Uh-oh: LDS theology disputed by…Mitt Romney; Update: Romney camp responds
posted at 1:18 pm on December 29, 2007 by Bryan
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
I’ll have to defer to any LDSers in the readership here, since my Mormon theology is, to say the very least, weak. I will say that it’s not exactly a shock to hear that a prominent member of a church or sect either doesn’t know or may not subscribe to all the tenets of the church or sect to which he belongs. My own Southern Baptists had a knock-down drag out back in the 1980s over basic theology and doctrine, my conservative side more or less won, but most of the more liberal folks who were disputing some basic tenets stayed put in the SBC. Some, like Jimmy Carter, eventually left. He hasn’t been missed.
And then there’s the head of the Anglican church, Rowan Williams, disputing pretty much the entire Christmas birth story.
So there’s all that to consider here. Still, if the founding head of your church claims to have spoken directly with God, and you say that he didn’t, you have at the very least a problem to work out with your own church and you’ll probably hear from the elders. As a non-Mormon, I really don’t care all that much, though I’d be a little more careful than Mitt is here to claim that God hasn’t spoken to anyone directly since Moses. The Gospels themselves sort of militate against that, if you accept the divinity of Jesus.
Update (AP): Team Romney sends this quote:
Pre-Eminent Mormon Scholar Says Governor Romney’s Comment Doesn’t Contradict LDS Church. “Jan Shipps, one of the pre-eminent Mormon scholars, says Romney’s comment doesn’t contradict LDS Church beliefs because he mentions that God spoke to ’some others,’ and he didn’t just leave it at Moses.” (Thomas Burr, “Comment Appears At Odds With LDS Faith,” Salt Lake Tribune, 12/22/07)
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
But this thread is not about religion!
Buy Danish on December 30, 2007 at 9:09 PM
I remember that thread now. I believe it is this comment by nra4freedom that Vancone is referring to.
So, Beto Ochoa, you see why I disregard your opinion.
csdeven on December 30, 2007 at 11:06 PM
Good faith and Christian charity positively drip from this comment. Tell me: done any mass mailings to South Carolina lately?
WasatchMan on December 30, 2007 at 11:26 PM
Here is a bit of illogic for all Christians. If God has not spoken to anyone since Moses, and according to the Nicene Creed, Jesus is God manifested as man, did Jesus speak to his disciples? ;-) On a side note, who was watching the earth and answering prayers while Jesus roamed and taught during his ministry? Questions, questions, so many questions that logic cannot answer, therefore one must have faith in any particular belief system. A better question would be what type of man or woman does a particular belief system produce?
PrettyD_Vicious on December 31, 2007 at 12:39 AM
The unwashed making a mountain out of a molehill.
I am amazed how the left, who claims there is a distinct separation of church and state, are so engrossed in documenting the spiritual beliefs of the candidates with an (R) after their name.
Does this mean that all those with a (D) after their name represent the anti-Christ?
MSGTAS on December 31, 2007 at 8:23 AM
Me too.
*
What gets me is his “perhaps others” not exactly a statement of faith and commitment.
*
The good news is he appears to question his origin of faith…that’s a start…the bad news is he has questioned most all of his beliefs, since deciding to run for President.
He just needs to mature as a conservative candidate…give him four years and see if he still believes then, what he believes now. History tells us he will not.
right2bright on December 31, 2007 at 9:33 AM
The question you pose are from a finite mind to an infinite mind.
Like you explaining a computer to a snail. The trap of many “philosophers”, you think your questions are greater then the one who allowed you to ask, or gave you the ability to “reason”. You put limits on God, where there are no limits. Didn’t he say, if you new all that he knew, you would still not understand? Your questions are a good example, if you were given an answer, you would not understand…or care.
right2bright on December 31, 2007 at 9:39 AM
Just put it in historical prospective, as vile as it was. The LDS were not saints, taking child brides was not considered (even then) appropriate, polygamy was an abhorrent practice, they felt they were above the law, and in that time, the law ruled. Add to it that the founder was a man of very suspect history, run in with the law, and a known con man. The LDS were heavily armed, and the great martyr of Smith, well, he took down a couple of men himself. When did the last martyr do that? Not saying his death was right, just saying he was no martyr.
right2bright on December 31, 2007 at 9:47 AM
So in order to exhibit both “good faith” and “Christian charity” I must lie in the interest of political correctness and keeping people happy?
No. That’s not how it works.
Ryan Gandy on December 31, 2007 at 10:11 AM
Nothing illogical about that, if you approach it from a trinitarian stand point.
Ryan Gandy on December 31, 2007 at 10:19 AM
Am I supposed to care? So Mormon theology is nuts. Big surprise.
I’m not interested in anybody’s theology. It’s ALL nuts.
mojo on December 31, 2007 at 11:49 AM
Not only was your comment a lie, it was couched in language that tried to appear to be sympathetic to the LDS, just like the South Carolina Christmas card (which was, by the way, a truly despicable dirty trick that I’m surprised HotAir headlines hasn’t picked up on.)
WasatchMan on December 31, 2007 at 2:44 PM
right2bright on December 31, 2007 at 9:39 AM
Yes, and all of our minds are finite. In reading the Bible, much like reading the constitution, I opt for the plain meaning of the words. Would an all knowing omnipresent benevolent Being purposely confuse us by not stating the plain meaning of which we would understand? My opinion is no. Therefore, one may compare lawyers and theologians as the same side of a two-headed beast. Both will take the plain meaning of words and subvert the meanings to their own desires. Therefore, LDS theology of three separate Beings, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost is just as plausible as those that aspire to the Nicene Creed. Review Acts 7:55-56 and Matthew 3:16-17,
Ryan Gandy on December 31, 2007 at 10:19 AM
Yes.
PrettyD_Vicious on December 31, 2007 at 7:37 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3