say it is riddled with errors that Christ would have never made. Full of pre-Columbian civilizations, that have never been found, not even a bone fragment or coin.
You and your followers are so arrogant, that you don’t care how you smear God’s name.
Christians abhor that fact that you think man can become a God, that the death of Jesus and his resurrection is a fable to you.
We have a perfect God, and in perfection is uniqueness, only one…you have many Gods, you may only worship one, but there are many Gods, with many wives…
Passing the Book of Mormon as perfection, when it was riddled with errors, demeans our bible. You say the Book of Mormon is more accurate and from the mouth of God, but then it was full of mistakes…that makes God a fool. Once again demeaning our God.
Yeah, I can see why you like Mitt, as long as he says the things you want to hear…the truth?, unimportant, the words are the main course.
right2bright on December 10, 2007 at 4:23 PM
PM
This was in 1998 at a Baptist convention.
bnelson44 on December 10, 2007 at 4:26 PM
LDS Gospel Principles
bnelson44 on December 10, 2007 at 4:28 PM
If you look at the missionary section of the above referenced principles it says that the church originally set up by the apostles was restored by Joseph Smith. This is a direct attack against the validity of all Christian churches.
Rose on December 10, 2007 at 4:35 PM
I do think that there is a bit of competition between Christian churches and Mormons.
bnelson44 on December 10, 2007 at 4:37 PM
It’s not competition, its a desire for the truth. When the Mormons say that they have the absolute truth than it is appropriate for Christians to examine that claim.
Rose on December 10, 2007 at 4:41 PM
Bryan, I am a Bible-believing Christian and agree with your remarks and most of the comments. So when I pick a little, brother, know that it is out of love.
You wrote “…more problems and acrimony THEN we currently have.”
THAN is a conjunction used with comparisons. “I like traditional better THAN contemporary Christian music.”
THEN is an adverb that refers to time. “I’ll bring all the supplies, but THEN you’ll have to prepare the Men’s Breakfast.”
This is a common grammatical mistake that seems to be happening more and more.
drewas on December 10, 2007 at 4:50 PM
What does that have to do with the presidential campaign?
bnelson44 on December 10, 2007 at 4:54 PM
*sigh* I note Right2bright didn’t refute my claim that s/he would rather have Islamic suicide bombers than LDS converts.
With that kind of bias, is there any question that you will get absolutely nothing but hatred from him or her? Plus, a willingness to disregard the truth, lie, spin, and misquote, take out of context, etc?
I honestly expect that right2bright is really someone who has published anti-mormon material before. I think you make your living by bashing my faith.
As for Rose: Yes, we do claim to be the restored church of God. But then, don’t all sects claim to have the truth? If they don’t, then why join them?
Vanceone on December 10, 2007 at 4:54 PM
Exactly, Vinceone, that is what this conversation is about. Who has the truth. It is an honest discussion. I do not believe that Mormons have the truth, Mormons believe that they do. That disagreement does not make someone a bigot.
Rose on December 10, 2007 at 5:04 PM
Good question.
A couple more:
I’m not the swiftest on matters theological, but wasn’t Martin Luther more or less attacking the Catholic Church when he stated that one did not need the Church as an intermediary to have a relationship with God?
And thus, isn’t every denomination resulting from the Protestant Reformation essentially attacking the Catholic Church?
thirteen28 on December 10, 2007 at 5:08 PM
Martin Luther was right. But you need to really study the Mormon doctrines to understand that there is a world of difference between the Mormon beliefs and Catholic/Protestant beliefs.
Rose on December 10, 2007 at 5:11 PM
Rose: No, the conversation is whether this has any meaning to a political debate. Look, I know and have debated plenty of times about the LDS church. There’s certainly questions which can be asked, just as there are questions to be asked back.
That’s not bigotry. What IS bigotry is when those questions extend to “I won’t vote for the man because he is mormon.” See, what relevance does questions about the Trinity have to do with whether a man will run a government well? The only concern I’ve seen is that having a Mormon for president will make Mormonism more “acceptable”. If that’s the only valid reason to vote against anyone who is LDS… then that disqualifies anyone who IS LDS from running from office, and somehow getting “legitimacy” conferred upon them.
I.E. the “Mormons might be looked at better”, if allowed to be a valid reason, immediately means LDS people are reduced to second-class citizens–able to vote, but not able to run for office. LDS people have reliably voted for Evangelicalish candidates for a while–Bush. What right do you have to say that LDS candidates shouldn’t be voted for because of their faith? THAT is the bigotry part.
After all, no one has identified any teachings of the LDS church that would endanger the country. A theological disagreement over the nature of God doesn’t have any bearing on how the country is run.
Rose, this is a political blog, not a religion forum. You Evangelical types need to realize that by bringing up the tenents of the LDS church and attempting to make attacks on them a part of the political discussion, you are thereby saying that the LDS church’s beliefs disqualify someone from holding office. If that’s your argument, fine, but then don’t be surprised if people call you bigoted on the basis of religion. Because you are, if that’s the belief.
Vanceone on December 10, 2007 at 5:12 PM
According to Martin Luther, according to you, and according to Protestants in general he was right. According to Catholics, he was not.
I just find it extremely ironic that you complain about how Mormons attack your faith by practicing theirs according to their beliefs, yet at the same time you see no problem attacking the beliefs of a church that came long before yours (assuming you’re practicing a demonination that originated from the reformation).
And (pardon the pun), but for God’s sake, what the heck does any of this stuff have to do with one’s ability to be president?
thirteen28 on December 10, 2007 at 5:15 PM
Vinceone, you are mistaken. The topic of this thread was an anti-Mormon book at a convention that Huckabee was speaking at. That caused people to say that the book was bigoted. I am merely responding to that subject. A book about why Mormonism is not Christian at a convention should not even have been brought up if this was only about politics.
Rose on December 10, 2007 at 5:16 PM
thirteen28, That is exactly the point I am making. It is perfectly appropriate for the different religions to debate theology. It does not mean they are bigots. If this is not appropriate to the discussion than why did the book matter?
Rose on December 10, 2007 at 5:18 PM
Rose, So you are trying to start a debate about the tenets of Mormonism (i.e. if it is Christian or not) in a thread about Huck?
I fail to see, once more, how that has any relevance to the presidential debate.
Vanceone on December 10, 2007 at 5:23 PM
Why? Because you and millions of others would be screaming holy rapture if Mitt went to a conference where a book called “Evangelicals Unmasked: Confronting the Contradictions Between Evangelical Beliefs and True Christianity” was passed around.
That, and the fact the Huck is in a very subtle way fomenting a certain religious intolerance that is 180 degrees from that which Mitt called for in his speech last Thursday.
thirteen28 on December 10, 2007 at 5:24 PM
As for the book, Rose: it’s one thing to have a respectful debate. But that book is a polemic: it doesn’t have any pretense to being a fair, evenhanded outlook. No, it’s entire point is to attack the LDS church in as unfair a manner as possible.
Apparently, you see nothing wrong with books that explain how people who don’t believe this certain way (whatever that way is) are going to hell, and they should be glad for the privilege. Others, though, realize that one-sided attacks are usually not considered Christian (the idea of “love one another). In fact, how would you like it if I cited a book called : “Baptists unmasked: Confronting the Contradictions Between Baptist Beliefs and True Christianity.” Would you expect going in it would provide a balanced look at Baptist beliefs? No? Wouldn’t you expect that the author had an axe to grind? In fact, might even be prejudiced against Baptists unfairly?
I hope you see my point.
Vanceone on December 10, 2007 at 5:29 PM
*sigh* I don’t respond to stupid questions. gee i think i want suicide bombers to kill us all, tell me, do you still beat your wife…what a stupid, really stupid question.
*Sigh* notice how my comments are ignored, but I am personally attacked. I use quotes from their religious texts, but they yell bigot or anti-mormon when they are brought to light. Aren’t you the one that showed such indignation at being called a Mormon, but then you found out one of your official sites is Mormon.org, and that your other official site interchanges the words, LDS and Mormon? What, no apolgy? Such indignation, such anti-mormon (anti-LDS if you wish). Get off your high horse, you steal doctrine, massage it, call it your own, then feign indignation, bleat out anti-Mormon, Bigot, whatever word, just don’t acknowledge that your “living prophets” profited by marrying 14 year old girls in the name of God…Christians find that abhorrent. Now if I am wrong, that Smith and Young did not marry dozens of women, some as young as 14, set me straight. But don’t be indignant when you are called out in the open. You are the one that wanted to post a religious video.
You are the one saying the Book of Mormon is more perfect then the Bible, you are the one stealing my faith (seeing as it is oh, about 2,000 years old and yours is about 150 years old).
I hope it sinks in that you are making a mockery of Christ, and the Christian God (the only God, and the bible.
And quit whining and throwing out “anti-Mormon”, you tried that, and it ended up being an acceptable term by the LDS or Mormon church.
right2bright on December 10, 2007 at 5:29 PM
This is what Mormons believe. I wouldn’t be surprised at such a book. It is part of the discussion. Why is everyone so upset about this book? It is all about theology and the right to discuss it. You are the ones who are making it a big issue. And, anyway, I am a Fred supporter, and always have been. I personally don’t like Huckabee.
Rose on December 10, 2007 at 5:29 PM
Vinceone, someone would just write a book answering the attacks in your hypothetical book. That is what discussion is all about. And, I am not Baptist.
Rose on December 10, 2007 at 5:33 PM
My 5:29 post was for thirteen28.
Rose on December 10, 2007 at 5:36 PM
Gotcha. My answer to your question echoes that of Vanceone on December 10, 2007 at 5:29 PM.
thirteen28 on December 10, 2007 at 5:40 PM
The whole point of the SBC conference being held in Salt Lake City was to draw attention to Mormons, to point out their “differences”, and to convert them. This was known and not a secret. The SBC even created special materials called “The Mormon Puzzle” that were made available to their congregations for local training in how to witness to Mormons. The fact that there was also a book pointing out the Mormon differences is not surprising as that was the theme of the conference.
For their part, the Mormons welcomed the SBC to town, ignored their proselytizing, and continued to sell their older chapels to the Baptists so they’d have a place to worship. That is when they weren’t helping them construct new ones.
I don’t think it makes any difference that Huckabee preached at the SBC. It’s his free exercise of religion. It wasn’t anti-mormon and it shouldn’t have any affect on his campaign. Drudge is out of line.
Sebastian on December 10, 2007 at 5:44 PM
Gotcha? I don’t get it. Anyway, I think you two are making way too much of this whole thing. I have no problem with discussing my beliefs with believers or atheists. I am firm in my beliefs. Maybe those offended need to be a little less thin skinned. Look at Hitchens, thirteen28, I am sure you defend his right to publish his book?
Rose on December 10, 2007 at 5:47 PM
Gotcha = I understand that your post was in response to mine.
thirteen28 on December 10, 2007 at 5:50 PM
Defend his right to publish? Absolutely.
Think he’s an anti-religious bigot and an overzealous atheist? Absolutely again.
thirteen28 on December 10, 2007 at 5:51 PM
Fair enough. But I don’t think anyone should be afraid of defending their position. And thanks for the explanation of the gotcha.
Rose on December 10, 2007 at 5:57 PM
Me neither.
But nor do I think a candidate should try to win a nomination by trying to drive a wedge between evangelicals and Mormons, and I think Huck is doing that ever so subtly. I’m sure that’s a position Huck would be afraid to defend openly though.
thirteen28 on December 10, 2007 at 6:04 PM
I don’t know if it’s Huck or his followers. I agree it’s wrong but saying that people who don’t agree with Mormon doctrine are bigots does not add to the discussion. Talk about candidates’ qualifications and see what happens but if people keep bringing up old sermons and books than it will derail the discussion, and people have the right to respond to whatever that discussion may be and where it leads. There is too much name calling, and not enough thoughtful discourse.
Rose on December 10, 2007 at 6:08 PM
Right2bright: Tell me, what was the acceptable marriage age in the early 1830’s? Tell me, did you know that MANY people thought 14 was a decent age to get married back then? After all, they didn’t have our life expectancy.
I never showed indignation at being called Mormon, I just pointed out that is not the name of our church. And that we prefer to be referred to as Latter-day Saints. It’s you guys who have a deathly fear of “Mormonism.” Seriously, for a Lutheran, you preach far more about how evil the LDS church is than anything about Lutheranism. Tell me why Lutheranism is the correct faith, not why I’m going to hell for mine.
Or have you focused so much on how evil I am that you cannot even remember what your own faith believes? I’m sure most Lutherans on this site are embarrassed by you claiming to be one of them–because if all one knew of Lutheranism is you, I’d know nothing at all about it, except they seem to hate Mormons.
Good thing I know better, don’t I? You aren’t a Lutheran so much as anti-Mormon, or your faith is defined by your beliefs about the LDS church, isn’t it? I’ve said before, unless your living is made by writing anti-Mormon screeds, there’s really no reason for you to harp so much on the tenets of my faith. There ARE other faith traditions in the world than the LDS church, you know. I know, it’s hard for you to imagine that, but there are….. why not investigate the Buddhists for a while and tell them how they are going to hell instead of my faith? The change might do you good.
Vanceone on December 10, 2007 at 6:24 PM
?
Mormonism Unmasked: Confronting the Contradictions Between Mormon Beliefs and True Christianity
Is the title intolerant because “True” is there?
The author’s perspective is evident. Perhaps it would be intolerant to forbid the chosen title, or ban the book because of the title, or …
Hardly worth noting, really.
maverick muse on December 10, 2007 at 6:40 PM
I think “the HUCKSTER” is a perfect name for the ARKANSAS preacher. If he wins the nomination ill vote for him against any dumocrat. I PRAY that HUNTER will surge ahead as i believe hes the very best republican!GO HUNTER!!
rpower57 on December 10, 2007 at 7:23 PM
uh, typo, maybe??
hillbillyjim on December 10, 2007 at 8:13 PM
highhopes,
You made a great point that nobody has questioned whether or not the CO shootings were *hate crimes*.
Then you jumped the shark.
Your lashing out is very unseemly, and in my opinion, *unChristlike*. (Your unqualified attack on MB4 (in another thread) in particular, not that he needs me to defend him.)
Would Jesus have said that? Probably not. Still, though, it provided the best laugh that I have had all day.
I don’t question your faith, but I think you need to differentiate between *witnessing* and *reasonable discourse*.
hillbillyjim on December 10, 2007 at 8:22 PM
In other words, lighten up, dude.
hillbillyjim on December 10, 2007 at 8:24 PM
To clarify, I find the whole idea of *hate crimes* to be unqualified bullspit (either an action is a crime, or it isn’t), but if you’re gonna label, prosecute, and punish crimes against one group thusly, then you’ve gotta take’m all.
hillbillyjim on December 10, 2007 at 8:32 PM
And of the 95 thesis, which one does the Catholic church or you specifically deny?
I think all but two or three have been adopted by the Catholic church.
I guess he wasn’t so wrong afterall…just took 500 years.
right2bright on December 10, 2007 at 8:36 PM
So what I wrote was not true…oh it was, so now you are angry because it is published.
Listen, my faith is a Christian faith, not a Lutheran faith. It is some of the doctrine of grace (read the 95 thesis, and read some of Luther’s works and you will see grace in a different light). That’s what confuses Mormon’s, they do not understand the Christian faith, and the different doctrines that make up that faith. That is, the different way people worship God and Christ. It is beyond you to think that; because a man creates a church, he also creates doctrine. And each man is an individual. You have chosen to follow a man who was a bigamist, who married children (which you find nothing wrong, and no it was not proper to marry a 14 year old in the mid 1800’s, or as Young in the 1900’s), and a false prophet. I have chosen to follow Jesus Christ.
Nothing I have quoted is not true Mormon history, nor have my quotes been in error. But you resent those quotes and history, it is embarrassing to you. That is your faith, not mine, I am comfortable with my faith, I understand the weakness in men (Luther in particular with the way he perceived Jews), but he established a doctrine, not a faith. He brought Christ to the people, away from the priests.
And others are bringing Christ to you, away from your priests, you are just to stubborn to search, or to open your heart to other faiths…and quit whining about how bad people are for bringing up your history.
You don’t deny the abhorrent behavior of your prophets, you defend them. How lucky the LDS has such loyal fanatical followers…let’s hope they make better decisions in the future for you, then in the past.
BTW, is polygamy still a canonized belief in the church? I know the church denies it, but is it still part of your canon?
right2bright on December 10, 2007 at 8:51 PM
And people thought Mitt was going to be the religious fanatic!
Tzetzes on December 10, 2007 at 8:53 PM
Because the Buddhists don’t steal our history and rewrite it. They don’t go around saying they are Christians, when they aren’t. Because they respect our faith, not try to steal it. I will say again, don’t debase the bible with a “we have a better book that is perfect” when you know it has been changed and updated (some perfection), and take away our most precious belief, that of the death and resurrection…hijack it, create some other story, and then wonder why we get upset. Devalue a religion that has been around for 2,000 years, by a religion started by a “living prophet”, and be so arrogant as to think you can walk through life without being challenged. So far I have not called you any names, you have called me many names, but you have never stated that I have mis-quoted, or misrepresented your history…you don’t like how I have shined a light on it, but you haven’t said it was wrong.
So…have they found any artifacts from your Mormon civilizations? Any?
Did the Jews put the Mormon’s in their place concerning baptism? You aren’t going to allow another religion to tell you what to do or believe are you?
right2bright on December 10, 2007 at 9:02 PM
Ah, Right2Bright, you’re here. Hold on a minute. I’ll write you a response to a post you put elsewhere. Hang on…
Tzetzes on December 10, 2007 at 9:31 PM
All of this prostelyzing in the name of the Lord is fine, but to be so closed-minded to think that your interpretation of a Book that has been re- interpreted from language to language to language since it’s beginning and compilation is really astounding.
The Book itself tells us that we are imperfect, so how, in the name of God can you assert that the Bible we know is certainly The Bible?
I find it to be the height of arrogance and egotism to believe that one’s way is the only path to Heaven.
The God that I believe in is a magnanimous one, the one who inspired His Son to dare the sanctimonious crowd to cast the first stone.
Of course to all of the ultra-righteous out there, I am SO wrong. But that is what I believe, and you can feel free to attack it as you will.
hillbillyjim on December 10, 2007 at 9:44 PM
hillbillyjim, are you saying that it is ok for the LDS to claim that they are the only true church but it is not ok for anyone to challenge them on that belief?
Rose on December 10, 2007 at 9:52 PM
Dear Right2Bright:
Okay, I just wrote you a follow-up to our discussion of monotheism, here.
Vanceone, you might find it interesting as well.
Tzetzes on December 10, 2007 at 9:59 PM
Hillbilly Jim:
Everyone needs to be grounded in something. The Mormons have living prophets. The Catholics have an infallible Pope and the wisdom of tradition. Both have scripture, but not only, and scripture is interpreted by prophets (in the Mormon case) or tradition (in the Catholic). Protestants, or at least the more radical kind (Lutherans & Episcopalians may be different) reject both. But they still need one definite foundation, so they go (like that guy on the stupid YouTube debate) with sola scriptura: only the Bible; full, complete, literal and infallible.
Everybody’s got to have something.
Tzetzes on December 10, 2007 at 10:04 PM
I am saying that it is OK for them to claim anything that they want to claim. That doesn’t mean that I have to believe it.
If it came to that point, then ol’ hillbillyjim might raise more than a little hell.
We live in a country, (thank God!) that allows anyone to profess, believe, and worship in the manner of their choosing.
It is OK for anyone to claim any damn thing that floats their boat. Don’t you get it.
The point is that I am empowered by our Constitution to agree to, or oppose, any damn religion that I choose.
Or choose no religion at all.
Isn’t that what this great experiment that we call the USA was founded on? If not, please explain.
hillbillyjim on December 10, 2007 at 10:18 PM
Since Christianity was established by the apostles, Paul and Peter mostly, it only makes since that they should be the authority about what is and what isn’t Christianity. And as far as this statement that there have been a lot of different translations, it would be the same as if ten or fifteen different people translated Mein Kampf into English. The basic translations would be the same but there would be differences in the order of sentences and the use of different synonyms. The King James version of the Bible was translated into the language that was in common use at that time. The different translations that are found today are the results of translators going back to the original documents used for the King James Bible and translating them into today’s more common English. There are few differences in these translations, and none that change the meaning of the original text.
Rose on December 10, 2007 at 10:25 PM
And how write you are hillbillyjim. A wonderful evening to you,
Entelechy on December 10, 2007 at 10:39 PM
I find this to be disingenuous at the best. At the other end of the scale, probably closer to blind cultism.
Are you trying to assert that the King James Bible is the end-all Truth?
if so, you need to Google a little and learn that from Aramaic to Ye Olde Englishe was a long journey, with many side roads.
I admire your staunch defence of your beliefs; however, I hope that you will investigate some more on your own, so as to come to your own conclusions, as opposed to those that you learned by rote.
Again, I don’t question your beliefs or their legitimacy. Only your fervor in opposing those who disagree with your interpretation of what is at best an unclear history.
No offense intended, Rose. I just want you, and everyone else who is quick to condemn that which isn’t part of their own brand of faith, to open your mind to the possibility that the Lord is bigger than all of these compartmentalized squabbles, and will welcome us all.
hillbillyjim on December 10, 2007 at 10:40 PM
Entelechy,
I am fantastic, and glad to be alive to breathe another breath. Sometimes I get a little down, and then I look around and realize just how fortunate that I am.
Always great to hear from you, E. You are one of the brightest lights in this particular world. I think I’ll risk turning your cheeks another shade of rose and say again: you are a treasure.
You keep doing what you do.
Sincerely,
hbj
hillbillyjim on December 10, 2007 at 10:48 PM
I am saying that as a Christian the original texts used to translate the King James Bible are the texts that define Christianity. They were retranslated into more modern English. These documents were the letters written by the apostles to the churches explaining doctrine and how the church and the church leaders were to conduct themselves. These letters contain the doctrines that established Christianity. The churches would pass these letters around and make copies for themselves. These texts are dated within 70 years of Christ. There is more evidence for the validity of these texts than any other ancient texts. If you claim to be a Christian than these texts must be the basis for your beliefs and doctrines.
Rose on December 10, 2007 at 10:50 PM
Here you doubt my claim to be a Christian, and insist that yours is the only way, all in one sentence.
I find this to be not only closed-minded, but borderline bigotry, as much as I dislike the casual use of that word.
I won’t waste Michelle’s hard-won bandwidth and everyone else’s time debating someone whose mind is clearly already closed to debate, and obviously already has ALL of the answers.
Good night to you, Rose.
hillbillyjim on December 10, 2007 at 11:05 PM
You never said you were a Christian, that was a generic statement. You seem a little mixed up. Calling me names does not help your argument, whatever it may be. As far as a closed mind, read your own post.
Rose on December 10, 2007 at 11:09 PM
Rose,
You are taking offense where none was meant. Also, I challenge you to qualify your assertion that I must be *mixed up*. I never called names, just described your comments.
I think most reasonable people would infer from that statement that I was indeed a believing Christian, but maybe you were skimming the comments, so I will give you the benefit of the doubt.
hillbillyjim on December 10, 2007 at 11:28 PM
My apologies for misunderstanding. However, there is a basis for Christianity and if it doesn’t come from the apostles who walked with Jesus and ministered with Him and after His death, where else would it come from?
Rose on December 10, 2007 at 11:35 PM
I think we must agree to disagree, Rose. I understand the knee-jerk reaction, as I have been attacked for my *silly, absurd, baseless* beliefs more times than I can count.
I think that we probably both agree on basic Christian philosophy, only I don’t find it likely that the Bible that was written so many years ago has withstood translation from Aramaic to Greek to Roman to ….to believe that the King James Version is something more holy or even more accurate (and most likely less) than any other.
The humans involved in all of this handing down and translation are after all, human, subject to human error and mistakes and temptation to change a word or two to benefit themselves or their “cliques” or their position or…
The Good Lord in Heaven gave us a free will and a mind capable of reasonable thought for a purpose.
Just something to think about.
Most definitely no hard feelings…just trying to challenge old assumptions and urge free-thinking folks to think freely and question themselves before they accept dogma that is sometimes taken for truth before it has been thought through, much less debated reasonably.
hillbillyjim on December 10, 2007 at 11:50 PM
My husband has been studying the Bible for over 30 years, the validity of the original texts, dating, authors. There is far more evidence for the truth of Christianity as based on these texts than there is against it. There has been a lot put out there to try and attack these evidences and when examined by scholars such as my husband and others who have studied even longer than he has, these attacks are found empty and without basis. We have examined the debates and as a family do not believe what we believe lightly. The evidence to us is overwhelming and this has come through research and study.
Rose on December 11, 2007 at 12:00 AM
I am sure then, that you realize that what the original texts say differ sometimes little and sometimes a lot from KJV.
King James was an autocrat with his own agenda, and I have never found anything in any scripture to lend his interpretation any more weight than any other. Yet it is accepted as THE WORD by most folks.
If your husband has spent thirty years of his life researching and studying the Bible, I am sure he would be the first to agree.
hillbillyjim on December 11, 2007 at 12:12 AM
Didn’t mean to be a *thread-hog*, but this is fascinating and important to me. Sorry folks, for being so long-winded.
hillbillyjim on December 11, 2007 at 12:14 AM
THANKS, HOTAIR GANG, FOR THE FORUM.
hillbillyjim on December 11, 2007 at 12:16 AM
My apologies hillbillyjim – I used ‘write’ instead of ‘right’. I just corrected myself. Darn foreigners – it all sounds the same :) Yes, you made me blush again but that’s ok. I inherited that from my mother, whom I lost when I was 13 and she was 33, to cancer. She was a beautiful lady, inside and out, a non-dogmatic Christian who never tried to convert anyone. She simply believed and let others do the same.
Remember that we all sometimes get down, but then we must pick ourselves up and count our blessings, as you say. We are the lucky ones. Check in to HA often. It’s a good place to get one’s mind absorbed with all sorts of distractions. It’s also informative and never boring. With best regards, and smile,
Entelechy on December 11, 2007 at 12:19 AM
:)
hillbillyjim on December 11, 2007 at 12:26 AM
I never said the King James Version was infallible. I said it was translated into the language that was in use at that time. I do believe that the newer translations that have been translated from the oldest known texts are credible and useful for study. I had a professor in college who was so fluent in Greek that he didn’t even bother with a translation. He had a Greek New Testament that was based on the oldest known Greek translation and he would translate to English the verses we were studying. There were no differences between what he was translating and the Revised Standard versions that we were using as text books.
Rose on December 11, 2007 at 12:33 AM
You the man, girl. I can’t believe my computer just said that!!
hillbillyjim on December 11, 2007 at 12:35 AM
I’m really surprised that all of you missed the big sin:
The only people allowed to mix politics and church are Democrats: it’s simply not allowed for anybody else.
And Democrats not only get to take over the service and walk out with the collection plate, they also get to mock the parishioners’ accents.
Really…where have you all been???
landlines on December 11, 2007 at 12:56 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »