Huckabee: ”Don’t Mormons believe that Jesus and the devil are brothers?”
posted at 10:50 pm on December 11, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
I said I hoped we were done with Huck for the night. I didn’t say we were.
I’ll give him a pass here. Granted, he shouldn’t be wondering aloud about the doctrinal niceties of other faiths, particularly this one under the present circumstances. But a lot of people operate under a lot of misconceptions about Mormonism, it seems. No need to impute bad faith where simple ignorance will do.
Of course, that’s what I said at first about the “Christian Leader” ad. An LDS spokesman smells a rat:
The authoritative Encyclopedia of Mormonism, published in 1992, does not refer to Jesus and Satan as brothers. It speaks of Jesus as the son of God and of Satan as a fallen angel, which is a Biblical account.
A spokeswoman for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints said Huckabee’s question is usually raised by those who wish to smear the Mormon faith rather than clarify doctrine.
”We believe, as other Christians believe and as Paul wrote, that God is the father of all,” said the spokeswoman, Kim Farah. ”That means that all beings were created by God and are his spirit children. Christ, on the other hand, was the only begotten in the flesh and we worship him as the son of God and the savior of mankind. Satan is the exact opposite of who Christ is and what he stands for.”
Maybe Romney should take to casually wondering what specie of property women in covenant marriages are regarded as being. I have a feeling he won’t, though. Exit question: Why does Mitt worship Satan?
Update: A reader sends this link to the LDS website as evidence that Huck’s getting a bad rap from the AP:
We needed a Savior to pay for our sins and teach us how to return to our Heavenly Father. Our Father said, “Whom shall I send?” (Abraham 3:27). Two of our brothers offered to help. Our oldest brother, Jesus Christ, who was then called Jehovah, said, “Here am I, send me” (Abraham 3:27)…
Satan, who was called Lucifer, also came, saying, “Behold, here am I, send me, I will be thy son, and I will redeem all mankind, that one soul shall not be lost, and surely I will do it; wherefore give me thine honor” (Moses 4:1).
Sounds from this like we’re all brothers, Christ and Satan included, which jibes with what the LDS spokesman quoted in the article said. Huck isn’t technically wrong, in other words, although he does seem to be suggesting a special sibling relation between Christ and Satan — as though Mormons somehow equate the two — that I’m not seeing in this passage. As noted above, I’m willing to chalk it up to simple misunderstanding. Our LDS readers can take it from there in the comments.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »
Theology:
1. The study of the nature of God and religious truth; rational inquiry into religious questions.
2. A system or school of opinions concerning God and religious questions: Protestant theology; Jewish theology.
3. A course of specialized religious study usually at a college or seminary.
Who’s theology. There seems to be quite a number of them, not to mention all the interpretations.
MB4 on December 12, 2007 at 12:38 AM
How many dimensions are there? Can’t there be an infinite amount, each with an infinite God?
Tzetzes on December 12, 2007 at 12:38 AM
Who’s theology? I am! ;)
Tzetzes on December 12, 2007 at 12:39 AM
Nothing that is real can exist outside of space and time.
MB4 on December 12, 2007 at 12:40 AM
Sure it can. God created “real”, “space”, and “time”.
Pilgrim on December 12, 2007 at 12:42 AM
We are finding out that yes, there can be a lot of dimensions. Can man even grasp the fundamentals of trying to understand the nature of God? Don’t know the answer to that one. I know a lot of men who have spent their lives in that pursuit and when they finally get somewhere (we call them mystics), they can’t express it in scientific terms.
bnelson44 on December 12, 2007 at 12:42 AM
A, real. Now we have another term in need of a definition, along with god, father and create.
Tzetzes on December 12, 2007 at 12:43 AM
I meant, “ah, real.”
Tzetzes on December 12, 2007 at 12:43 AM
Now come on, you can’t possibly know this as a fact. We didn’t think curved space was possible a few years ago, and we thought you couldn’t go faster than light, nor slow light down until just recently. In fact, they think now that light exists outside of time.
bnelson44 on December 12, 2007 at 12:45 AM
Sorry for the delay in replying, my GF called and I was with her.
bnelson: Lucifer was an angel, sure. He’s just a Spirit now. Angel is kind of a loose definition; it means messenger of God. Thus, in Revelations, Christ refers to the angels of the seven churches, when it’s clear He meant the leaders of the seven churches, the mortal leaders.
As for husbands and wives having children: One must be married to do that, and as Christ said, there is no marrying or giving in marriage in Heaven. That’s an earthly thing. In other words, the only people ever on this Earth are children of God. What happens in the future is mostly speculative; i.e. the task we have is to GET to heaven, not worry about what we will do once we are there.
Tzetzes: When we say Father, we mean just that–He is the Father of our spirits. We are his offspring, as Paul says. Just as you have an earthly father, so too do we have a Heavenly Father who loves us as a father.
What do we mean by the term God? God is our Father: he is all powerful, all Holy, all God. He is the creator, governor, the King, if you will. And we are His children.
Note, “Mormon Doctrine” is not LDS canon, nor is it that useful. It was not authorized by the LDS church, nor is it endorsed. So I’d be really cautious in using that.
To Tim Burton: Ah, but the LDS church does not follow the Nicene Creed. We have never claimed to be “Orthodox Christian,” so the fact that this set of beliefs doesn’t square with the Nicene creed bothers me not at all. I would submit, however, that the LDS beliefs about God are much closer to the original Saints than anything the Nicene creed preaches.
Vanceone on December 12, 2007 at 12:47 AM
Hey now, not all of us are being had by this Shuckster. Besides being an Iowan, I’m also a Baptist, and I still wouldn’t vote for this asshat.
We didn’t all vote for those asshats either.
Gianni on December 12, 2007 at 12:47 AM
Great Gods have little Gods upon their backs to bite ‘em,
And little Gods have lesser Gods, and so ad infinitum.
And the great Gods themselves, in turn, have greater Gods to go on, While these again have greater still, and greater still, and so on.
- Augustus De Morgan
MB4 on December 12, 2007 at 12:49 AM
Out of what?
MB4 on December 12, 2007 at 12:50 AM
Thank you for the reply. I am glad I waited. It cleared up a few questions. The no marrying in heaven was the key LDS concept I didn’t know. Our concepts of what happens in heaven (and even the nature of heaven) are different than yours, but now I understand better what you believe and I appreciate it.
Guys, it’s getting late for me, and I have hit the hay. For those who want to know what Catholics believe about all this, I will refer you to this site:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/index.html
It is a Catholic Encyclopedia from the 1920s, but contains most of our spiritual beliefs in it. Items like scientific knowledge is dated.
bnelson44 on December 12, 2007 at 12:52 AM
Then “they” must be drunk again.
MB4 on December 12, 2007 at 12:52 AM
I read that at first as grandfather, and then did a double-take.
But as to father, I get your point that the relationship between man and God is that between parent and child. But what is that relationship (including on earth)? I mean, what is your father or your son? If father means in heaven what it means on earth, what does it mean on earth?
I think father is a much trickier word than King.
Tzetzes on December 12, 2007 at 12:52 AM
Remember, God is infinite, he doesn’t need anything to create anything.
I’ll let you chew on that one.
night.
bnelson44 on December 12, 2007 at 12:53 AM
Getting late for you? I’m in Greece, GMT+2. It’s eight in the morning here and I’ve been at the computer since two…
Tzetzes on December 12, 2007 at 12:54 AM
Can I just say that I’m grateful the normal “anti-Mormon” crowd hasn’t shown up yet? This has been a civil discussion to this point; I expect that to change once they come.
To the question of God and infinity…. the Jews and early Christians were, without question, believers in an Anthropomorphic God. I.E. a God in human form, with arms, legs, head, mouth, etc. I don’t think there is much debate about that.
The LDS church follows suit. We too believe in a God that is human, or human shaped. God created man in His own image–that is a literal statement. I think most Orthodox Christians do as well–after all, what is Christ except a divine human? He didn’t change shape or lose it after He was resurrected.
This doesn’t limit God, of course. My definition of All powerful, for instance, is that God has all power that is possible to have. So is God infinite? Physically, no. He has a defined shape, that is finite and occupies a definite spot. Thus, we could feel, touch, or thrust our hand into the wounds on Christ’s feet and side. But he has infinite mercy, justice, intelligence, etc.
I think most Christians intuitively understand this, as well. When they pray, most people imagine themselves praying to a God who looks like them–not some mist or something.
Vanceone on December 12, 2007 at 12:56 AM
Sorry if you’re not round to answer, but what does create mean? (Anyone?) Is it to pull something out of nothing? (I agree with King Lear, that ex nihilo nihil fit). Is creation to give order to something already there? That seems a lot more sensible to me, though I don’t know if Aristotle & Aquinas would approve…
Tzetzes on December 12, 2007 at 12:57 AM
I have no problem with that at all. If you know something, if you can recall it to mind and thus re-experience it, then it’s in you, even if you have physical dimensions. (In fact, there’s something rather Buddhist about that, it seems to me.)
Tzetzes on December 12, 2007 at 12:59 AM
I’m still here but I shouldn’t be, so I will throw a link at you. Hope this helps (or at least is tantalizing):
Creation
bnelson44 on December 12, 2007 at 1:02 AM
Um, chill, and just believe that there is something conscience that is both bigger than us and older than us, and you will get the gest of it all.
You are not the coolest, newest thing out there, just the loudest recently.
Go out to the edge of civilization, just you, at night, with the stars above, and sit, exposed, and think. you will believe in something bigger than your puny little DNA bag.
AZCON on December 12, 2007 at 1:02 AM
Have a good night, bnelson.
Tzetzes: A father is just that: the creator of your physical body, on earth. Thus, your father here on earth provided half of the instructions to make up your physical body; you take after his characteristics, and you can grow up to be like him.
In Heaven, it is the same. God is the father of our spirits–He created them in some fashion, but we are related to Him. We inherit some of His characteristics, and we have the potential to grow and become like Him.
So in reality, we have two fathers: our earthly father, who provided our physical body, and the Father of spirits, who provided us with US–our spirits, our intelligence, our personality. Just as we grow in strength and stature here on earth, acquiring the possibilities to do the things our fathers do–his strength, reproducing, etc–we can do the same with our Heavenly Father. So our relationship with our Heavenly Father should be simple: He is literally our Father–we can go to him for advice, blessings, help, and because we are His children, He is anxious to please and bless us.
He is vitally concerned for our welfare, as any parent is concerned with their child. He is approachable, caring, and wants what is best for us, and if we follow and listen to His commandments, He will bless us with all He has.
I hope that helps.
Vanceone on December 12, 2007 at 1:04 AM
Well if that were true he would have had to have created things out of himself, then he would no longer be infinite.
MB4 on December 12, 2007 at 1:06 AM
And in the LDS church, there is no Creation Ex Nihilo… rather, God organizes what was already there. Matter cannot spring spontaneously into existence–it has to come from somewhere.
Vanceone on December 12, 2007 at 1:07 AM
Well, I just had an epiphany.
The High Reverend Huckster has won as he has us spending our time debating religion instead of politics.
MB4 on December 12, 2007 at 1:08 AM
And historically and theologically you would be wrong. I know the LDS Church doesn’t accept the Nicene Creed, even though unlike your implication, it was taken virtually word for word from earlier doctrinal creeds. For the LDS to hold to it would destroy the foundation that you believe. That Christ was created.
It was the church fathers who did hold the Nicene Creed as an accurate representation of Christ. The point is that if they believed that Arius was unorthodox in his doctrine and heretical in his teaching, then neither can the Mormons be called Orthodox Christians, hence if they aren’t orthodox Christians, then they must be a Christian Cult.
I also notice that you didn’t address Ephesians, Hebrews 2 and 12 in your response to my dismissal of the claim that Christ was born and our “brother (by imlication of blood)”.
Tim Burton on December 12, 2007 at 1:10 AM
I heard a rumor that when they read the headline about the devil, they all made a run on the paint store to get cans of paint to paint D-E-V-I-L on Mormon churches.
MB4 on December 12, 2007 at 1:12 AM
Something before substance (hypostasis)? I don’t buy it. Being from non-being? Makes no sense to me. That goes for us as well. I’m sure we always existed but don’t remember it, except perhaps in rare mystic flashes. Plus, had we been made of nothing, surely we would have come out already perfect, eh? But if we’re being organized out of something pre-existent, from a God whose godhead comes from his ability so to organize, then it makes sense that we’re currently in the process of becoming more like him.
Can you be a Christian Buddhist?
That’s my rushed response. My own
grandfathergirlfriend has come up to the internet cafe, needs to take the bus to the university, and wants to take me for a yummy spanakopita. So, see y’all later…Tzetzes on December 12, 2007 at 1:14 AM
Us. Heh, heh.
RushBaby on December 12, 2007 at 1:17 AM
D’oh! I made the mistake of looking at this before leaving.
I don’t think Mormons teach that.
Non sequitur.
Ah, you wrote yours as I was writing mine. In that, at least, I’m totally with you.
Bye!
Tzetzes on December 12, 2007 at 1:18 AM
Again that is not an orthodox belief and most Christians do not believe that, not Catholics nor Protestants.
We believe God created us in his image as compared to the animals. What sets us apart from the animals is that we have an understanding of morality that is not given to animals. Hence, they kill a baby and eat it, it was done by instinct and nature. If Man kills a baby and eats it, then it was an immoral act.
Also, we have the ability to think rationally, where as animals lack this ability. They only can think instinctively.
While there is no point in arguing why you are wrong, the issue is that most Christians do not believe that God has a literal body. To claim otherwise is dishonest.
Before you throw up the objection that Christ had a body, I will address it. Christ had a body when he lowered himself to be born as a man. This is most easily answered by the understanding that Christ was both 100% God and 100% man at the same time. His physical body was 100% man, while his spirit was 100% God. Therefore if his spirit was fully God and his body fully man, then he must not have had a body before Creation (or as I would argue before his birth).
Tim Burton on December 12, 2007 at 1:19 AM
Took it the good way – not to worry – that was meant only for MB4, the sister thing.
Entelechy on December 12, 2007 at 1:22 AM
Now that does make sense.
MB4 on December 12, 2007 at 1:28 AM
Our, yours, RushBaby’s and my favorite subject.
Entelechy on December 12, 2007 at 1:28 AM
Oh yes, they do. Even Vanceone acknowledges it.
The crux of the issue is on your definition of eternal. They believe Christ was pre-existent as we all were, but that doesn’t equate eternality. To claim otherwise requires a irrational twist in words.
There is a reason that they call Jesus, “First-Born” They are not talking about inheritance as I was earlier. They are talking about actual birth/creation.
Tim Burton on December 12, 2007 at 1:33 AM
Dear Santa.
I have been a good citizen in the year 2007. All I want for Christmas is a fly swatter.
Cookies on the buffet—————————————–>
RushBaby on December 12, 2007 at 1:33 AM
It has been a looooonnnng time but that is what I was taught in Sunday school. Christ was created by God and immaculate conception.
MB4 on December 12, 2007 at 1:38 AM
RushBaby, you still believe in Santa?
On a serious note, I sure wish for next Christmas season to be cheerier than this one. This is a crazy time. Today was exhausting, with all these nutty statements from the contenders.
Entelechy on December 12, 2007 at 1:39 AM
Tim Burton: So what happened to Christ’s body? Did he just happen to get rid of it, or does He still have it? If He still has it, He’s a divine human.
I know that it’s not orthodox dogma, but what I meant is that most Christians to themselves imagine God in human form. They pray to a God that can listen, not just sit there formlessly. God’s face smiles on them. It’s not doctrine, I agree, but I would wager that most Christians believe it.
I’m not going to try to persuade you, but it’s clear that the early Church had a definite anthropomorphic view of God, that was changed. Also the idea of Christ as subordinate to God the father–universally held in the Early Church, yet removed by the Nicene creed.
I think it’s kind of odd that the Bible is full of God with a body, yet the prevailing view is that “those ignorant Jews and early Christians didn’t know that God was just fooling them–He doesn’t REALLY have that stuff.” Says who? The times man has communicated with Deity, God has had a body. That’s what the Bible teaches.
Vanceone on December 12, 2007 at 1:41 AM
For the record, some commentators have mentioned that the LDS church is much more Jewish than most “Orthodox Christian” religions. We have a lot more Jewish theology, definitions, etc. than most. Someone once said that the LDS church is kind of like if Peter’s theology instead of Paul’s were the dominating factor nowadays.
Vanceone on December 12, 2007 at 1:44 AM
That was what I was taught in Sunday school.
MB4 on December 12, 2007 at 1:46 AM
I don’t think Mormonism would say that all it’s beliefs are new. In fact they would agree that many of them are beliefs that can be found in the first and second century, and even older to the time of the first temple. The fact that orthodox Christianity has rejected theses ideas anciently and that the Mormons believe them as truths today also follows Mormon doctrine that Christianity fell into an apostasy and that a Restoration was necessary.
Orthodox Christianity would like to believe that they made all the right choices in determining truth from heresy for 2000 years without revelation and just the intellect of me. That some how God watched over and protected the doctrine is not true because it does not follow the plan of God. He has consistently called prophets to guide his church since the beginning. Notice that the Jews fell into apostasy following the death of their prophets.
So the fact that for 2000 years many of these ideas have been discussed and rejected as heresy doesn’t hold water to a Mormon who believes that God restored truths through a living prophet.
Sebastian on December 12, 2007 at 1:54 AM
Same here, in preparation for the Protestant confirmation (at the age of 14). But I was admonished repeatedly for asking too many clarifying questions, even at that young age (11-13).
Entelechy on December 12, 2007 at 1:55 AM
Nah, but do believe in cookies.
Am I gonna hafta come out there and cheer you up—in person?
RushBaby on December 12, 2007 at 1:55 AM
You’re invited for next year’s San Diego HA get-together. Hopefully we’ll have something to celebrate. Today didn’t leave that impression. I’m getting very frustrated with the field of morons, on both sides.
There’s a rumor that Oprah might have said something weird about “whities” – it might get hot on the left too, hotter than usual. Always watch who you invite to your parties is the lesson – also for Obama. MKH might have the very last laugh on that one.
Entelechy on December 12, 2007 at 1:59 AM
I console myself with the thought that once the general voting population gets a good look at this buffoon, he’s toast.
WasatchMan on December 12, 2007 at 1:59 AM
Well at least it doesn’t sound like they tried to do an exorcism on you.
MB4 on December 12, 2007 at 2:06 AM
God is __________________________________________.
God isn’t ________________________________________ .
(Dark matter takes up the rest.)
profitsbeard on December 12, 2007 at 2:07 AM
But you profitsbeard emanate so much light. So glad you’re here.
Entelechy on December 12, 2007 at 2:10 AM
Win, lose, or draw, there will be something to celebrate.
Morons? What morons? I’m looking around here and I don’t see any mo —————-*splat*
oh.
RushBaby on December 12, 2007 at 2:12 AM
Whatever they tried, it all failed.
MB, hold the fort for 3 days. I’m off to FL for business in the morning and not sure if the B&B in GA will have internet access. Make sure all here don’t get out of line too much. If I can, I’ll check in to help out.
Entelechy on December 12, 2007 at 2:13 AM
Hey profitsbeard! Do Entelechy and/or I “scare” you?
RushBaby on December 12, 2007 at 2:14 AM
MB4, watch out particularly for RuchBaby. He likes wine in the evenings…
Entelechy on December 12, 2007 at 2:17 AM
Sie gehen mit Gott.
MB4 on December 12, 2007 at 2:17 AM
Now I can sleep well, secure that all will be taken care of. All that preparation was futile. You are simply too funny. May you live to be 120, at least.
Entelechy on December 12, 2007 at 2:20 AM
Blech, that s/b RushBaby, not RuchBaby, and I haven’t had any alcohol, whatever.
Entelechy on December 12, 2007 at 2:20 AM
How do you know that I am not older than that already?
I do have AB blood after all, the universal recipient.
You know what that means.
MB4 on December 12, 2007 at 2:24 AM
Well, folks, I’m taking off…. I fully expect morning to find a bunch of hysterical rantings here about how Mormons pervert the truth, etc etc. I’m glad we’ve had fun tonight, though, and some educational time, I hope.
Take care, all!
Vanceone on December 12, 2007 at 2:26 AM
Vaya con Dios, MB4 and Entelechy.
RushBaby on December 12, 2007 at 2:28 AM
And Vanceone. Your contributions are heartfelt, rational, informative, and welcome.
RushBaby on December 12, 2007 at 2:30 AM
MB, I have a weird type too, and I’m Transylvanian. Yes, yours
I figure that you’re in your fifties.
Now we’re special and safe, loved by RB. You’re a riot, both of you. I’m glad to know you. Never behave, fully.
Entelechy on December 12, 2007 at 2:32 AM
You know, every time I hear more about Huckabee, I hate the guy more and more.
I find it outrageous that he’s making calculated insults against an entire religion just because he’s running against a person who is a member of that religion. SCREW HIM. I don’t care what religion he is or his opponent is. This is fucking America. It doesn’t matter. What matters are values and a person’s judgment, character, and policies. Religion can inform all of that, but I don’t care if a man thinks the Sun is a Fire God, so long as he’s honest, has good character, and his policies are in line.
This sly attempt by Huckabee to dangle the thread of bigotry against Romney just because the man is a Mormon is unbelievably despicable. And I say that as a Catholic who thinks Mormonism is a bunch of bunk. Does Huckabee think we’re too stupid to see just what sort of power-play this really is? He’s trying to play to an evangelical base that would refuse to vote for anyone but their own? I don’t think evangelicals are that balkanized from the rest of the country, and I don’t think they’ll accept it.
Huckabee is a despicable, disgusting person for doing this. And despite his past as a “Christian minister,” this attempt at bigotry tells me all I need to know about him. What a degenerate. I will never, ever vote for this man, period.
Sydney Carton on December 12, 2007 at 3:13 AM
You know, every time I hear more about Huckabee, I hate the guy more and more.
I find it outrageous that he’s making calculated insults against an entire religion just because he’s running against a person who is a member of that religion. SCREW HIM. I don’t care what religion he is or his opponent is. This is America. It doesn’t matter. What matters are values and a person’s judgment, character, and policies. Religion can inform all of that, but I don’t care if a man thinks the Sun is a Fire God, so long as he’s honest, has good character, and his policies are in line.
This sly attempt by Huckabee to dangle the thread of bigotry against Romney just because the man is a Mormon is unbelievably despicable. And I say that as a Catholic who thinks Mormonism is a bunch of bunk. Does Huckabee think we’re too stupid to see just what sort of power-play this really is? He’s trying to play to an evangelical base that would refuse to vote for anyone but their own? I don’t think evangelicals are that balkanized from the rest of the country, and I don’t think they’ll accept it.
Huckabee is a despicable, disgusting person for doing this. And despite his past as a “Christian minister,” this attempt at bigotry tells me all I need to know about him. What a degenerate. I will never, ever vote for this man, period.
Sydney Carton on December 12, 2007 at 3:17 AM
Thank you, thank you.
WasatchMan on December 12, 2007 at 3:19 AM
Welcome to the party, pal.
Nessuno on December 12, 2007 at 5:07 AM
This satan Jesus business has been perpetrated by Southern Baptists for years. Huckles needs to express more of this Bapto-programming and watch his poll numbers collapse.
“Dont drink…dont chew…dont run with wimmin who do.”
saved on December 12, 2007 at 5:13 AM
Oh, the memories…when I read this I was reminded of the 1970’s Mormon musical “My Turn On Earth” from my brief Mormon days. One song is “I Have A Plan”. It’s Jesus and Lucifer, brothers in the pre-existence, arguing with God about who should come down to earth and be the savior. Jesus sings “in choosing I know they’ll learn and they’ll grow and Father the glory to thee” and Lucifer sings “I will force them to live righteously…and give all the glory to me”. Actually, I liked the voice of the guy who sang the Lucifer part best-he was passionate and soulful; the weak Jesus singer sounded like Bob on Sesame Street. Anyway, they were definitely brothers as presented to me by my Mormon missionary pals.
deedledee on December 12, 2007 at 6:58 AM
162 comments and no one has challenged this false claim?
Farah follows LDS teaching here, alluding to Ephesians 4:6 in a dishonest fashion.
Looks pretty cut and dry – “all” means just that, right? Expand your horizons just a bit and notice that this phrase is only part of a much longer sentence involving verses 4, 5 and 6 (emphasis mine).
Paul wasn’t addressing the whole world here; he’s talking to those who have been called by God into the faith, i.e. believing Christians. This “oneness” is to be shared by all those in Christ’s church.
Look at the larger context… the entire 32 verses of Ephesians 4 deal with this oneness theme – unity of purpose in the Christian daily walk. For even more enlightenment, read the entire epistle. In the first three verses of Chapter 2, Paul reminds his believing audience in Ephesus that they ALL were NOT saints before they came to faith (including himself).
Those not yet saved aren’t “God’s children,” they are children of wrath, i.e. those deserving of punishment. In Matthew 13:38, Jesus identifies the saved and the lost as the “sons of the kingdom” and the “sons of the evil one.” As an expression of family relationship, Christ made clear who His family members are (Matthew 12:50):
The Mormon claim of God’s universal fatherhood offends any Christian to the core of his or her being. The Mormon theology of Elohim’s prodigious output of spiritual children (Jesus the first) includes the embarrassing notion of a physical union between Elohim and Mary to “beget” Jesus in the flesh!
If man was to be exalted to godhood in Joseph Smith’s theology, the biblical notion of God’s immutability had to be abolished, along with Christ’s eternal deity as expressed, for example, in John 1. Mormons must also reject Christ’s role as Creator, Sustainer and the One for whom all things were made.
No, Ms. Farah, Mormons do not believe as Christians believe. But Jesus Christ can be found in the Word of God, and thus there is hope for all the living.
T J Green on December 12, 2007 at 7:11 AM
Religious attacks on Romney are lame, to be candid. It is very unbecoming — especially from Huckabee, one who many “average americans” would consider a “Bible thumper.”
But, I wonder why none of the candidates has attacked Mormonism’s racial history — i.e. its exclusion of blacks from full membership until the late 1970s. My guess is because Mitt’s dad was one of the signatories on the Mormon church’s order commanding its member congregations to grant blacks full membership. But still, it’s fertile ground.
Outlander on December 12, 2007 at 7:24 AM
On the scale of appropriateness, this question ranks somewhere between ‘Is one or both of your wives for beating?” and “Boxers or br–oh, sorry…nevermind!”
James on December 12, 2007 at 7:36 AM
Hmm, Huck is right. But that seems really stupid. How about the nonsense that all Western Christian churches practiced a hundred years ago? The idea that each little denomination itself was the Body and everyone else was unsaved, because (for instance) they didn’t believe the mayor could elect a pastor?
Or the idea that somehow these restoration churches trace their lineage back to the early church … without actually doing so?
I’m no fan of Mormonism, but it would be like a ‘bible-thumping’ protestant pastor to shoot off his mouth about the weirdness… it’s almost like Mitt is a fly trap.
RiverCocytus on December 12, 2007 at 7:39 AM
It’s the Mittmus test. If you can make it through your speeches without ad hominem-ing Mitt on his Mormonism you’re electable.
RiverCocytus on December 12, 2007 at 7:41 AM
What the world needs now is a Robert Spencer of Mormonism.
Nobody is willing to agree on what the Mormons do believe, The P/C crowd is offended that someone would want to know what a guy running for president’s faith teaches, the Mormons are sticking with their culture of keeping secret and just distributing Bible quotes, and if your a Christian that finds that offensive you’re a bigot.
Stalemate.
Hening on December 12, 2007 at 7:52 AM
Enough of this juvenile garbage! I want them to tell me how they will protect us from Islamic terrorists; how they will secure our borders; and, how our economy will be charged and sustained. None of these people have any intellectual depth so they spend their time wallowing in trivia.
rplat on December 12, 2007 at 7:55 AM
They should both be disqualified for falling deep into the Dems realm of hyper-religion speak. I don’t want to hear another word… for it will be Hillary’s to lose again.
They might as well have just shot theirselves in the head for all the good this crap has done. Another week of it and the Dems win easily. It’s almost over now.
Griz on December 12, 2007 at 8:11 AM
I agree. I can’t stand this talk in a political race. But both should be disqualified? Aside from one speech, where has Romney dwelled on religion in his political life or campaign?
JiangxiDad on December 12, 2007 at 8:36 AM
http://www.utlm.org/onlineresources/ldsteachingonlucifer.htm
rotorhead on December 12, 2007 at 8:36 AM
HuckAir, the new all-Huckabee, all the time web site is actually not as boring as I thought it would be.
Jaibones on December 12, 2007 at 8:42 AM
Krauthammer, you magnificent…
Slublog on December 12, 2007 at 8:44 AM
LOL!
bnelson44 on December 12, 2007 at 8:54 AM
so tell me.
JiangxiDad on December 12, 2007 at 8:57 AM
Mormonism is a dualistic religion.
jp on December 12, 2007 at 9:01 AM
After reading through all these, am I wrong to conclude that Allah is trying to stir up religious animosity toward Huckabee, and Huckabee is… correct???
Did I miss something?
dominigan on December 12, 2007 at 9:03 AM
If your looking for the origin of when religion was fullin inserted in to the race as a political issue, all you have to do is look at “the speech”.
bnelson44 on December 12, 2007 at 9:07 AM
What do you mean?
bnelson44 on December 12, 2007 at 9:07 AM
He was defending himself, for ——- sake! What a ridiculous stretch.
JiangxiDad on December 12, 2007 at 9:09 AM
Never mind all this Mormonism…what kind of a “Christian” is this Huckabee person? Am I wrong here when I point out that he uses Christian principles positively when they suit his purposes and negatively when they don’t. That’s not a Christian, that’s a man who is NEVER to be trusted.
jeanie on December 12, 2007 at 9:10 AM
An infinite being can create things out of nothing. He is not limited to creating something out of matter.
Think of it this way: Where did matter come from? And what started it into motion?
bnelson44 on December 12, 2007 at 9:13 AM
Most of the people who are attacking Huck seem to be attacking what we would normally call good Christian principles (”do unto others as you would do unto yourself, etc.”) It smells like pure politics to me.
bnelson44 on December 12, 2007 at 9:14 AM
He brought religion front and center in the campaign, then he avoided the hard questions about his religion.
bnelson44 on December 12, 2007 at 9:15 AM
God and Satan are equal, fighting it out of soles. Everything is about either Damnation or Salvation….etc. thus the “satan and jesus” are ‘brothers’
Christians beleive God is Infinite and omnipotent, satan is not an equal by any stretch.
Hollywood likes to make dualistic films like Constatine, where God and Satan are fighting it out over souls. This isn’t a christian view of it.
jp on December 12, 2007 at 9:16 AM
Essentially the article got our beliefs correctly. I haven’t gone through the responses here, but I would assume it is full of the usual ridiculous logic that “well you don’t know what you really believe.. I do because I went to X,Y and Z anti Mormon meeting and my anti-bigot pastor who depends on me to make his living said so.” kind of thing.
Mitt won’t answer, because frankly what is the point? We have gone through this for the last century and a half. However Mark Steyn makes the fine point that all those folks practicing this sort of word games, will soon enough to be the minority to .. yes folks.. you got it.. the LDS. What will they do then?
Noelie on December 12, 2007 at 9:18 AM
No, we don’t. What are the Mormons doing to disrupt your way of life? I don’t have a dog in this fight but between the two, only one says that his faith will not dictate how he governs. That’s enough for me.
sweeper on December 12, 2007 at 9:18 AM
When I went to bed this thread was raging…I get up this thread is raging.
That’s it! I’m throwing my hat in with the atheists. In that camp all I have to worry about is listening to them tell me why they don’t believe, instead listening to the ‘other’ camp tell me what to believe.
‘Dear Lord, please save us from religion’
Limerick on December 12, 2007 at 9:18 AM
OH..and to attacking Huck? if he asked that question love, He sure has hell won’t be my president by my vote. Makes him the same as the brainless dems.
Noelie on December 12, 2007 at 9:19 AM
Somehow I don’t think you were a Huck supporter to begin with
bnelson44 on December 12, 2007 at 9:23 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »