Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Thursday, May 08, 2008
Mitt Romney :: Townhall.com Columnist
Religion and Freedom
by Mitt Romney
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Do you feel the leaked information from a global warming alarmist organization is meaningful?



Note: The following are remarks made by Gov. Mitt Romney at the Metropolitan Club in New York City where he accepted the Becket Fund’s Canterbury Medal for his defense of religious liberty.

Thank you

It is an honor for Ann and me to be with you this evening. We have a lot of friends who work with the Becket Fund. As you can imagine, that makes your recognition even more meaningful.

Your mission--and my topic this evening—involve the intertwining of religion and government. It’s not a new topic. It was in the 12th century that Archbishop of Canterbury Thomas Beckett famously refused to allow Henry II to control the Church of England. As you are well aware, his conviction came with a high price: he was killed by the king’s soldiers in his own cathedral.

Our religious liberty in America was bought in large measure by the sacrifice of men and women like Thomas Beckett.

The battle for religious freedom is not over, nor is it likely to ever be. I appreciate the work you do to protect a fundamental human liberty and to defend those who are modern victims of religious intolerance and persecution.

As you know, I gave a speech about religious liberty during the height of my campaign. This was not a speech I was forced to give, it was a speech I wanted to give. I felt that I had a unique opportunity to address in a very public way the role of faith in America.

In the days that followed, my remarks drew a considerable amount of congratulatory comment…and some criticism as well. The criticism was a good thing, of course. It meant that my words were not like the proverbial tree falling in the forest—unheard and unheeded. It also gave me an opportunity to go back and re-think, and that presents an opportunity for more learning.

Several commentators, for instance, argued that I had failed to sufficiently acknowledge the contributions that had been made by atheists. At first, I brushed this off—after all this was a speech about faith in America, not non-faith in America. Besides, I had not enumerated the contributions of believers—why should non-believers get special treatment?

But upon reflection, I realized that while I could defend their absence from my address, I had missed an opportunity…an opportunity to clearly assert that non-believers have just as great a stake as believers in defending religious liberty.

If a society takes it upon itself to prescribe and proscribe certain streams of belief--to prohibit certain less-favored strains of conscience--it may be the non-believer who is among the first to be condemned. A coercive monopoly of belief threatens everyone, whether we are talking about those who search the philosophies of men or follow the words of God.

We are all in this together. Religious liberty and liberality of thought flow from the common conviction that it is freedom, not coercion, that exalts the individual just as it raises up the nation.

Perhaps the phrase which elicited the most comment—and controversy—was this: “[the Founders] discovered the essential connection between the survival of a free land and the protection of religious freedom…Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom…Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone.”

Looking back, do I still believe that religion requires freedom?

History abounds with examples where religion has been imposed by the state upon a people—from the Greek city-state to the dictatorship of the Taliban. But that is not the faith of which I speak. True religious faith is a matter of conviction and can only be discovered through personal communion with God, sought in the heart and in the heavens. And that path of personal discovery is of necessity free of constraint and censor. Yes, I believe religion requires freedom.

The more controversial claim nowadays is that freedom requires religion.

One critic dismissed this idea by pointing out that there are indeed countries in Europe which have become godless but nevertheless remain democratic. But that underscores my point. I was not speaking about Europe’s recent experiments in state secularism, I was speaking about America and the larger family of free nations; and I was not speaking about a moment of time, but rather about a span of history. Would America and the freedom she inaugurated here and across the world survive--over centuries--if we were to abandon our faith in God?

I don’t believe so.

This is hardly a novel view. Nor is it divisive.

It was not lost on the Founders that rights that were the gift of God, not of kings, would defend individual freedom from tyrants and power-seekers of all kinds. “Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure,” Jefferson once asked, “when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift of God?”

John Adams offers a further perspective. Our constitution and freedom would only endure if the passions and destructive tendencies of man’s nature were constrained by the bounds of religion: “Human passions unbridled by morality and religion” he said “…would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people.”

This great experiment in liberty will endure and flourish only so long as we maintain the humility, faith and character to govern ourselves.

Nor can we overlook that people of faith have a unique appreciation for freedom. Because the practice of religion requires freedom, liberty is especially precious to people of faith. They are willing to sacrifice much to protect it.

“We and God have business with each other,” even the father of pragmatism William James once observed. “In opening ourselves to his influence, our deepest destiny is fulfilled.” When a people’s “deepest destiny” can only be realized in a land of liberty, you can expect that that land and its liberty will be preserved at any cost. As indeed it has!

We have recently been visited by Pope Benedict XVI. It was interesting to me that both he and Pope John Paul II, testified of the connection between freedom and truth. Pope Benedict quoted his predecessor: “In a world without truth, freedom loses its foundation.” Calling those words “prophetic,” he said they echo in some sense the conviction of George Washington’s Farewell Address, that “religion and morality represent ‘indispensable supports’ of political prosperity.” And then he added his own conviction: “Democracy can only flourish, as your founding fathers realized, when political leaders and those whom they represent are guided by truth and bring the wisdom born of firm moral principle to decisions affecting the life and future of the nation.”

I love how plainly that thought was put by John Adams: “Without religion, this world would be something not fit to be mentioned in polite company, I mean Hell.”

I don’t mean to suggest that truth can only be found in religion or that morality exists only among believers. But I do believe, like Adams and Washington and Hamilton, that “national morality” as Hamilton put it, “require[s] the aid of…divinely authoritative religion.” I believe that religion is the most effective bulwark against moral relativism—which, as I have seen through my life, can be so malleable that it can label “evil good, and good evil;” as it says in Isaiah and “put darkness for light, and light for darkness.”

I also believe that religion and the general precepts of morality defended by religion make us better men and women. And on the whole, I believe we are a stronger people and a stronger nation because of faith. Religion has taught us that there is something greater than ourselves, that we are equal in the eyes of God, that we are to care for those in need, that justice is a principle of salvation, and that marriage, children and family are a source of great joy. That last teaching alone may help us escape the demographic nightmare that is haunting Europe.

There is one more reason why I am convinced that our freedom requires religion.

One day as a boy when a sermon at church was unusually boring, my attention turned to the dollar bill I had for the collection. On the back, there is a curious picture of a single eye surrounded by rays suspended over a pyramid—the great seal of the United States. What’s that, I asked? My father explained that it was the eye of God, and that the Founders believed that He watched over the affairs of this nation. And I later learned that the words on the seal were from Virgil - Annuit Coeptis – “God has favored our undertakings.”

This may not be at all compelling to the non-believer, but it has been compelling to every president who has led this nation at a time of peril. It is that God has blessed America. It is that God will bless America if we continue to deserve His blessing. Washington saw the hand of Providence in the nation’s founding: “No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the invisible hand which conducts the affairs of men more than the people of the United States.”

As our soldiers prepared to ascend the beaches of Normandy, Franklin Roosevelt led the nation in prayer: “we know that by Thy grace, and by the righteousness of our cause, our sons will triumph…with Thy blessing, we shall prevail over the unholy forces of our enemy.” And triumph they did, through His blessing and through the holy sacrifice of young lives, now revered in beautiful cathedrals not of stone and stained glass but formed by row after row after row of simple, white crosses and stars of David.

God bless America. Like millions of Americans, I believe that He has, that He does, and the He will, so long as we deserve His divine blessing.

Thank you, and may God continue to bless our great nation!

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

Mitt Romney served as the Governor of Massachusetts from 2003-2007 and is a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination in 2008. His campaign website for campaign news and volunteer activities is http://www.mittromney.com/

Be the first to read Mitt Romney’s column.

Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.
Sign up today
Just me
I am mot sure what you mean by me wanting my children to date/marry LDS so I am not sure how to respond there.

I would hope I would not pass judgement on my child's relationship if they met a potential spouse who happend to be Morman. In that same respect though, I would hope the Morman parents would not pass judgement on my child either.

I don't think an LDS is doing any judging on purpose or with malicious intent. It doesn't mean that it doesn't happen though.

LL got us on this topic for that reason alone. Her kids were not being tolerated (by both Christians and Mormans) so I know that there are those that do feel outcast by the self righteous of this world, regardless of our intent.

As I said earlier, LDS elements are here because of this thread only. I point the finger at myself and my church as well. I am no less guilty of this.

#1 common tater/ and hillplus
tater: Thanks for the support here. No bad ending for me either.

To both: I have enjoyed this conversation. Probably one of the better one's I have been in on TH. As tater stated, it's always good to take a second look at yourself. I know I have had to have a heart check on this thread as well. Many times I find myself posting to you hillplus, but am actually talking to myself. It forces me to not give up on my brother as sometimes it gets easy to forget the lost and live in our own worlds. It gets very easy to distance myself from him. Not a Christian thing to do I know, but it does happen.




WB

"What is more important to Jesus? Your children getting married in the temple or my brother's salvation or LL's salvation? "

The two are not mutually exclusive.

"Can't we reach the lost and still be married in the temple. How can we lose with Jesus? "
I agree totally.

"Tell me this, when I get all my wants and desires, where does that leave my brother. or LL's family."

What we can do is love them and pray for them. The rest of the process is in their hands.

hillplus
I realize there are things that are important to YOU. Me as well. Have I ever claimed otherwise or asked you to give up on your chldren marrying in the temple?

Tell me this, when I get all my wants and desires, where does that leave my brother. or LL's family.

You try to live like Jesus. I don't doubt that and I never did.

What is more important to Jesus? Your children getting married in the temple or my brother's salvation or LL's salvation?

When does it become something other than what we want? Why do we fail to completely trust Jesus in meeting our needs for us. Can't we reach the lost and still be married in the temple. How can we lose with Jesus?

hillplus
Ya, me too. Always good to take a second look at yourself.

Thanks for letting me intrude.

WB and Tater
I'm not angry. It won't end badly. I recognize that we see things differently. I have one brother who is not active and one sister who is TRYING to become active. This has made me think about them and to make sure to renew my efforts to show how much I love them.

It's all good :)

Hillplus
I don't think WB is trying to judge you at all, I think he is struggling to understand what is likely a very different way of thinking. You guys have had a great discussion, and I would hate to see it end on bad terms.

WB
If you want your children to date/marry an LDS then why not have your child convert to LDS? That way they will always be a choice to LDS. The LDS boy is choosing to marry in the temple, that is the goal. He is not choosing to judge someone. That is not the purpose. He is merely choosing where he wants to be married. So, his choices in who he dates would align with where he wants to be married. It has absolutely nothing to do with the worth of the people he is not dating. If he finds someone with a similar goal, that wants to be married in the temple, then that is who he will date. The same goes for choosing to date / choosing a spouse that wants kids, wants to live in the area he wants to live etc. It's about finding someone to share your life with that shares things that are important in your life. It's not about judging someone's worth. No one has ever said at any LDS that non-LDS people are less than LDS people or that non-LDS people are going to hell, etc, etc. What is taught is to love your neighbors and set goals and standards for your personal life and persue paths and make choices that will help you reach those goals.

WB
"I fear I would feel that way at your home as well. I don't mean to pick on you here but am just saying that might be how LL's kids might feel as well...like they might screw up and be ostracized. I just wanted you to see that is all."

You don't even KNOW me and I am looking down on people and ostracizing them. Not very fair.
I had a bad experience with black people once, but I am an adult also in my 40's and don't think all black people will treat me bad. It says more about your brother than anything. God still loves him, though.

There is a difference between who I will be friends with and who I would marry. I wouldn't want my kids to marry someone who abuses them either, though a case could be made that the abuser could be changed and is a child of God.

I certainly didn't say anything about intolerance for failure. Everyone fails. Only one PERSON who lived on this earth was not a failure in some way.

My idea of Heaven on earth is to be in the temple with all my children and their spouses. together as an eternal family. My goal will remain that.

My children will be loved now and forever, regardless of the mistakes they DO and WILL make.

I will continue to try and be like Jesus, love God with all my heart and love my neighbor as myself.


WB
I have heard of the practice of shunning, though I have never seen it done. My guess is that it is intended to call the sinner to repentance, and thence to re-integration, but that, people being people, it becomes a nasty rebuke that does much harm.


For good reason did Christ tell us to 'judge not."

For a flavor of how the LDS are taught to respond to sin, to failure, to our own human-ness, I submit the following from the Doctrine and Covenants, one of our books of scripture.

"We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion.

Hence many are called, but few are chosen.

No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned;

By kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile—

Reproving betimes with sharpness, when moved upon by the Holy Ghost; and then showing forth afterwards an increase of love toward him whom thou hast reproved, lest he esteem thee to be his enemy;

That he may know that thy faithfulness is stronger than the cords of death.

Let thy bowels also be full of charity towards all men, and to the household of faith,…

I have taken this to heart, at least as well as I can so far...and I think it is a fair characterization of how we are taught, though not necessarily how we, again as tribal humans, always respond.

hillplus
I feel I must clear something up here. In reponse to #1 Common Tater, I realized that you may be getting a wrong impression of my motive.

Certainly you have said you will always love your children no matter what they choose to do. I am glad you said this, but in truth your posts never led me to believe otherwise.

I never once thought that you would ostracize anyone with malicious intent in your heart. I hope you didn't think that was my impression of you, because it wasn't. I was just trying to play the part of say my brother in the story of the basketball incident. Or LL's children. That is all. I am trying to figure out where they fit in your world.

#1 Common Tater
I had posted a response and it seems to be gone somewhere. OOPS.

I will try to repost but might not be an exact copy.

I like what you said about tribalism. I think it comes down to malicious intent and perception of malicious intent by the one being ostracized. I don't think hillplus has any malicious intent to ostracize anyone. That might not be how others percieve it though.

In my story about my brother, I don't think the Christian family had any malicious intent to harden his heart, but his perception was they hated him. His response was to hate them back.

I am glad LDS does not demonize failures. I never got that from any post here. Again it goes back to intent. I have heard of groups (certain Pentecostal groups) demonizing divorce for example with the intent of shunning them though. This is always done on purpose.

hillplus
I want you to know that I do see your POV here. I hope you can at least see a glimmer of what I was saying.

I didn't start out this thread with the prodigal son in mind, but that's what story I see when I look at the back and forth comments here.

I grew up in a home similar to LL. No faith, but high standards and moral beliefs. I had Christian values, I just didn't have Christ. I never stepped into church until I was in my late 20's. I always believed in God but never had a direction to Him. All church related friends I had were exlusives. Catholics, Lutherans, Baptists, Methodists (sorry no LDS) I never felt good enough to be included. I fear I would feel that way at your home as well. I don't mean to pick on you here but am just saying that might be how LL's kids might feel as well...like they might screw up and be ostracized. I just wanted you to see that is all.

I'll close with this story. Growing up , my cousins lived next door to a Christain family. They told us about Jesus etc... and one day my brother was playing basketball with their kids. He accidently missed the basket and the ball broke the window of their garage. He was maybe 11 or 12 at the time. They yelled at him and scolded him for being careless. He was no longer welcome to play with them after that. To this day...he is in his 40's, he still remembers that incident and everytime a Christian screws up, he points it out as another notch against Christ.

My brother was no different than LL's kids and he still has a hard heart toward Christ. It only takes one incident. I don't ever want to cause another kid to harden his heart toward Christ. I am saying this for my benefit here. This is a good reminder for myself.

WB
Which doesn't justify ostracising others, nor make feeling ostracised any easier. It is just the way we are at a fairly primitive level.

WB
"I just wonder what happens when they do fail, are they no longer tolerated? Do they end up where LL is? No longer fitting in here, don't quite fit in there. They sit in the back row at church as everyone gives them a stare (all churches here NOT just LDS) or they never come back. Or in LL's case they never start to begin with because our kid was ostracized by the local Baptist youth group."


That I think is such a case by case analysis. Certainly the LDS Church does not teach non-acceptance, and failure is not a reason to demonize or to cast out family members. My own sister has been divorced 3 times, but I don't think any less of her; if anything I worry about the heartaches she has had.

Christ teaches us to love even our enemies, so I don't see a justification for anything less than that for our family and for neighbors. (And love is not feeling pity, or tsk-tsking, or looking in askance at the travails of others.)

I think you hit the nail, WB, about this not being a particularly LDS, Baptist, or non-believer issue. It is an issue of tribalism, I think, at its most gut level. "Are you one of us?" Are you with us or against us?" "You are not one of us, and therefore have to prove yourself."

#1 common tater
Thanks for the data and it does not surprise me.

I do understand the high standards put forth here by LDS. I also try to hold myself and my family to high standards as well. Engaging in this very conversation has helped me look at my own standards a little closer.

Looking back at the comments though I don't see where I have questioned any standards, but I think I have questioned the methods to achieving those standards. As it goes, none of us likes our methods challenged. Does that mean we stop challenging ourselves or our methods?

LL got us going here because in LL's eyes, we are not tolerating their children (I either as a nondenom Christian, or hillplus as a LDS Christian). My point was how can they see Jesus in us, if we are placing a condition on which we grant our love for them from the start.

I am not sure where to take the Mitt Romney and his wife comments. He dated her before she was LDS or after? Either way, I am sure they are both glad they had freedom to choose each other and that his wife was not looked down upon from above by Mitt or his family.

Regarding your comments about intolerance for failure: I do understand this. We all want to set our children up for success in their own lives.

I just wonder what happens when they do fail, are they no longer tolerated? Do they end up where LL is? No longer fitting in here, don't quite fit in there. They sit in the back row at church as everyone gives them a stare (all churches here NOT just LDS) or they never come back. Or in LL's case they never start to begin with because our kid was ostracized by the local Baptist youth group.

WB
I am sure you have heard about all the studies on the teen brain, so I won't bore you with the details. I will give you the bottom line. Teen brains are under construction and don't fully develop until around age 25.
I would be very negligent if I did not help my children navigate through this dangerous time. My husband calls it the whitewater years. Rafting terms.
They are going to make their own decisions no matter what we do. Doesn't mean I can't stand by the sidelines and toot my horn.
I am no helicopter parent, but the kids know how I feel.

Tater, thanks for your commentary. Mitt did like Ann before she was a member, I suppose we will never know what would have happened if she had not chosen to convert.

hillplus p2
Sorry for the slight delay here. Still trying to fit things in today.

Let me say that I am sorry if you feel like I am tearing you down. I assure you that is not my desire and I ask you to please forgive my poor approach here.

My hope was to get you to look through a different set of glasses. Remove the LDS and put on the smoker, or drug addict or Jew, Muslim, Evangelical, Baptist or unchruched (LL's) glasses. In their eyes, how do they fit into your world? That was my approach at this. In essence, remove the LDS lenses and put on Christ's lenses. Those are the glasses I was hoping you would look through.

Just for the record, I have had numerous conversations with my spouse and other families in my church really close to this one (only directed at our church and not LDS...LDS elements are only here because of this thread)
Sometimes WE get so caught up in what WE want as parents or what WE want as individuals, we fail to see what it is Christ wants us to see.

Believe me, I am just as guilty at this as anyone.

hillplus p1.
Sorry I didn't get back to the thread yesterday. I do what I can however.

First, let me say that I don't disagree with much of what you say from the perspective of what I want. IOW, everything you say you want for your children, yes I want for my children.

With that said, I still think there is a fine line to draw here. Where do we cross the line in teaching our children in the way they should go, and controlling them in their actions so they end up where we want them to. I think that line is certainly different for each relationship we have even within our own immediate families.

I don't know if you cross the line you set for your family or not and I am not saying you are.

For me, my line is crossed when I tell my child they can't date someone just because of some flaw that I think their date may have. If I were to say to my son, "You are not allowed to date Julie because she is a Jew, or Cindy is a LDS or Jennifer takes drugs or Kelly smokes", I crossed the line. In doing so, I am essentially telling my son,"I don't trust you to make these decisions for yourself, so I will do it for you".

continued

Ind Observer
>Funny you should use the word arrogance in your post. You claim that John Adams' opinion is arrogant because it doesn't include evidence to support it. Yet, you have not offered any evidence to support your opinion, nor have you shown any evidence of how you have been imposed upon by that opinion. Seems as though the only imposition on you is in the realms of your self absorbed mind. If everyone whose opinions disagree with yours are somehow "imposing" on you, I suppose you had better get used to the idea of being imposed upon.


So you would also attribute to John Adams and Mitt a ‘self absorbed mind’. I think Mitt is just confused.

Would you vote for me as a presidential candidate if I had clearly the best policies and the ability to charm the pants off foreign leaders? I don’t believe there is a god of the kind discussed here, or any kind at all.. How about it? Do I have your support?

Stuart

Mitt's speech
Did anyone else hear the 11th Article of Faith from the LDS religion in the speech?

11 We claim the aprivilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own cconscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.

What a great reminder to allow everyone to have a personal relationship with their own Creator whether it be the flying Spaghetti Monster (as a previous poster listed) or whomever. Meaningful relationships can't be dictated or forced. They are chosen by us and by what we as indiviuals value.

Something to think about
As for the definition of the word Chirstian, it is only used 3 times in the Bible (Acts 26:28, 1 Peter 4:16) and in this verse

Acts 11: 26 And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.

So, according to the Bible, disciples are called "Christian"

The dictionary definition of disciple is a learner or follower.

So, a disciple or follower of Christ is a Christian by the Biblical definition of the word.

LDS definately believe in following Jesus Christ.

John 13:35 By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.

I think this is the Lord's definition of the word "Christian".

I think when that word is defined in a such a way by people as a means to try to seperate one another from Christ, that we've lost sense of the true definition of the word.

WBB
Hope you two don't mind if I interject a little, this is a pretty good conversation.

WBB, I think that it is because of the very high value we as LDS place on successful marriage (emphasis on successful) that we tend to be exceptionally careful about who we choose to marry. Fortunately, the one study I know of bears out that choosiness.

"A 1993 study published in Demography [magazine] showed that Mormons marrying within their church are least likely of all Americans to become divorced. Only 13 percent of LDS couples have divorced after five years of marriage, compared with 20 percent for religiously homogamist unions among Catholics and Protestants and 27 percent among Jews. However, when a Mormon marries outside his or her denomination, the divorce rate soars to 40 percent -- second only to mixed-faith marriages involving a Jewish spouse (42 percent)." http://www.religioustolerance.org/lds_divo.htm

That careful attention paid to the marriage partner can indeed look like intolerance, and I suppose it really is. But if you look at it as intolerance for failure, rather than a self-right refusal to 'cavort with non-members,' perhaps it makes more sense. Anything we do to diminish our chances is a considered risk.

Mitt did date Ann in highschool, very seriously. He made an excellent choice, and their marriage is an excellent outcome.

Risky though.

WB

part 2

As far as marrying in the faith, it goes further than that, even. They should be looking for someone who is kind, honest, responsible, loving etc... and also be trying to BECOME that person.

I think this is probably a waste of time. I try to explain my position and you look for some way to tear me down. It started with LL's complaint about his kids not being included. As I recall, he said that BOTH Christians and Mormons were guilty.(BTW, yes I do consider myself a Christian, I am using his words for this statement, however.)


WB
Regarding conditional love. I am certainly no perfect parent and my love is not perfect. In fact, it is very flawed. I try my best but fail on a regular basis. You want to call it conditional, so be it.
I absolutely stand by not marrying outside my faith. Being a Christian, you should feel similarly. Do you want your children to marry a Jew or Muslim and have your grandchildren raised without Christ? Well, I do not. My children have agency and I would love them no matter what, but I would be sad for them and for myself, no doubt about it. Are Jews and Muslims less in the eyes of God? Not one bit. He loves AND DIED FOR THEM just as He did for me.
I know my kids are being good examples already, my 15 year old son recently asked some boys who were using vulgar language to please not speak that way in our home. How many 15 year olds will be so brave in front of their peers? They are respected for standing up for their values.
An important part of lifting someone up is to be standing on higher ground.


hillplus p2.
Ostracized Kids:-I believe you that you love them however you have placed a limitation on the relationship from the start. "You can date but don't ever expect to marry my child unless you convert" There are conditions to be met before you fully accept them. I call this conditional love.


Mitt Romney:- I think I may have misunderstood your comment regarding Romney and his wife. I was under the impression he dated outside LDS and she converted after dating him.

Tough Marriages: I have been blessed with a wonderful marriage. I pray my children will be blessed as well. Beyond my own parental influence and guidance and prayers, what more can I do?

Price to be paid: My debt is already paid along with my children’s. I had to choose to accept the gift and my children will have to choose that as well. I can't choose for them.

Certainly we want our children to make good choices. It appears though that an LDS feels there is more at stake for them than the average Joe off the street. IOW, an LDS marrying a non LDS lowers their status to God. Is this not rejection?

hillplus p1
I made it back today-Didn't think I was going to get the opportunity.

Discerning parents: Hmm..Parental guidance and discernment are essential. I don't want my children making poor choices any more than the next parent, but it's still their choice to make, not mine.

Growing up, I had the opportunity to drink, smoke and drugs. I did drink (havn't for 20 years or so), I tried smoking a few times in my late teens (never cared for it much) and rejected the drugs (but not the friends who offered them to me). Am I less of a person for trying these things? Do I matter less to God?

I wouldn't want my children looking down on smokers, drinkers or drug users, rather I want my children to be a positive influence on their friends that choose this route. In the same respect, I would want a positive influence for them as well. As parents we can be that positive influence but I would also want a positive influence for them in their own peer group. What if your LDS child was that positive influence that I prayed God would provide for my child, and you distanced your child from my own because of our differences in faiths?

Continued

WB
Everyone must be discerning especially when it comes to what is best for their kids. I wouldn't want my kids to marry a smoker, drinker or drug addict, either. Even though that person might be a very nice person.(Can't wait to hear what you say about that-comparing lack of faith to drug addiction)

You are wrong about them feeling ostracized at my house. I don't expect you to believe me but the kids that are in my home are loved and welcomed. I am called Mom Hill by many of them. (There, giving away personal info.)

Mitt did not seriously date Ann before she was a member and he was off his mission. I am sure his parents said nope as well.

When I was younger there was a woman who came to talk to the girls in my congregation. She had taken that risk and was now trying to raise her children in the gospel by herself. She impacted me greatly because I knew that she loved her husband but felt sad and alone when it came to faith. My own father is antagonistic about the church and all churches in general. He, too, thinks I and others are prejudice. Be that as it may, it will not change. Life and marriage is hard enough without adding that to the mix.

My children have their agency, but it is not free. There is a price to be paid for every decision we make. I believe the price is too high for marrying out of the faith. They will choose for themselves, and I will love them and their spouses no matter what choice they make.



hillplus contind
"LL's children should not be ostracized because of their lack of faith. It is certainly NOT the Christian thing to do."
----------
I agree and this was my point. I would like to hear LL's POV here but from my perspective, it sure looks like their kids would be ostracized at your home for their lack of faith. Sure they are welcome as friends but not okay for a future spouse. How can they NOT feel ostracized in this? It sure looks like rejection to me.

hillplus
"It would be great if my children were friends with/dated someone who then joined the church. Mitt Romney did just that. His wife is a convert"
----------
I am sure Mitt is glad his parents took the risk and allowed him to seriously date outside LDS faith.

"I wonder if LL would have a problem with said children converting?"
----------
I certainly would like to hear LL's response as well.

"I think the words rejected and not good enough are out of place here"
-----------
You are certainly entitled to feel that way however it still boils down to perspective as it sure feels like rejection when you are on the recieving end of it. LL clearly feels like his/her children are not being tolerated by certain groups and certainly CLICKS happen throughout society (not just religious ones). You pointed out that LL's children would be welcome in your home, just not free to seriously date your kids. Don't you think LL's children would feel rejected or not good enough in this. I know my kids would feel rejected, if that was their only reason. Again from their perspective, not yours.

"I want my children to be sealed to their families eternally. temple marriage is the way. Serious relationship with anyone not of my faith is a very big risk."
--------
Again, I am sure Mitt is glad he was allowed the freedom to risk it. Don't all people deserve that same opportunity?

"Would YOU like it if your child converted to the LDS faith?"
--------------
When my children get old enough, they will have the freedom to choose their faith (isn't this Mitt's point of the article) and their spouse. Am I supposed to agree with or embrace their every decision. It's not about what I like or don't like.




WB
I check in occasionally. I take no offense from your comments.
I don't think it is that the child is not good enough but that is a big chance to take to hope someone might join the church so you can marry them.

Any LDS member can tell you heartbreaking stories of people in their congregations who come to church alone and try to raise their children in the gospel without their spouse helping them because they took that gamble.

My son IS going to date someone not of our faith and I would encourage him to be friends with her and invite her to our home, but not to get serious with her. Partly because he is only 17 and still has a mission to go on. He will be in no position to be serious with anyone for at least four more years.

some disjointed thoughts:

It would be great if my children were friends with/dated someone who then joined the church. Mitt Romney did just that. His wife is a convert.

I wonder if LL would have a problem with said children converting?

I think the words rejected and not good enough are out of place here.

I want my children to be sealed to their families eternally. temple marriage is the way. Serious relationship with anyone not of my faith is a very big risk.

Would YOU like it if your child converted to the LDS faith?

LL's children should not be ostracized because of their lack of faith. It is certainly NOT the Christian thing to do.


Western BB
Just an old Idaho Spud, but thanks for the compliment.

hillplus
hillplus to LL:"The people you date are the people you fall in love with and marry. I am sure you have wonderful children, but at this point, they cannot marry in the temple, so LDS(MORMON) parents will encourage their kids to not date them seriously. I hope that makes sense, it is not meant to be hurtful."
------------
I don't know if you are done responding to me or no longer checking this thread however I felt a need to respond to your comment to LL.

I know this was not meant to be hurtful, but clearly as a parent, when your son or daughter is rejected for no other reason then "they are not religious, or not an LDS member", how else do you expect them to react? You just told LL that his/her daughter is not good enough to seriously date an LDS member out of FEAR that they MIGHT fall in love.

How do you know that LL's daughter might not join LDS church through an LDS son she would date? You may have just rejected a future member.

Where is this all inclusive religion you were discussing earlier? Aren't you rejecting those outside LDS faith here?

BTW, my comments are not meant to be hurtful.

Ind Observor
Yes, I had to leave yesterday as well and couldn't check back until this morning.

You are right that not every charter has to sponser every program in BSA. The Tiger Cubs are part of the Cub Scouting Program though and not a seperate program itself. If a sponser is chartering Cub Scouting, then it would seem that they would have to include the Tiger cubs in that sponsership but somehow LDS gets to exclude Tigers from it's Cub Scouts program.

It's funny, I have run into similar comments from others regarding the United Way and BSA in the past. This must be a regional issue as our local United Way chapter where I live was still suppporting the local BSA district here as of last fall when they do their annual drives. The local BSA council was listed as one of many charities they support. I always check the entire list to be sure all are acceptable to support. Although, now I have heard that they might be supporting a recently added Planned Parenthood in our county (opened up right accross from a local High School). It is always wise to check ALL the groups they support to be sure they are all acceptable.

Glad to hear you started your own letter writing campaign on the BSA issue though. I never heard of the "removing God from the oath" reasoning though. I have heard others state that United Ways in some regions were dropping BSA due to their youth protection (again homosexuals) stance. Never heard the God issue though.

#1 Common Tater
Nice name BTW. It took me a couple of times reading it to fully get it. Nice play on words.

It's been good to hear everyone's comments regarding BoyScouts. Does anybody know if Mitt Romney was involved in Scouting as a boy or growing up?

wb
It's been nice chatting with you although I really have to get back to work. As I have said, I am certainly not an expert on the BSA, but I have known of various organizations that have sponsored a particular BSA group and not others. I've never heard of them telling a sponsoring organization that they can't contribute if they don't participate in all of their programs.

I appreciate the contributions that BSA makes to the lives of the boys and young men who participate in their programs. It is one of the charities I regularly contribute to whether or not I have any children involved. As a matter of fact, several years ago, I was contributing to United Way through payroll deductions when a letter came with my paystub notifying me that United Way would no longer contribute to Boy Scouts because the Boy Scouts refused their demand to drop the word God from the Scout Oath. The letter urged us to join in the fight against BSA. Instead, I helped organize a letter writing campaign getting people to stop contributing to United Way and explaining why. I'm sure that United Way is affiliated with some useful charities but I was not impressed with their attempt to pressure the BSA into changing their ways.

Western BB
I'm sure that the BSA do give the LDS Church a fair amount of leeway, but the two organizations share so much of the same philosophy about boys, that they are not likely to get too stuck on a rule or two in either direction.

As for the member/non-member thing, my LDS troop in Idaho so fully integrated non-member boys that we usually forgot they were not LDS, something I'm sure rubbed them the wrong way once in while. My best friend growing up, and in scouts, was Baptist, but it made no difference to either of us, nor to anyone else.

LL
LL:

"The Mormon kids can't associate with mine outside of school, won't date my daughter, even though they're attracted to her, etc."

I live in Colorado, and your kids are welcome in my home any time!! My teens regularly have parties and there are always non-members here. I am truly sorry you have had a negative experience where you are. I can assure you that it is not true with all of us.
About the dating thing, my son is going to the Prom with someone who is not a member of our faith, I have no idea if she is religious or not.
BUT, I would encourage my kids to NOT date steadily with someone out of my faith. The reason? A temple marriage is so very important to us because we believe our families can be together for eternity if we are sealed in the temple.
The people you date are the people you fall in love with and marry. I am sure you have wonderful children, but at this point, they cannot marry in the temple, so LDS(MORMON) parents will encourage their kids to not date them seriously. I hope that makes sense, it is not meant to be hurtful.

#55
#55 Maybe the following will help you a bit.

"An Open Letter Regarding Governor Mitt Romney
January 11, 2007
Dear conservative friends:
We hail from a broad spectrum of organizations dedicated to fighting for the pro-family agenda
in Massachusetts. As you know, Mitt Romney became the governor of our state in 2003. Since
that time, we have worked closely with him and his excellent staff on that agenda.
Some press accounts and bloggers have described Governor Romney in terms we neither have
observed nor can we accept. To the contrary, we, who have been fighting here for the values you
also hold, are indebted to him and his responsive staff in demonstrating solid social conservative
credentials by undertaking the following actions here in Massachusetts:
• Staunchly defended traditional marriage. Governor Romney immediately and strongly
condemned the 2003 court decision that legalized “same-sex marriage” in our state. More
importantly, he followed up on that denunciation with action – action that saved our nation
from a constitutional crisis over the definition of marriage. He and his staff identified and
enforced a little-known 1913 law that allowed them to order local clerks not to issue
marriage licenses to out-of-state couples. Absent this action, homosexual couples would
surely have flooded into Massachusetts from other states to get “married” and then demanded
that their home states recognize the “marriages,” putting the nation only one court decision
away from nationalizing “same-sex marriage.”

Tolerating non-believers
My family is non-religious. Not Atheist, which I believe is a religion unto itself, but just not religious. We enjoy Christmas and Easter and religious music, we just don't believe in the religion behind all of it.

That said, my children experience far more intolerance from supposed Christian and Mormon "friends" than from anyone else. When these people find out my kids aren't religious, they are immediately ostracized. The Mormon kids can't associate with mine outside of school, won't date my daughter, even though they're attracted to her, etc.

My kids are caught between a rock and a hard place. They're good kids and have old-fashioned moral values, so they don't fit in with the "in" crowd, but most of the good kids are religious so they don't fit in with them either.

We value the Judeo-Christian morals of our country's foundation, and believe they are important, but it would be nice if the supposed Christians would give my kids a break. They're good people once you get to know them, really.

Ind Observor
Let me assure you that I hold no grudge against LDS or the BSA however I see no problem with posing discussion topics out there for people to discuss openly.

As it is, I have defended BSA on these threads in the past when attacked for various reasons by the media or liberal groups. The most recent has been the Philly fiasco.

Regarding Tigers, they are the youngest age group. Tigers, Woves, Bears, Webelo 1, Webelo 2 and then cross over into BoyScouts. LDS apparently does not allow Tigers to join, and BSA allows this. Why does LDS get to pick and choose the starting group, but a local Rotary pack cannot? (or maybe Rotarys can deny Tigers but most don't or ours doesn't- I really don't know the answer to this) These are not really big issues with me, but just happened to come up in this thread.

I am glad you mentioned that your current LDS groups have non LDS members. This tells me that I might be barking up the wrong tree here.

wb
From your posts, it seems you have some resentment towards BSA, the LDS church, or both. I'm not sure why you are searching for something to complain about with these organizations. My last official position relating to scouting was that I was the Unit Commissioner for our local church unit roughly 25 years ago. We sponsored three different units. We had Boy Scouts, age 12 and up: Venture Scouts, age 14, and Explorer Scouts, age 16. BSA did not require us to sponsor all three groups. Many sponsors had just the Boy Scout troop. Regarding who can and cannot join, I would assume that any troop would encourage boys to participate but I have no experience with any troop trying to exclude anyone. Our current church unit has 8 boys in the Boy Scout troop: 6 are members and 2 are not. Our Venture Group has 5 boys, only one of whom is a member of the church. I don't know if BSA still uses the same terminology to describe the groups and I have no experience with what you called Tiger Scouts. My overall experience with Scouting has been very positive. I participated as a youth and have supported my son in Scouting although I haven't been officially involved in a long time.

Ind Observor
"I'm having difficulty understanding your reasoning in your post. You mentioned BSA, LDS, homosexuality and money. I'm not an expert on the BSA, but my understanding is that they discourage homosexuality. The LDS church teaches that sex outside of marriage is sin. Why would either party have to give money to the other to bend the others rules?"
---------------
I brought up Philadelphia to show that the Local Philly Council wanted to change it's rules regarding homosexuals in order to keep the free rent. The BSA national said NO and put their foot down. I think this is a good thing. I wouldn't want them to bend their rules in this matter.

However, the relation to LDS is that for some reason, LDS is allowed to form their own guidelines (to deny Tiger aged kids a place in scouting, minimum age for boys and overnight camping are just two that I know of mentioned here on this thread). This seems to be accepted by BSA national and I was simply questioning why BSA allows it from LDS, but would not allow Philly to change their guidelines. I realize that homosexuals is a big issue compared to denying Tigers a place in scouts but the principal is still the same. I mentioned money, not because I think LDS is bribing BSA, but simply due to the fact that they are BSA biggest customer, and sometimes in the real world, nobody likes to tick off their biggest customer.

hillplus
"You are absolutely right. I was raised to know that Jesus Christ is my savior, as I suppose you were. What about all those many people who were not so fortunate. There are many people who have lived and died without even hearing the name of Christ. Are they screwed? Please don't tell me about special and general revelation. Doesn't wash."
-----------
I was not raised to believe in Christ. I became a believer in my early 30's. It is not my place to condemn anyone to hell. As far as those who never heard of Christ, the Bible says God is just. If I can imagine a shred of justice for those who never had the opportunity to accept or reject Jesus, surely God's justice is so much greater than my own. I have no place to judge anyone.

Regarding the BSA, my apologies. My intent was not to imply that the LDS church bribing BSA to bend their standards, but that because they are BSA's "largest customer", they don't necessarily have to follow the guidelines down to the letter the way say a small town Rotary run pack would have to. It was mentioned that Tigers are not part of LDS scouting. Can the small town Rotary pack get away with denying Tigers a place in the pack the same way LDS can? The rotary pack has no choice but to accept all applicants. Can the LDS deny anybody from joining one of their chartered packs if they so choose? At minimum, they can deny Tiger aged kids. That is all I am saying. Large customers always have more influence than the little guy. We even discussed this issue after the camp last summer as a group. We wondered how LDS can get away with denying Tiger aged kids a place in the pack? Is it as simple as setting up the charter that way? Can any charter deny Tigers? It came up at the next committee meeting but nothing really came about it and we dropped it. Not sure if council ever got back with an answer for us.


WB
Frankly, I resent your accusation that the LDS church PAYS the BSA to bend the rules for them, though what rules they would bend is beyond me. There are a high number of LDS youth in BSA because both have conservative viewpoints, although LDS tends to be more conservative. Hence the different age limits for overnight camping you mentioned before. It is not required to be in scouts if you are LDS. The LDS church has goal setting programs for their youth and scouting fits in nicely with those programs.

wb at 9:36am
I'm having difficulty understanding your reasoning in your post. You mentioned BSA, LDS, homosexuality and money. I'm not an expert on the BSA, but my understanding is that they discourage homosexuality. The LDS church teaches that sex outside of marriage is sin. Why would either party have to give money to the other to bend the others rules?

You also mentioned the sad situation in Philadelphia. The BSA built a building with entirely their own resources and donated it to the city. Now the city has kicked them out of that building. BSA troops in my local area (both LDS and non-LDS)have been providing service to the community in numerous ways through Eagle Projects or other service projects. They have done various improvements or maintenance projects at schools, public parks, etc. Will BSA turn the other cheek and continue to serve Philadelphia, or will the citizens of Philadelphia lose the benefits provided by scouting?

western bondbeam
Your words:
"This is basic Christian world view. Jesus Christ is THE way to the Father (as opposed to A way). This is a Bible source, not LDS source. Ultimately it boils down to where a person places their trust".

This is also LDS doctrine. You are absolutely right. I was raised to know that Jesus Christ is my savior, as I suppose you were. What about all those many people who were not so fortunate. There are many people who have lived and died without even hearing the name of Christ. Are they screwed? Please don't tell me about special and general revelation. Doesn't wash.
Lestat believes that I am going to Hell because I don't believe God is some sort of cloud like amoeba. Perhaps you do too. That is O.K. because you two are not my judge and I am totally confident in my belief in God's grace in my life.

Stu
Funny you should use the word arrogance in your post. You claim that John Adams' opinion is arrogant because it doesn't include evidence to support it. Yet, you have not offered any evidence to support your opinion, nor have you shown any evidence of how you have been imposed upon by that opinion. Seems as though the only imposition on you is in the realms of your self absorbed mind. If everyone whose opinions disagree with yours are somehow "imposing" on you, I suppose you had better get used to the idea of being imposed upon.

hillplus
"Lestat here PROVES my point about mainstream Christianity. HE believes I am going to hell, no doubt about it"


And yet you wrote this earlier-"He, being a loving Father, provides a way for ALL of His children, if they so choose"

----------------

This is basic Christian world view. Jesus Christ is THE way to the Father (as opposed to A way). This is a Bible source, not LDS source. Ultimately it boils down to where a person places their trust.

#1 Common Tater
Interesting data regarding LDS and BSA. Do they require BSA participation in LDS Church? I vaguely recall our camping companions discussing this matter with us but can't say for sure if they said membership was required. I thought they said LDS paid for charter and memership. If so, this could be why LDS has such good membership.

Regarding National BSA policy and LDS guidelines, I wonder how far BSA lets the LDS get away with regarding their troops and packs and who is allowed to join their particular troops.

Recalling the recent Philadelphia scandal regarding BSA and their free rent of a public building (which the scouts built and donated to the city) due to their youth protection policies (regarding homosexuals), the Philadelphia troop wanted to change it's guidelines regarding homosexuals in order to smooth over the situation and comply with the cities demands. BSA national said a firm NO. It makes one wonder if LDS has more clout with BSA national if they are allowed to bend their own guidelines regarding memebership etc...As the saying goes, money talks.

Religion and Freedom
Stu - while I appreciate your thoughts on my post #154, it was a response to Lestat. I had forgotten to list him in the subject line.

As for the communism/atheism theme, I don't believe anyone visits death on others because of who they are, but because of what the aim is. yes, Stalin and Mao (and many others) killed religious leadership in order to improve their grip on power, but also to fashion a culture of atheism, where the 'masses' were to find meaning in communism, not in religion. While religion was not the only enemy, it was a major threat. So, yes I would have to conclude that Stalin and Mao killed in the name of atheism.

I don't see a significant difference between that an the murder committed in the name of religion.

Over to you.

Religion and Freedom
Thank you, thank you for your wise words and your courage, through God, to speak this crucial truth. I applaud you! May God bless you mightily.

Religion and Freedom
sick of rants

>No atheist has killed in the name of atheism? You have heard of international communism, right?
Chairman Mao? Joseph Stalin? Between them killed 60 million of their people in the name of a specifically atheistic movement? Come on buddy, while Hitchens and Dawkins have some good points, they mostly rant. Don't follow their "lead."

Did Stalin and Mao cause millions of deaths because there were atheist or because they were communist?

Stuart

Religion and Freedom
sick of rants

>It becomes obvious that your feelings on the subject are very deep, and I actually do understand your frustration.
I would ask that you also try to understand my side, my exceedingly deep annoyance when I am called non-Christian.

Why do people call you non-christian? People don’t call me christian because I am very clear that I am not. Maybe you need to be clearer.

>Now, lest we take offense with each other, I appreciate also your understanding that we are allies in a war for the hearts and minds of our own people, and in trying to reverse the perverse trends of our society.

I am not trying to ‘reverse any perverse trends’ (whatever that means). I am not trying to capture ‘hearts and minds’. What have I done to deserve you smearing me with that?

>Coming back to the original cause of this gathering of the faithful, (and some who are not) Mitt has begun a very politically difficult and much needed discourse in the public arena. I am always amazed when I read that someone thinks he has no political courage. I think they mistake poise and grace for spinelessness.

Don’t know about spinelessness or poise. He wants freedom of religion and freedom from it but says freedom depends on religion. He is just confused.

Stuart

Religion and Freedom
Hillplus:
>The one I see trying to impose their belief system is YOU.

And can you quote me doing that?

Stuart

Religion and Freedom
Hillplus:
More than 85% of the world believes in some kind of Deity and the percentage is higher in the U.S.
Stu:
Not sure where you get your 85% figure from.

>2004:
Fully 92 percent of Americans say they believe in God, 85 percent in heaven and 82 percent in miracles, according to the latest FOX News poll. Adherents.com:
According to an international gallup poll taken in 1976, the U.S. is much more religious than most other advanced societies... 94% of Americans believe in God Harris poll:
The poll of 2,455 U.S. adults from Nov 7 to 13 found that 82 percent of those surveyed believed in God, a figure unchanged since the question was asked in 2005.Just a few easily found polls.


Like I said, not sure where you get your 85% from.

Stuart

Religion and Freedom
To those who would call me non-Christian for being LDS, I would call them mistaken. However, if I were to call myself a non-Christian, I'd be a liar.

Religion and Freedom
Lestat - please see #154 above. I forgot to put your name in the subject line.

Religion and Freedom
western bondbeam,

Lestat here PROVES my point about mainstream Christianity. HE believes I am going to hell, no doubt about it.

Stu
Hillplus:
More than 85% of the world believes in some kind of Deity and the percentage is higher in the U.S.
Stu:
Not sure where you get your 85% figure from.

2004:
Fully 92 percent of Americans say they believe in God, 85 percent in heaven and 82 percent in miracles, according to the latest FOX News poll.
Adherents.com:
According to an international gallup poll taken in 1976, the U.S. is much more religious than most other advanced societies... 94% of Americans believe in God

Harris poll:
The poll of 2,455 U.S. adults from Nov 7 to 13 found that 82 percent of those surveyed believed in God, a figure unchanged since the question was asked in 2005.


Just a few easily found polls.

Stu:
"I am asking for one of the two things that Mitt is asking for, except I am questioning the lack of a logical link between his two, and the total bluff needed to claim things just because he believes them. Does he accept the truth of my unquestioning belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster (bless his noodly appendage) just ‘cause I believe it?"

Stu, The point is that Mitt Romney supports your right to believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. He doesn't HAVE to accept it as truth. He can believe whatever he wants to in regards to God or the lack thereof and so can you.

The one I see trying to impose their belief system is YOU.


Lestat
It becomes obvious that your feelings on the subject are very deep, and I actually do understand your frustration.

I would ask that you also try to understand my side, my exceedingly deep annoyance when I am called non-Christian.

Now, lest we take offense with each other, I appreciate also your understanding that we are allies in a war for the hearts and minds of our own people, and in trying to reverse the perverse trends of our society.

Coming back to the original cause of this gathering of the faithful, (and some who are not) Mitt has begun a very politically difficult and much needed discourse in the public arena. I am always amazed when I read that someone thinks he has no political courage. I think they mistake poise and grace for spinelessness.

Hi Ind Observer
>Stu, you poor thing. You have entirely missed the point of this article and the points made by numerous posters. A president expressing his opinion or a man running for president quoting that former president does not "impose" anything on any particular belief system or non-believer. If John Adams had been in favor of beheading all non-believers or sending all non-believers to education camps to be indoctrinated, THAT would qualify as imposing on a non-believer. The fact of the matter is that Mitt Romney supports your right to be an atheist and the right of every American to choose what they want to believe. The fact that not everyone agrees with you does not impose anything on you or me.

But he things the world would be a better place if we all believed. He backs that up with no evidence at all. That is an imposition of the most arrogant kind.

Stuart

Hi hillplus
>More than 85% of the world believes in some kind of Deity and the percentage is higher in the U.S.

Not sure where you get your 85% figure from. Have a look at the table on this page:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/rel_comp.htm

>We have no idea what this world would be like if no one believed.

… and no idea whether it would be a lot better if no one believed.

>Mitt Romney believes, as do I, that the world is better off when people have faith in a higher being. His point is that you as a non believer should see that freedom OF religion helps those who want freedom FROM religion.

Can’t you see that there are two separate things there? The first is a statement of belief with not a scrap of evidence behind it (as you yourself say), and the other one is a resounding endorsement of a secular society in which there is both freedom OF and FROM religion.

> Why should the VAST majority conform to your way, no one is asking you to conform to ours?

I am asking for one of the two things that Mitt is asking for, except I am questioning the lack of a logical link between his two, and the total bluff needed to claim things just because he believes them. Does he accept the truth of my unquestioning belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster (bless his noodly appendage) just ‘cause I believe it?

If I had clearly the most appropriate and fairest policies and charism and charm and an ability to woo international leaders into seeing things from a US standpoint and all the other candidates were true christian believers but with idiotic policies, would you vote for me, an atheist, for president? Tell me you are not asking me to conform to ‘your way’.

Stuart

Hi alisa53
>Stu, you just seem kind of angry. Most of the vitriol I saw in your post was actually yours and had little to do with any pope or imam.

Yes, I had not quoted any of the vitriol, so it was just mine! People today are dying because of the proclamations of the Pope. Evangelical leaders in the US play a big part in making life miserable for non-believers and homosexuals in particular, although this tends to stop when individual pastors are caught doing what they told others is sinful! Just look on YouTube for the hate-filled murderous statements by islamic leaders. It is pure conc. sulfuric acid, nothing pleasant or even reasonable. These people need to be told their opinions are worthless without evidence behind them. Why is homosexuality ‘an abomination’? Why should those who don’t believe be ostracised? There is no logic, it is all dangerous, political bluff.

Stuart

LeStat
You complain about people disagreeing with you when you are the one who brought up the subject of "your definition of Christianity". There are thousands of Christian Churches today, only one of which is close to 2,000 years old. If all Christian sects have the same "core beliefs", why are there so many?

I'll tell you what. You do believe in Judgment Day don't you, and that Christ will be the judge? I hope that is one of your core beliefs since that is taught repeatedly in the Bible. When you sit before Christ on that day, please tell Him who He is allowed to call Christian and who He is not. Until that day, if you choose to be offended by people who use the word Christian without your approval, be my guest. Your opinions do not affect my belief in Christ. But if you wish to be offended, go ahead, you have the freedom to do that in this great country.

Finally!!!
I tried a few dozen times last night to make these three posts, but they wouldn't go through.

Hitchhiker
With all due respect, I'm in no need of expanding my mind to understand this subject. I did extensive research, as I noted in my previous post. I don't mean I know it all, but I know enough to make decisions about, and draw conclusions on, this subject.


I am not trying to appoint myself "the final arbiter of who can call themselves Christian." That's a mischaracterization of my arguments. I made it crystal clear: the term Christian has had a well-understood meaning for thousands of years. A truly neutral observer would no sooner apply the term Christian to a Muslim, who follows what they believe to be Jesus' (whom they call a mere prophet) teachings, than he would to a Mormon. Just claiming to follow Jesus' teachings is not the historically-understood sufficient condition to call someone a Christian. Otherwise, Muslims would have been called Christians since the 7th century AD.

Let history be the final arbiter.


I'm repeating myself over and over. As usual, people choose to argue against what they wish I had written rather than what I actually posted. The time has long passed when good sense dictates that I leave this thread.

sick of rants, Part II
I agree that we shouldn't be arguing over these things, but the provocation is clearly coming from the LDS members. Call yourselves "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints." Fine. But don't try to redefine a word that has had a clear meaning for nearly 2,000 years. All it does is cause confusion among those who aren't as knowledgeable as we are about this topic. Can't you see that that is the same thing the leftists are trying to do to the word "marriage?" And post-modernists to the word "truth" (and almost every other word)?

We're important allies in the culture war in this country; we share common values even though our theologies are very different. We are also strong political allies - in politics, values matter much more than theology. I hate this bickering. But I will not be silent when people try to blur the lines of Christianity. By doing so, Mormons keep picking these fights with me.

Thank you for your reasonable comments.

sick of rants, Part I
It's Mr.


We don't see God and man as "beings of the same Race." Christians believe that God created man in His own image, meaning that we have independent minds with which to make moral choices. But God and man are not the same Anything. And there has been no refining of Christianity from within. Christians in the first century believed the same things we do today: straight from the Bible. They had oral creeds that eventually became formalized in the Nicene Creed. Of course there were heretics, such as the Gnostics, but that does not delegitimize, or undermine the historical authenticity of, the beliefs of the majority who took their theology straight from the Bible.

I don't remember implying that my "understanding of the LDS faith is rooted in the 19th Century." I know that it has evolved in several ways, the polygamy issue being the best known. I did quite a bit of research on Mormonism, including reading their official web site, when Romney gained recognition as a "top-tier" candidate.

hillplus and western bondbeam
Sorry to come to your party uninvited, but you two seem to be having a pretty darn reasonable discussion. AS for the BSA/LDS theme, the LDS has no "doctrine" of scouting, just particular guidelines they feel appropriate. Although, having scouted in an LDS troop, I sometimes felt the two were part of the same organization.

"According to a report published by the BSA Relationships Division titled “Top 30 Chartered Organizations
Ranked by Youth”, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is ranked as #1 in total units and #1 in
membership. Nationally, about 17% of the BSA’s traditional membership is registered in LDS chartered units.
The percentage is much higher in the Western USA."

http://www.ldsbsa.org/pdf/resources/Scouting_in_the_LDS_Chu rch.pdf

Stu
No atheist has killed in the name of atheism? You have heard of international communism, right?

Chairman Mao? Joseph Stalin? Between them killed 60 million of their people in the name of a specifically atheistic movement?

Come on buddy, while Hitchens and Dawkins have some good points, they mostly rant. Don't follow their "lead."

hillplus
Fair enough regarding mainstream Christianity, as I do see your point quite well and no doubt you have good reason to feel that way.

As for BSA, I think I remember the other pack mentioning that they don't start out as Tigers but as Wolves.

western bondbeam
Wow, you must be talking to different Christians than I have. I have been told that I am not saved and am going to hell more than once. My minister neighbor told me that Mother Teresa was going to hell, so I guess I will be in good company. I can't and shouldn't paint everyone with the same brush, but my understanding is that main stream Christianity damns to hell everyone who doesn't believe in Christ the way THEY say He should be believed. Whatever..

As for the BSA, I don't have much experience in that YET. We lived in Europe for many years and my older boys went to troops not affiliated with the church. One of my younger boys will be entering cubs this year. I do know the church doesn't start with tigers, but boys go in the second grade.

hillplus
-"You are baiting me, you naughty.
Lets just say that,YES, a baptist can be saved, as can a Jew, Muslim, Baha'i etc... Even a non believer. God will force no one to Heaven, but He, being a loving Father, provides a way for ALL of His children, if they so choose.
I would expect no less."
------------------
Wasn't trying to bait you, just not understanding completely I suppose (limits of thread and all)how an LDS views salvation. I am not sure whether to push further or let it drop at this point. The above comment is common among all Christian groups and is not unique to LDS. As my intention was not to trap you, I will let it drop for now. Feel the FREEDOM to ignore. :-)

Indeed I admit that I have little knowledge of LDS aside from this thread, my experience at a BSA camp last summer and the tidbits I catch in the news every once in a while.

Maybe on a lighter note here, what do you know about LDS and the Boy Scouts? I understand that the LDS is a large contributor to BSA national (along with Catholics). Do you have any experience regarding this? As my experience was limited, our pack thought it was odd that BSA would allow LDS to set their own policies regarding Boy Scouts and camping but never really researched in much further than that.

In answer to Stu
Stu said "I am without religion, am I ‘not fit to be mentioned in polite company’ too? Do you think this quotation, by someone who would be president, of someone who was president, is not evidence of ‘imposing’ on non-believers?

Stu, you poor thing. You have entirely missed the point of this article and the points made by numerous posters. A president expressing his opinion or a man running for president quoting that former president does not "impose" anything on any particular belief system or non-believer. If John Adams had been in favor of beheading all non-believers or sending all non-believers to education camps to be indoctrinated, THAT would qualify as imposing on a non-believer. The fact of the matter is that Mitt Romney supports your right to be an atheist and the right of every American to choose what they want to believe. The fact that not everyone agrees with you does not impose anything on you or me.

scooternyc
I read my post. In no way was anger or unkindness intended.

scooternyc
I understand your position and really do believe that there should be a separation of church and state. That said, I really bristle when things like Bible studies and crosses and Bibles are not allowed in schools. I don't use the cross in my personal worship but it in no way offends me to see others use it. I love to see and hear about all life affirming traditions. Why must the majority bow to the will of the minority. How does one person's cross or menorah offend others.( Although it must be said that Christians are picked on the most in this)

Be respectful, live and let live. Freedom of religion, not freedom from religion is what the constitution says. There will be NO LAW prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

western bondbeam
western bondbeam
your comments:
"In regards to your answer (if I am understanding correctly) a baptist can gain salvation but only if he puts his trust in Christ through LDS doctrine beyond the Bible as they are the official key holders. It would seem that if a person is placing trust in anything beyond Christ and the Word, that trust has the potential to be manipulated to whatever leaders decide."

You are baiting me, you naughty.
Lets just say that,YES, a baptist can be saved, as can a Jew, Muslim, Baha'i etc... Even a non believer. God will force no one to Heaven, but He, being a loving Father, provides a way for ALL of His children, if they so choose.
I would expect no less.

hillplus
I agree with your post to stu, but I disagree to a certain extent that the religious do want others to believe as they do or at least behave as they do.

This is due in part to their attempts to get legislation and laws passed which endorse their personal subjective philosophy - this is ANTI-AMERICAN.

Laws, legislation, faith based initiatives, et.al. that are not objective in idea and implementation, thus do implicitly or explicitly infringe on the civil liberties of other AMERICANS who do not hold such religious beliefs.

I did enjoy your post, however, and you made a great point regarding Mitt's speech.

Cheers!

hillplus
Thanks for the offer, however I respectfully decline. I actually know a few LDS members that I could contact if I felt the need (I don't).
My sons' Webelo pack went camping last summer and we were placed with one other pack from local LDS church so we got to know them over the week. They were actually going against what the LDS was allowing as apparently LDS does not permit boys at that age to go overnight camping (not sure what doctrine they were referring to) however the group of parents got together and decided to go anyway. They were a little inexperienced and our pack helped them out quite a bit in guiding them in the campout. Overall I don't recall much discussion regarding their faith except some of the minor details regarding scouts and LDS.
In regards to your answer (if I am understanding correctly) a baptist can gain salvation but only if he puts his trust in Christ through LDS doctrine beyond the Bible as they are the official key holders. It would seem that if a person is placing trust in anything beyond Christ and the Word, that trust has the potential to be manipulated to whatever leaders decide.

Faith

It is evident from some of these posters that this topic should be raised all over the web.

I learned more about LDS from LDS members and I appreciate that.

More to the point, there has been repeated links between the freedom of religion and every other freedom.

It looks like some folks need to talk about this before they get their epiphany and some of those may never reach an epiphany.



stu
More than 85% of the world believes in some kind of Deity and the percentage is higher in the U.S. We have no idea what this world would be like if no one believed.
Mitt Romney believes, as do I, that the world is better off when people have faith in a higher being. His point is that you as a non believer should see that freedom OF religion helps those who want freedom FROM religion.
I am sorry that you don't see that. Why should the VAST majority conform to your way, no one is asking you to conform to ours?

Your point?
"Everything is true because he believes it"

Yes, and the more power to him for having his beliefs and having the liberty to express them, so what?

Why should he be placed in the background due to your subjective disagreement?

Freedom of speech is rendered to those who oppose your free speech, as well.

Legislation and law is more the concern based on his beliefs that would have concerned me and ought concern every AMERICAN regardless of "beliefs".

Only the most objective of laws ought be part of our nation and government.

Certainly you have elevated yourself to a position of self-aggrandizement by which you wish to silence other AMERICANS.

One can only hypothesize such decision on your part.

Perhaps you think yourself "right" and everyone who disagrees with you "wrong".

You couldn't be more ANTI-AMERICAN.

Or perhaps you could. Write another post and we'll see.

Hi, Stu
"In this article the confused Mitt does not give any reason for anything, it is all empty rhetoric. Everything is true because he believes it. There is no actual evidence in there. Such a voice deserves to be lost in the background, for it is not contributing anything of substance."


Stu, you just seem kind of angry. Most of the vitriol I saw in your post was actually yours and had little to do with any pope or imam.


COULDN'T AGREE MORE
"Romney never ceases to impress me! He should have been our party's candidate."

He is more PRESIDENTIAL than any other candidate thus far.

Republicans have themselves to hold accountable for the likes of McCain, thus the loss of this election to liberals.

That's the reality.

Conservatives must now face that their own subjective philosophy of their version of religion and morals, withheld a man from the office of the presidency who showed fiscal responsibility so needed in our government.

The chance to advance as a nation must now be placed in a holding pattern and hopefully little damage done by the liberals, including McCain.

Conservatives are held accountable for derailing this man's opportunity to create a stronger America.

Now you must face this reality and live with its consequences.

Will you be able to be response-able to this choice you've made?




THE TIES THAT BIND
Religion binds itself to morals, which are subjective in precept and individual.

Attempting to bound another human being to your personal subjective view of life is ANTI-AMERICAN in all aspects as it infringes on the civil liberties of others to pursue their version of happiness through liberty.

Mitt is on to something when he speaks of religious freedom. However, to continue to "believe" that ALL AMERICANS share his personal subjective philosophy to such an end that our government should be anything less than secular, is to impose a form of "sharia law" upon other Americans, thereby disenfranchising them from participating in our government.

The religious of our nation will earn more respect once they stop trying to force religion into our government and entities managed by government. A government, btw, that represents ALL AMERICANS.

Religion belongs nowhere within our government; not in elections; not anywhere in society where pluralistic tax dollars are derived.

If you were truly an AMERICAN you would call for the end of public discussion of religion; you would demand that lawmakers reduce argument of laws to the most objective perspective possible; you would settle for nothing less than all Americans being represented in laws which encourage civil liberties, freedom, choice and personal pursuit of happiness.

To do otherwise shows contempt for others and denigrates our Constitution.

To do otherwise reveals that you are not an AMERICAN who holds these truths to be self evident.

Excellent Speech
Romney never ceases to impress me! He should have been our party's candidate. His words are eloquent and inspiring. He is a true patriot in word, and, the reason for this award, in deed. I have so much energy waiting to be invested into his next presidential run. (And by that time, I'll be out of law school, and ready to donate the full allowable amount to his campaign). Great job, Mitt, I support you in everything you do!

Hi hillplus
> Stu You missed stuff: A tenant of Romney's faith demands he let others worship as they want or not worship at all. No imposing here.

That’s big of him. So what is this all about then?:

“I love how plainly that thought was put by John Adams: “Without religion, this world would be something not fit to be mentioned in polite company, I mean Hell.””

I am without religion, am I ‘not fit to be mentioned in polite company’ too? Do you think this quotation, by someone who would be president, of someone who was president, is not evidence of ‘imposing’ on non-believers? He makes this absurd and offensive assertion (I can take it!) without a scrap of evidence. That is why it does not deserve the time of day. Further, the evidence actually says that some of the most atrocious (not fit to be discussed in polite company) actions of history were done by religious people in the name of their religion. I can’t think of one atrocity committed by an atheist in the name of atheism.

If he was serious about belief not imposing, he would oppose the hatred evident in the general population against for example homosexuality and atheism, which has no more than religious belief behind it. Of course he asserts belief without reason for his statements so we should not expect anything concrete from him.

Mr. Romney thinks the nation would not be “fit for mentioning” without religion, yet he insists that people be allowed to believe the way they want. So he is prepared to allow the country to slide into hell (by his definition) because people should be allowed to abandon religion if they want to. The man is confused.

Stuart

Mitt's Advice to Hillary:
If Mitt were to give Hillary advice, it would probably be: Don't drop out!

Media Nailed Romney to the Wall
The media went on and on and on about Mitt being a Mormon and made such a big deal. Obama gets a total "okey dokey." No problem there. Instead of talking about his valuable financial and managerial expertise, they want to talk about his religion; to this day, they still do. Mormons aren't running around inspiring hate of other people and aren't anti-America. Wright was a MUCH BIGGER DEAL then Mormonism.

Stu
You missed stuff:

"I had not enumerated the contributions of believers—why should non-believers get special treatment?

But upon reflection, I realized that while I could defend their absence from my address, I had missed an opportunity…an opportunity to clearly assert that non-believers have just as great a stake as believers in defending religious liberty.

If a society takes it upon itself to prescribe and proscribe certain streams of belief--to prohibit certain less-favored strains of conscience--it may be the non-believer who is among the first to be condemned. A coercive monopoly of belief threatens everyone, whether we are talking about those who search the philosophies of men or follow the words of God.

We are all in this together. Religious liberty and liberality of thought flow from the common conviction that it is freedom, not coercion, that exalts the individual just as it raises up the nation."

A tenant of Romney's faith demands he let others worship as they want or not worship at all. No imposing here.



Hi wally
Stu: "the wrong idea that you need to have a god for people to behave ethically."

>You're right Stu, you don't need a god to behave ethically but who decides what is ethical? If you consider a consensus by "society" to be the arbiter of what is right, or a group of elected officials to decide, does that not constitute a "religion" of sorts, even if it is godless?

My Concise Oxford Dictionary only has one sense of ‘religion’ that does not specifically require a god, faith or worship, and that is ‘a thing that one is devoted to (football is their religion)’. I think it is reasonable to say that you cannot call the actions of a group of elected officials a kind of religion, unless they are watching baseball or stamp collecting in a particularly partisan way.

Isn’t the point of democracy that the people decide what perceived crimes they want statutory punishments for? Non-theocratic democracies do not generally preach morals. It is left to the individual to decide what constitutes moral behaviour, in the context of a legal system that protects people from harm or exploitation.


>And what if I want to be the maverick and march to a different drummer? Who has the right to say that I am wrong?

Quite! Do you intend to do something that may harm yourself or others? Otherwise, why should it be considered either illegal or immoral?

Stuart

Hi Carlos
>Freedom without Religion ? North Korea has neither Freedom or Religion. They do have "Thought Control".
America has Freedom and Religion. And does not have "Thought Control". Secular European countries have Freedom, but little Religion. How long before Freedom is also displaced with "Thought Control"? And has religion already succumbed to such? "Thought Control" allows the minority to Brainwash the majority into "Believing" they possess Freedom, when Freedom is actually absent. Thought Control is a process, starting with a "purpose".
Can anyone name today's "purpose" ?

For the purpose of spreading a religious meme that has already infected the minds of either 1/3 or 2/3 of the world population, depending on whether it is the same strain of meme that also causes islam. How am I doing so far? Like a virus, it has no actual purpose as such except reproduction. The meme has been adapted by the thoughts of people in order to be more successful in spreading. Of course you would expect higher rates of infection in the US due to their hereditary susceptibility to belief, a product of the concentration of founding religious zealots who were seeking refuge from reality.

Have I offended an entire nation there?

Stuart

Bob
>Stu= A typical over-educated, elitist, arrogant, condescending Atheist Liberal.

Thank you for your frank in-depth analysis of me, even though we have never met. Are you a christian, and do you recommend to other christians this mode of addressing strangers? What of your biblical obligation to evangelise to me? You have not chosen the most convincing tone, may I say!

Do you actually have an idea to discuss, or do you just play the man not the ball?

Anyway, love you too.

Stuart

Hi alisa-w
>Late response to Stu-- I'm also a scientist and not a religious person. Most of the world's greatest religious leaders have taught tolerance above much else, although followers often lose sight of that over-arching principle -- under whose penumbra even the likes of you and me should get a little peaceful shade, eh? Live and let live. Believe and let believe -- or don't. As long as you're not detonating yourself to kill others, I think there's plenty of room for all of us.

That is a very pleasant view, and completely ignores the medieval vitriol that the Pope, most Imams, most evangelical leaders in the US and even the Archbishops of Canterbury and York are capable of pouring when secularists start to question the fantastic privileges enjoyed by churches in general. Does the current president confide in a professor of physics in times of uncertainty? You can bet not, we know he gets on the phone to preachers. Does he employ people who are academic experts in bioethics? There are such people in his committees, but to listen to him you would never guess it. I say stuff them. Why should a politician be grilled mercilessly by a journalist on a policy that he may be able to defend with rational arguments, when a religious leader will be left alone as soon as he says “I believe it is true just because I believe it”? Don’t you want the highest probity for any information that plays a part in public decision-making? What right do the religious have to make special self-interested pleadings? In this article the confused Mitt does not give any reason for anything, it is all empty rhetoric. Everything is true because he believes it. There is no actual evidence in there. Such a voice deserves to be lost in the background, for it is not contributing anything of substance. By all means people should exercise their rights to believe whatever fantasies they want, but I demand that they not impose them on me, which actually they do all the time.

Stuart

Religion is not needed for all that
Romney says: "Religion has taught us that there is something greater than ourselves, that we are equal in the eyes of God, that we are to care for those in need, that justice is a principle of salvation, and that marriage, children and family are a source of great joy."

Religion is not necessary for any of these insights. As an atheist, I am well aware that there is something greater than ourselves (e.g., nature) and that we are equal (and certainly so in the "eyes" of nature) and that we are to care for those in need and that justice is a fundamental principle of moral society and that marriage, children, and family are sources of great joy.

Because Romney evidently came to such understandings in conjunction with his religious upbringing, he seems to assume that that is the only way to reach those understandings. But it just ain't so. Religion is hardly the only path to truth, morality, or wisdom.

Agree With Elvis
Even though Mormons do not agree with Catholics, Baptists and etc. on all theology, Mormons do accept the Bible as scripture and believe that Jesus is our Saviour.

Way bigger threats to Christians are those who are trying to erode traditional family and church values. They have an organized plan to do away with everything Christian.

So, different denominations should quit fighting over fine points of theology and unite against those fighting against the Church.


lori....amen!
The award is about just what lori said!
And I will add amen to her suggestion of quit
ping ponging back and fourth!Wait a minute..who usually starts it...the other guys(non-lds)...just turn the other cheek LDS'ers!
But it's very important to realize that America
is going to be challenged by anti-christ in high
places in our own gvmnt! And mormons,baptists,
lutherans,presbyterians,catholics,etc. are going to need each other to battle the anti christs..
legally,etc! We better unite in our common causes
to salvage some of the points that Mitt talked about.....unite!
elvis

Class
The Romney organization has real class. I just got back from the Romney "Appreciation Party" at the Hilton, Beach Boys live and a good time for all of the Romney supporters to connect and network.

The party was free and really helped the Romney folks to develop into a stronger network. Mitt Romney understands relationship marketing. The organization may be stronger now than during the campaign.


Some of you guys still don't get it...
The Canterbury Medal is awarded for religious liberty, and encouraging religious tolerance. The Romneys well deserved recognition.

The criticism of the chattering class of those who oppose religion in general and Mormonism in particular only underscores the importance of this award. Sadly, the Becket Fund has much work to do here.

Leave his religion alone.
Leave its doctrine alone.
Embrace his freedom to believe and worship as he pleases.
Embrace your own.

We are SO LUCKY TO LIVE IN AMERICA! And even after all we have, some cannot escape religious oppression from some of you, my fellow Americans. Enough already ye townhall oppressors! This nation deserves better from its citizens.

western bondbeam
While I am certainly no expert in the religion, I am somewhat knowledgeable and will take a stab at it in case the others had to leave.

Polygamy was never a doctrine of any kind but, simply an allowed practice. Back then, or really anytime before modern welfare and social security, a widowed or otherwise single woman unable to find a single man qualified, quite often by religion if one considers such things important, I do, for marriage could become a second or third wife to someone if she desired. It also kind of follows God's plan which involves a lot of pruning, grafting, etc in bringing people to the word. He would want true believers to have as many children as possible to spread the faith. When Congress passed a law prohibiting it, it was revealed that the church should follow the law and forbid the practice. Theoretically, if the law was ever repealed, the practice could be allowed once again. I kind of doubt it at this point, though.

As to your second question, yes, they believe there are different levels of heaven. That people who might have accepted Christ but never received the opportunity on Earth, are not penalized automatically to hell or anything. True justice is served for everyone but, many are cast into outer darkness as incorrigible. Faith in Christ, which involves taking the name of Christ upon you is the gate, your ultimate destination depends on how you live your life. Btw, no Mormon would ever in a million years deny they are a Christian. To do such would be the ultimate blasphemy and rejection of faith. Of course, they get a little testy when the kooks come on with their your not Christian rants. No offense Lestat, loved your earlier post but, please expand your mind, relax, you are not the final arbiter of who can call themselves Christian.

Mr or Ms. Lestat
You are both 100% correct and 100% wrong. Mormons and Orthodox Christians have some fundamental theological disagreements, and do view God and Christ 'somewhat' differently. We are not creedal, do not agree with the concept of the "Trinity," and see both man and God as beings of the same Race, if you will, not beings by nature irreconcilable.

That said, both the orthodoxy and LDS have developed and refined their viewpoints over time. We (as Mormons) are loathe (now) to criticize other beliefs (whereas we did in the past). We have come of age in a multi-dimensional religious environment.

However, I would submit that even you, as a non-bigoted observer, see the LDS faith and doctrines as fixed and immutable, and stuck in the 19th Century. I submit that they are not, and your understanding of the LDS faith is rooted in the 19th Century. I say this not as a criticism, but as an observation. If you care to, I would suggest you take a look at two links: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/06/magazine/06mormonism-t.h tml?scp=47&sq=mormon&st=nyt
http://pewforum.org/events/?EventID=148

Both are quite readable and most importantly, accurate.

It is the definition of "Christian" that is the real hang up for both sides. We (as Mormons) do tend have a more liberal, democratized view in defining a Christian as a follower of Christ, whether or not they agree with us in everything.

You and others like you seem to define "Christians" as being only those who follow the orthodox, creedal traditions, a far more conservative and in many ways exclusionary view. While I cannot agree with such a definition, I am not about to argue about who is right or wrong. I would much rather just hope we understand each other, and quit fighting over definitions. Actually, quit fighting each other at all. No good will come of it.

Lestat
I don't think any LDS person would argue that we are the same as mainstream Christianity. We don't want to be the same. All we say is that YES we are Christians! There are more similarities between us than differences but the differences are very important. We do not believe in Nicaea. That is a big one.
I don't know that you have to study the gospel for years to get it. The most important things are simple, faith in the Lord, repentance, baptism, the gift of the Holy Ghost. The rest comes with time and prayer.

Freedom without Religion ?

North Korea has neither Freedom or Religion. They do have "Thought Control".

America has Freedom and Religion. And does not have "Thought Control".

Secular European countries have Freedom, but little Religion. How long before Freedom is also displaced with "Thought Control"? And has religion already succumbed to such?

"Thought Control" allows the minority to Brainwash the majority into "Believing" they possess Freedom, when Freedom is actually absent.

Thought Control is a process, starting with a "purpose".

Can anyone name today's "purpose" ?


Baptists Saved
Mormons believe that almost everyone will be Saved by the Grace of Christ. Only a few very evil people will go to Hell. Mormons also believe that a persons goodness on earth will elevate his level in heaven.

western bondbeam
We believe that the keys of the kingdom that were given by Jesus Christ to Peter resides in the LDS church. This is the authority to act in God's name. The essential ordinance of baptism must be performed by this authority. That said, ALL of God's children must have the opportunity to be educated, either here or beyond the grave. So, yes, we do believe a Baptist can gain salvation. Any more information is best given face to face. If you are interested, I can set you up with someone who can explain it!
HEEHEE

whoa.......
Shucks Iam still basking from Mitts talk!
All these durn pesky fleas ....
Look folks...the CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER
-DAY-SAINTS is run on one doctrine....REVELATION
DIRECTLY FROM GOD! Not each individual seeing it their way,somebody else another way! God is not the God of confusion!You live in moses day , go ask him, He was getting it directly from the source !!Noah was given the revelation about the flood...not some guy down the street!Amos 3:7!
Does GOD ever change a position? Yep!In the beginning..there was no divorce..then he granted it because of the weakness of the people!!God sent a prophet to tell a king--you're a goner!
Then the king prayed and prayed for more time
and GOD CHANGED HIS POSITION and gave him more time! And the king did a lot of good in that extended time!Revelation is the key!Not personal interpretation!But GOD has never changed the need for living the commandments!
Durn it! Iam going back to Mitts talk!
elvis

hillplus
It is getting late tonight. Will check back tommorrow when I get opportunity. Dial up is getting really slow here too so our posts may cross here.

hillplus
So Mormans do believe a Baptist can gain salvation without having to join the Morman Church?

Brettski
What does "get[ing] to know some LDS people first" have to do with the discussions here? I haven't read a single comment that remotely suggests that Mormons are bad people. Some folks get so paranoid and defensive that they can't distinguish between Christians arguing that Mormon beliefs put them in a different religious category (call each whatever you want, but they're not the same), and Christians accusing Mormons of being immoral or bad people.

But maybe it isn't paranoia. Maybe it's just the recitation of talking points from LDS leaders who see their best chance to convert Christians in convincing less knowledgeable Christians that Mormonism is basically the same as Christianity. That breaks down the immediate objections that arise when you tell a Christian that s/he should abandon his/her core beliefs about God. As many TH Mormons tell us, you have to study LDS for years to understand it. By the time converts figure out the fundamental differences, they're already integrated into LDS socially and spiritually, so the intellectual conversion is easy. They WANT to believe the new doctrines they're learning.

And for the record, one of my former best friends is Mormon. We lost touch shortly after she moved to Utah. I have also known several other Mormons. All good people.

western bondbeam
your comments
Is the Mormon church exclusive (not baiting here either) or do Baptists and Evangelicals gain eternal life through Christ as well?

I am glad you asked that question because it is one of the really special things about the church. We do believe that salvation comes through Christ and there is no other way. We also believe that God in His infinite wisdom and LOVE has provided a way for all of His children to come back to him, if they will so choose.Even those who have not had the good fortune to hear about Him. This is done through missionary work here in the earth as well as beyond the grave. That is one of the reasons for our beautiful temples. We do believe that a man must be born of the water and spirit to enter our Father's kingdom and that baptism is an earthly ordinance, so we provide proxy work in the temple for those who do not have the chance while they lived on the earth. They then have the opportunity to choose to accept or reject the ordinance.

Bottom line, we are the most inclusive religion there is.


joyyy
"People are to accept Jesus in the Christ by faith, and that faith comes via the Holy Spirit. That is the same way a testimony of the Church is gotten. It's the firmest foundation you can have."
------------
So why would I need to be a member of the Morman Church to accept or believe this? (or Catholic, Baptist or Lutheran or any other for that matter?)


Ind Observor
"Question for you wb, what do "spin-offs" have to do with the original church they spun off from? Most Christian sects today are "spin-offs" of the Catholic Church. Does that mean we hold the Catholic Church responsible for the beliefs of all of its spinoffs"
----------
I wasn't claiming one should be responsible of a spin off, but merely that spin off's occur in all religious groups. LDS included.

Talent and others....PC

Talent you are something else!(compliment)
You said a mouth full when you said some people just came to this event just rave and rant their political whatevers!! You said it in a better manner...but your ideas amounted to that in my opinion!
Slimed Romney during the campaign..some did and some didn't!
PC....where ya been?Out reading that BOOK OF MORMON....history of the Aztecs great grand fathers!!??? ha ha ha
The speech was very good and general about faith,religion, freedom, democracy, and God!
All these wormy nasty people ....... poor little babies( I got this from talent scout many months ago)! ha ha ha
The plate? schmate?klate! gimme a break folks!
LOKI said it pretty well!Read it! You folks ever hear of analogy...? Christ did it all the time!
Plate represented....giving to the church..
if he had said "going into the envelope" many people would have said..."HUH?!"
As for the LDS church being the same all over
the world...IT IS, period! If you don't believe it start visiting all over the world and you will see for your self !
Best wishes to all of you...you're a great bunch...a few exceptions(heh heh heh)!
elvis

hillplus
Wasn't trying to bait you. As I said I find it interesting. You and others make the claim that core doctrine does not change and has not changed. Was Polygamy a core doctine? If it was (as PC claims), and it changed, how can any thing else beyond that be trusted? IOW if they were wrong about that, what else might they be wrong about?

Is the Morman church exclusive (not baiting here either) or do Baptists and Evangelicals gain eternal life through Christ as well?

PC
Of course you are correct. I did not make myself very clear. I can't think of any other instances where doctrine has changed. In fact, even in those two instances, a reading of the Old Testament would suggest that it is not the doctrines that have changed, but the practices.God has always been in charge of how the priesthood is handled as well as marriage.

No changes in Mormon Doctrine
As far as I know the only changes in nearly 200 years were the abandonment of polygamy and the restriction being lifted on blacks and the Priesthood. Both were changes that reflected the times, but that does not mean they were not inpsired.

As far as actual doctrine, nothing has changed since the founding of the church.

Gov Romney is
Very insightful.

Anyone making an honest assessment of this man has to come away impressed with his wisdom and knowledge.

Truly a much needed leader in our time.

How we let the good ones get away.

wizzyg
Sorry, don't get your comment. Is Romney an evangelical?
Besides, preaching the gospel of Christ is humbling yourself to His command to FEED HIS SHEEP. It is the LORD who says 'follow me, I am the way' not His humble servants.

Great Job Mitt
Mitt hit a home run with this speech. It's too bad there are ignorant people who want to attack his faith. Maybe they should get to know some LDS people first... Good luck helping the GOP Mitt and if McAmnesty doesn't win this election I'll look for you in 2012!

yeah?
"This great experiment in liberty will endure and flourish only so long as we maintain the humility, faith and character to govern ourselves."

Humility?

The one downside to the evangelical movement is that in the need to proclaim and preach the word, all sense of humility has been lost.

Well, I read the speech...
Romney, as always, has an eloquently crafted speech at his side. And should he keep up speeches like these and Conservatism for another 4 years, I may change my mind about him and how genuine he is come 2012.

It's evident that he presents himself like a class-act... and in so doing, remains several notches above so many of his vitriolic supporters (aka Talk Radio).

Western Bondbeam
You have misunderstood the point of Conference every 6 months. And the LDS faith can't possible be taught in a thread on a message board. Everything has to be taken in context and in light of ALL teaching regarding that subject matter. A great place to go to learn is http://www.lds.org where you can read basic beliefs, the magazines online, teachings of the Prophets, etc.

People are to accept Jesus in the Christ by faith, and that faith comes via the Holy Spirit. That is the same way a testimony of the Church is gotten. It's the firmest foundation you can have.

western bondbeam
western bondbeam
Your comments:
Interesting comments regarding the LDS meeting every six months to determine doctrine status. It would seem this foundation would be too sandy for many to rely upon.

I don't know if you are baiting me or are truly interested. I will take the bait.
I repeat, core doctrine, such as Faith in the Lord, repentance, baptism etc... does not change.
Some example titles of talks given during conference,

Restoring faith in the family
Service, a divine quality
The Gospel of Jesus Christ
Faith of our Father
Born again

So, no we are not reinventing ourselves every six months. If anything, we are being fed spiritually. We have been counseled to stay out of debt, work on our food storage, serve our families get an education and more great stuff. We have NEVER been counseled how to vote, not even for American Idol .LOL

It is a great and firm foundation!



To my brother(s)
Talent Scout, We probably share some religious beliefs and disagree on others, but it appears we both share an appreciation and respect for the religious freedom we enjoy in this country. We both recognize God as the giver of rights and are grateful for His hand in inspiring the Founding Fathers of this great nation.

Lexx777
...exhibits ignorance as well as bigotry, and both in one rambling post, no less.

Perhaps you should consider becoming informed prior to attacking the religion of others. It is never wise to expose one's weakness in public.

Tell me again why
Mormonism is considered a cult, but the same people who think Mormonism is a cult think that secularism is a religion. Go figure.

I meant what I said...
and I said what I meant. The doctrines taught in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints are the same throughout the world. Whether the church is in the US, South America, Europe, Asia, etc., the doctrines are the same regardless of how many languages they are translated into.

western bondbeam writes: Friday, May, 09, 2008 3:58 PM
Ind Observer
You wrote earlier "Mormons have one set of beliefs and use the same set of scriptures throughout the world. The same cannot be said for some other Christian sects."
----------

"Are you saying that all Morman groups are the same everywhere? This is tough to swallow especially knowing that Morman's have thrown out and altered their own doctrine throughout their history as politics and laws pressured them to do so. Mormans have been no more or less immune to "spin-off's" from their sect than Catholics, Protestants or the rest. To claim otherwise is absurd. "

Question for you wb, what do "spin-offs" have to do with the original church they spun off from? Most Christian sects today are "spin-offs" of the Catholic Church. Does that mean we hold the Catholic Church responsible for the beliefs of all of its spinoffs?

hillplus
We are in agreement then regarding many sects from many sources and LDS is not immune any more than Baptists.

Interesting comments regarding the LDS meeting every six months to determine doctrine status. It would seem this foundation would be too sandy for many to rely upon.

Regarding Polygamy, clearly at one time it was thought that this was accepted. Was this originally from God, or man? If from God, why the change of mind, if from man, how can anything outside of the Bible be trusted? Then, now or in the future?

Don't mean to drive by post but I might not get time to check back today but will try if I get a chance.

Religion should be publicly questioned
I'm all in favor of a merger of religion and government. But what I ask is total transparancy. I would like to see the Congress of the United States debate whether or not Jews are going to hell because they do not take Jesus as their savior. This is transparancy. We need to know which of our representatives believe that Jews are going to hell and which do not believe so. We need a roll call voice vote on this.

Wilson54
It is a shame that more people do not have your attitude.

I think that Romney has show great ability to function in a non-sectarian way with empathy for people of all viewpoints. His history as a CEO shows much the same thing. His employees represent a broad range of beliefs and creeds.

It's too bad that so many felt threatened by his personal religious beliefs. He could have been a great president but it may have been a bumpy road. I believe that one of the reasons G. W. Bush is so hated by so many people is that he is a man of faith.

western bondbeam
western bondbeam

There are spinoffs of every religion, that is why there thousands of them.

Doctrine sometimes changes to suit the needs of the people, God gives line upon line. The big stuff like faith in the Lord or repentance, baptism, etc... won't change, of course. When there is a change, information usually comes during General Conference. This is a meeting that happens every six months in SLC and is broadcast throughout the world.

If you go to http://www.lds.org, you can watch the one that just happened in April.

I am sure that polygamy was a fierce trial for those who lived it, i wouldn't like to try it. I am the product of it, though. My one 5th great grandfather has thousands of progeny. Most still faithful LDS. I would share my understanding of the big picture of Polygamy, if you would like. It would only be gospel according to hillplus, though

TheLeftisEvil
RE: your posts of 3:59 and 4:00

"So, long before the American Revolution, the American people had ceased being religiously unified and were uninterested in forcing the issue."

I completely agree with both posts! I also think that Romney's speech was absolutely spot on.

My argument is very simple: If there is no God, nothing really matters because that would mean that there is no such thing as right or wrong.

Mitt not John
In spite of whatever misgivings I had about Romney's Mormon faith I supported him because I believed he was the only true conservative Republican in the race. I had many disagreements with relatives who said they could not support him because of his religion. I asked them if they would rather Hillary or Obama win by default. Some supported Huckabee who could not close the deal and some supported Thompson who did not seem to take his campaign seriously enough to work hard for it. I would even have taken Guiliani although I had disagreements with him. So ultimately we have McCain. I will probably hold my nose and vote for him because staying home or voting for a third party candidate would be the same as voting Democrat. God help us all. What a political year this has been!

A needed qualification
When I left my post with this ending, I should have added my entire thought.

quote myself:
Forgive me my rants, I actually can show cause, even for them.

Usually born out the contempt I feel for the lack of understanding our Freedoms, our Constitution, Laws, and National Identity, and everything about real money policy.
Which no one seems to grasp today but a handful, the real Americans.
-----------

but a handful, the real Americans in Government and the Media

Worth a Chained Ankle
The Plains Indians had a custom when faced with certain death, and die fighting.

They chained their ankle to the ground to face their enemies, and would not run but stand and fight until their own death.

The issues of this thread is Ground worth thying an ankle to and standing our ground to face all enemies, dying, if the circumstance dictates that outcome.


Excellent speech by Mitt Romney!
His speech was perfect on the subject of religion and freedom. Some have veered off of the subject of his speech here. And so I will veer off and mention this: lexx 777 seems to know very little about the Mormon religion, only what has been told to him or her by others or something he has read about in an anti-Mormon book. His statement of beliefs bare little resemblance to the religions that Mormons practice. Also, Ind Observer, you did a great job in helping lexx 777 to at least have some understanding of the subject matter.