»»Vote for character, not religion««
His faith informs his character.
Now what? |
|
|
Actually, I've been here for a while. And, I'm in love with my wife. Having said that, I'll tell you that I have been in more than one university's educational system (including Harvard) and while I suppose a victim in some ways, yes, have also benefited in many ways (improved my education, don't ya know). Cheers, |
|
I see tremendous potential in you. I was like you once upon a time but then I woke up.
I LOVE what you said about praying for rain. I've read the ASU studies regarding all that. The theory is that the Native Americans fled because of... ta da... a negative social environment.
I sense you are a smart guy but maybe a "victim" of today's university educational system.
Please come back and I'd love to talk with you again. Other than Dean, you are the guy I'd most love to debate with. |
|
|
You are still here after all my criticism? You are a man after my own heart. Please refresh my memory with a link to Hugh's article. |
|
|
Ok, my friend. But it's Hugh's article, not Dean's. Take care, AZ. Vote your conscience, but pray (as the Navahos would say) for rain. |
|
I'm not a Mitt supporter yet but I'd like to propose an argument in support of him.
The more that people attack Romney, the more I find myself compelled to defend him. Not because of him as a candidate at this point, but because of the principles involved.
If American Christians can't get along and find a way to vote for a Mormon who is a Christian (again, I don't agree with many aspects of Mormonism), how can we hope to change the Muslim world? Mormonism is what many of us consider an objectionable (or worse) form of Christianity. I don't like Mormonism, but I believe that regardless of its unfortunate foundations and tenets, the actual people who are involved in it are just as sincere as you or me.
I live near Mesa, Arizona and as I drive around the Valley of the Sun I am always surprised by how many LDS church steeples there are around here.
Mormonism is by percentage the fastest-growing religion in America.
Hispanics are the fastest-growing group in America.
Complain all you want, but eventually you guys are going to need to reconcile your religious orientation and race with the demographic changes going on in America today.
Don't you think that should be a bigger story than a Mormon in the White House?
|
|
I'm really glad that you read Dean's articles and have the courage to post in his comments section. I don't agree with your current perspective, but life is a process, isn't it?
You seem to have an open mind, so you are on the right track. |
|
|
One more reason we need to change you. |
|
Do a google such as I just did... "Massachussetts religion founding"... here's what came up immediately:
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel05.html
And here I was assuming you were from a foreign country. I guess instead you are the product of our current educational system, but believe me, that's not an attack on you as a person. Just one more reason we need to change the system. |
|
|
|
|
Just out of curiousity, which country do you live in? (The World Wide Web is so wide.) |
|
You couldn't be more wrong. The politics of this country was founded on no religion, and if you can show me which one, good luck to you. My ancestors fought for freedom of religion, among other freedoms.
God is great, God is good; let us thank him for our food. (As long as he don't vote). |
|
Does anyone here really understand the internecene warefare going on among the Muslims? Do you know why Sunni Muslims are at war with Shite Muslims?
Nonsequitur... are minor distinctions within the Christian faith (yeah, I know... I actually read the Book of Mormon back in the 70s and I don't agree with it but that's not the point) between Christian beliefs really all that important?
Please tell me the worst thing that could happen if a Mormon did become the Most Powerful Man in the World? What are you afraid he would do to change, destroy, or modify the world?
In my university religious studies classes we were taught about the great monotheistic religions and although I was totally shocked to learn how violent the founder of the "Religion of Peace" was, I nonetheless tried to keep an open mind.
How sad that back in those days none of us had a clue that in the 21st Century we would be forced to relive the Crusades.
Romney "gets it" and that's what's important when choosing a president. The vote you cast may save not only your life but Western society. |
|
|
What about his or her race or sex? If that were an issue to Christian religious beliefs and voting practices, then it would be worth discussion. Otherwise, in a question asked of Christians about Christian beliefs and political practices regarding Mormonism, race and sex are irrelevant. |
|
Hey, our country's forefathers were for the most part Masons.
I'll bet that if a candidate today was a Mason that would be an equally huge issue. But America has always turned out just fine because the individuals in the Oval Office have more often than not in times of crisis reached out to God and this is why I still say that God is in control.
Note to the poll-taking libs: If you want to get the best results, it helps if you look to God and ask for assistance no matter by what name you've been trained to think of him. |
|
Okay, so if a candidate's religion is important, what about his race? Or the candidate's sex?
Why are we spending so much time discussing male candidates' religious prefrences when there is in some ways a far greater gulf between the sexes and races?
|
|
AZguy: For Christians, religion is character.
Dudley: Democracy in this country was formed by and founded on religion, religious expression and freedom of religion. Without the Christians of the 18th and 19th centuries, democracy as we know it might not exist today. Separation of Church and State does not mean that religious beliefs have nothing to do with your vote for political representatives. It does mean that the government can neither repress religious beliefs and expression (so long as they are not quantifiably harmful), nor can a religion use the government to elevate itself above other religions or non-adherents. That is a short and inadequate definition of separation of church and state. Suffice it to say it is a false dichotomy and an intellectual impossibility to separate religious beliefs from political practices. Therefore, it is a valid question to raise amongst Christians whether or not they should vote for Mormons. |
|
In times of travail, presidents--just as you do--seek assistance from a Higher Power, not from the canons of their church.
In moments of crisis, do you ask yourself what your Pope or minister or pastor would say, or turn to a rule book? Or do you turn to God by whatever name you happen to use?
God is in control regardless of the name you are accustomed to using when you make the choice to reach out for his help. |
|
|
Who cares? Your religious beliefs should have nothing to do with your vote for your political representatives. If it does, you don't understand democracy in our country. |
|
Presidents take inspiration from so many sources. Wouldn't you try to reach outside yourself if you were Commander in Chief?
Ultimately, though, the decision rests with one man, one mind. All the opposing views bombarding him are not as important as the man's character and heart-felt principles.
Who would you rather have in the White House? A poll-taking, manipulating political operative like Hillary or a principled man such as Mitt seems to be? (I LOVED what he reported said about the war a few days ago, so I'm more of a Mitt fan now whereas before I didn't know much about him.)
I still won't necessarily vote for Mitt (I'm still rooting for Newt), but this whole issue of a man's religion warping his judgment as president is nonsensical in my opinion. Where is the historical precedent of this ever being a significant problem? |
|
Even as you read this, devoted adherents of Islam are blowing each other up (sometimes killing innocent Muslim school children in buses) over the "finer" distinctions of the Muslim religion.
Can't we do a little better than they are?
Of course there is what sometimes appears to be a world of difference between the various Christian denominations, and nobody says that any of us should admire or even agree with what some "deluded" Christians believe. Naturally our own individual view of religion is true and everyone else's is wrong.
Or is it?
Are you aware that famous psychic Jean Dixon was an advisor to JFK, an astrologer advised Nancy Reagan, and Abraham and Nancy Lincoln held seances in the White House. Yes, there have been psychics in the White House and the country didn't totally fall apart. So is a Mormon in the White House such a big threat?
Check this out from http://www.presidentialufo.com/sydney_omarr,_reagan,_and_astrology.htm:
As for Ronald Reagan, like Calvin Coolidge, Theodore Roosevelt, and Franklin D. Roosevelt before him, astrology appeared to be tied into life itself, and important decisions required at least a quick glance to the stars. The Philadelphia Inquirer, for example, insisted that "the signing of the U.S. Soviet treaty eliminating medium-range nuclear missiles" had been signed at 1:30 p.m. on December 8, 1987 based on advise from an astrologer. In addition, many papers reported the story that Ronald Reagan had postponed his inauguration 9 minutes as governor of California till 12:10 a.m. on January 2, 1967 based on astrology calculations.
Reagan became noted as being one of the few governors to actually sign astrology legislation when on August 30, 1974, as Governor of California, he signed legislation which became Chapter 583, and added Section 50027 to the government Code, relating to astrology. The legislation removed Sacramento licensed astrologers from the category of fortune tellers, thus allowing them to practice their trade for compensation.
|
|
While Mormons would, perhaps, prefer to be categorized within Christianity, the title of Hugh's original post reflects that there is a general cultural understanding that there is a difference between Mormons and Christians.
Whether or not this belief is accurate, I would venture that the majority of Christians do not believe that Mormonism (I'm not sure that's the correct term, so feel free to correct me if it's not. My primary trepidation comes from the '-ism' extension recently applied to a certain form of Islam, which association I would not wish to visit on Mormons.) is a sect of Christianity. It would be etymologically painful to have to specify, "Should Christians who limit their canon to the Bible only and who hold to trinitarian theology vote for Christian-sect members who accept extra-Biblical sources of authority and deny the ontological unity of the godhead?"
I certainly understand and empathize with your frustration over mischaracterizations of your faith. Most Christians have very little understanding of Mormon scriptures and theology.
However, given the vernacular understanding of a difference between Christians and Mormons, and the recognized canonical and trinitarian disagreements between Christians and Mormons (which Christians would say are definitive of the delineation between Christianity and Mormonism), it is not inaccurate to draw a distinction between the two in common discussion. The battle to ecumenize Mormonism with Christianity will rage on with continued disagreement and frustration on both sides. |
|
I very much appreciate the spirit of your comments, and I wholeheartedly agree with nearly all of what you say, including this: "Issues of canon are not dismissable items of opinion. The canon of scripture is of essential importance to Christians."
I just as wholeheartedly disagree with one major assumption underlying your next sentence: "Mormons may accept works other than the Bible into their canon [true], but that is one of the defining differences [true] between Christians and Mormons."
Specifically, I object to the assumption here "...between Christians and Mormons." Mormons are Christians. Always have been. Always will be. I would not object to this phrase "... but that is one of the defining differences between Mormons and members of other Christian sects."
It's fine to raise and discuss differences (assuming they're relevant to political behavior and therefore to this forum), but in my view, it's not o.k. to mischaracterize what those differences are. For example, Mormons believe Christ and his Father are two separate Beings. This is a difference between ours and other Christian faiths. But it neither undermines our claim to be Christians, nor negatively affects Mormons' political behavior.
Here's another difference, stated accurately. Mormons believe that we are saved by the grace of Christ, "after all we can do." (Usually, this doctrine is mischaracterized as Mormons believing in salvation by works.) This means for us that honest effort to do good works is insufficient to get to Heaven, but nonetheless required. If the spiritual price of sin is a zillion dollars, we must at least pay the twopence in our pockets. Not that Christ needs it. Not that his sacrifice needs augmentation. Not that we are "good." Only that it is good for our growth and character to offer our meager efforts, our broken hearts and contrite spirits. And charitable elbow grease where needed. This belief in the insufficiency-but-necessity of good works is one that DOES make a difference. It results in lots of Mormons running around trying to do good to their fellow man. |
|
Eichendorff, The Chair, et al: Issues of canon are not dismissable items of opinion. The canon of scripture is of essential importance to Christians. Mormons may accept works other than the Bible into their canon, but that is one of the defining differences between Christians and Mormons.
However, the merits of either canon are not relevant to the issue of Romney's candidacy except where Romney's faith and understanding of Mormon scripture may intersect with his policymaking. As a member of the particular brand of Christianity that I am, Romney is my man because his record intersects more with my values than do the records of the conservative candidates that make claims to be Christian.
The Bible does not instruct Christians in how to be a president or how to vote for a president. Being a good president for a Christian is the same as being a good janitor. A Christian serves God in all capacities, and as such, in whatever vocation they find themselves in, should work out their job description in the highest ethical/moral/spiritual capacity possible. A Christian janitor should be honest, hard-working, fair, and consider that their work at all times is for God in addition to their human employers, so the quality of their work should reflect this. Likewise for a Christian president. Or, in the case of the Christian voter, Christians should vote for who they believe will perform the job as though answerable to God, and who best represents our interests as we are responsible for representing God in our nation. |
|
My objection in this instance was specific, although I had a larger, implied one along with it. This larger, more general objection to your earlier post was against assertions about LDS theology that are patently and demonstrably false. This is the age of information, and all our scriptures and doctrines are online. Books of Mormon grow on trees. So, in my opinion, there is no excuse these days for saying what you said about Mormons' beliefs about Christ. That is my more specific objection--that it's easy to prove that Mormons are Christian by easily available resources.
About Christ's divinity, I don't know how much plainer I could have been. Reread the title page excerpt I posted. Moreover, how logically can I affirm the Divine Sonship without also affirming Christ's own Divinity? I don't get it. Still, the Book of Mormon twice refers to Christ as Jehovah, and the Doctrine and Covenants multiple times in three places. But I pointed you to the tools to see for yourself. All our canonized works, our missionary lessons, our materials of all kinds teach and have always taught that Jesus Christ is Jehovah, the great I AM, the creator, the Son of God, the Savior.
I suppose now I have a third objection, this time to your second post. You began it with:
"I am nearly certain....
... that Hugh does not want us to engage in a theological debate on this screen. So I will limit my response."
(1) I once might have agreed with this assertion, but these Mormons-aren't-Christian posts have gone on uncensored for many months, now. I refrained for the longest time from posting directly on the merits of the specific theological issues. But if posters can, with abandon and impunity make such claims here, I figure the same bandwidth should fairly be open to host refutations. So long as discussion remains respectful (as I still regard this one), I'm not sure that Hugh or Dean care.
(2) You started it. Wisdom begins with Socratic humility, and, these days, one can demonstrate that first by studying primary sources before commenting, or two, by saying "I don't know." But when somebody misstates the patently clear tenets of another's faith, I believe that other has the right and duty to politely correct the matter.
On your objection to use of the term, "bigot," I didn't use it, and I confess I don't know enough about you to do so. In my opinion it has been used here rightly at times and carelessly and wrongly at others. I do think it is fair to take a look at candidates' religions to see whether their adherents' behavior is consistent with the assumptions and premises of the American Founding: equality before God, the rule of law, consent of the governed, inalienable rights, and judeo-Christian morality typified by the 10 commandments. I also think that John Mark Reynolds' test that Hugh linked to is fair and reasonable. If a faith and the behavior it generally produces passes these basic tests, then members of that faith shouldn't be barred or discouraged from office merely by reason of their unique doctrines.
There is a fine line between not supporting someone because of their faith purely and not supporting them because "others" won't. "I can't support him because 'others' are bigots." Sounds weak-kneed to me, kind of like, "I don't have a problem with his race, but I can't hire him because others do."
Now, Vorpal, you took some issue with my "carrying the ball" comment. Mormons aren't the kind to "take their ball and go home." But like anybody else, though, we expect fair treatment. If a Mormon ball carrier looks to be the best, get behind him and shove him over the goal line. If not, get behind whomever is and I'll be right there beside you. |
|
Vorpal
We all understand Lucy is never going to let Charlie Brown kick that footbal, because that is just who she is...
bigoted is as bigoted does. |
|
What an old, tired, and pathetically stupid comment.
|
|
You're wrong again. Latter-day Saints believe that Jesus is Jehovah of the Old Testament, the I AM. This has always been our doctrine.
You may not accept the Book of Mormon as scripture, but you aren't the one who determines what is scripture. The Book of Mormon is true, it was inspired by God and written by true prophets. That constitutes scripture. Your opinion on the matter is irrelevant.
|
|
... that Hugh does not want us to engage in a theological debate on this screen. So I will limit my response.
First, let me say that I welcome the response of TheChair and others who defend the Mormon beliefs. I am extremely happy that you are exercising your right to speech and your right to practice your faith as you see fit. I also encourage people to check out each and every source that he/she suggests. Our beliefs, including mine, must be able to withstand aggressive questioning.
Two small points, then I will stop: TheChair affirmed that Christ is Savior, not that He is God, Jehovah, the I AM. There's a difference. Second, the Mormon books are not part of the canon of Scripture. That is not a minor point.
Actually, I more object to this tidbit that TheChair wrote:
"Our Evangelical brethren and sisters are happy to have us on the team (Utah and Idaho's electoral votes), but some won't allow a Mormon to carry the ball."
So, why then are Mormon's conservative? Because it is truth or because they get to carry the ball? I submit to you that they are conservatives because they know the alternative, modern liberalism will destroy their families and our society.
The point that I object to the most is the term 'bigot' that is being thrown around.
Bigot implies unthinking, unloving, unchristian rejection of another person because of their creed or race. It is a term designed to shut down debate. It is the same tactic that the people who use the term "global warming deniers" have in mind when they try to stifle opposition to their cause.
|
|
sure, let's vote for Mitt. He isn't any worse than anyone else.
For those who fear Mormons I just want to remind you that Paul wrote all those letters NOT to perfect Christians but to "Christians" who were sleeping with their father's wives, smoking weed, drinking, gambling, listening to the Rolling Stones and bad-mouthing their country. My point is, LDS may have some things wrong, in our opinion, but they seem to be on the right track. Many of them just ignore Joe Smith and his losing the Golden Plates from God. (don't ask). Besides, you know you respect Orin Hatch. |
|
It will be interesting if it's Mitt and Hillary won't it?
Oh and DrSavage--Zimri, Omri, Jehu, Pekah
Such quaint manes for the Kings of Israel.
And your point is? |
|
|
Moroni, that's a quaint name for the Mormon prophet. |
|
|
|
I can't take this anymore. If Vorpal and the like are allowed to post patent misrepresentations about LDS doctrine on this high-traffic political message board, a rejoinder is in order. He wrote:
"2) Are Mormon doctrines part of Christianity?
The answer is no. Mormonism is a false religion that denies central Christian doctrines starting with the Deity of Christ."
This assertion is false. Because of the traffic of this website, and because lies like this seem to be ceaseless here, I'm going to prove it. Mormons have four books in our Canon, including the KJV of the Bible. Hence, for starters, we believe every word in the Bible about Christ's divinity and about His unique role as Son of God and Savior. But the objection is clearly against the Mormon "twist" or "spin" on those beliefs. Our Evangelical brethren and sisters are happy to have us on the team (Utah and Idaho's electoral votes), but some won't allow a Mormon to carry the ball. So let's take a look at a VERY SMALL part of what the other 3 books have to say, starting with the Book of Mormon, online version. Click around; see how many times Jesus Christ is referred to reverentially as the Son of God. We really mean it.
http://scriptures.lds.org/en/search?type=words&last=%22son+of+god%22&help=&wo=checked&search=%22son+of+god%22&iw=bm&tx=checked&af=checked&hw=checked&bw=1
Now, here are just a few excerpts on Christ's role as Savior:
-"Which is to show unto the remnant of the House of Israel what great things the Lord hath done for their fathers; and that they may know the covenants of the Lord, that they are not cast off forever—And also to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that JESUS is the CHRIST, the ETERNAL God, manifesting himself unto all nations—And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ." (Excerpt from the title page, written originally by ancient prophet Moroni, Mormon's son.)
-"20 Wherefore, ye must press forward with a steadfastness in Christ, having a perfect brightness of hope, and a love of God and of all men. Wherefore, if ye shall press forward, feasting upon the word of Christ, and endure to the end, behold, thus saith the Father: Ye shall have eternal life.
21 And now, behold, my beloved brethren, this is the away; and there is none other way nor name given under heaven whereby man can be saved in the kingdom of God. And now, behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end. Amen." (2 Nephi 31: 20-21)
- "26 And we talk of Christ, we rejoice in Christ, we preach of Christ, we prophesy of Christ, and we write according to our prophecies, that our children may know to what source they may look for a remission of their sins." (2 Nephi 25: 26.)
- "17 And moreover, I say unto you, that there shall be no other name given nor any other way nor means whereby salvation can come unto the children of men, only in and through the name of Christ, the Lord Omnipotent." (Mosiah 3: 17.)
-Especially see here: http://scriptures.lds.org/en/3_ne/11 [3 Nephi 11, chronicling Christ's post-resurrection visit to certain ancient inhabitants of the Americas, preaching His gospel in person)
-and on, and on, and on. The ENTIRE Book is about Christ, his Divinity, and the necessity of believing in Him and keeping His commandments. I have read the Book of Mormon nearly 20 times. Unless Vorpal and other critics have read it, they would be better off keeping silent on these topics until they have.
Here is an excerpt from a revelation received by Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon in 1832:
"22 And now, after the many testimonies which have been given of him, this is the testimony, last of all, which we give of him: That he lives!
23 For we saw him, even on the bright hand of God; and we heard the voice bearing record that he is the Only Begotten of the Father—
24 That by him, and through him, and of him, the worlds are and were created, and the inhabitants thereof are begotten sons and daughters unto God." (Doctrine and Covenants 76: 22-23.)
Finally, for now, here is a more modern official statement on Christ:
http://www.lds.org/library/display/0,4945,163-1-10-1,FF.html
If anybody really cares what Romney and other LDS members believe, the easiest thing to do is get a Book of Mormon and read it. They're free: http://www.mormon.org/freeoffers/1,17785,2071-1-1-USA,00.html?src=google |
|
That is an awkward question.
Christians (and Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and Athiests) should vote for the best candidate running. Like that old Jewish saying: a rightous Christian is better than a bad Jew.
I also consider Mormons to be Christians. |
|
I have said on my blog that I disagree with the key elements of the Mormon faith, but I would not have a problem voting for Romney is he is the Republican nominee. Arguing with Mormons (LDS people) has been one of my favorite sports for decades, but I don't think his faith is a big issue with most voters. All I hope is that he's candid about what he believes -- avoiding the temptation to fudge things in order to get votes. I think the comments above are extremely civilized, which may be a credit both to Hugh and to Mitt. Unlike some of my dear friends, I'm enthusiastic about all the top-tier Republicans candidates, among whom I'd include the preacher's daughter, Condoleeza Rice.
steve maloney
ambridge, pa
P.S. Mitt, but don't ask me for money! |
|
It would only bother me if Mitt Romney was as high-up as an "Apostle" of his church, with all the responsibility that entails, like US Sen. Smoot was about a hundred years ago. That would make me wonder if he was more Apostle, or more politician. But as a "regular" member of the church, apart from all his political fame, I don't see a problem. Frankly, he's what he is because his parents were that, like most of us.
|
|
The question isn't "should Christians vote...," it's "WILL CHRISTIANS vote for a Mormon."
We're facing an incredibly tough '08.
George Walker Bush and his idiosyncratic ways are dragging us down, and it's only going to get worse.
So that being the case, is this really the time to experiment with an untested Mormon?
Simply as a matter of politics, is this really the time to indulge in political experimentation?
The USS Republican is already taking on water, is this the time to take on MORE water? |
|
I like Romney; I am a Christian and I look at it that we are electing a commander in chief, not a pastor in chief.
I do disagree with Romney's religious views (particularly the Mormon view of Jesus), but goodness, we can work together on important "wisdom" issues: the sanctity of life, the war on terror, economic stability and progress etc.
Romney is a good man, I hope more people take a serious look at him and avoid the straw-man arguments and plain old bigotry. |
|
.... do conservatives care what the Washington Post thinks about religion and faith?
There are two questions:
1) Is Mitt qualified to be President?
The answer is yes. More qualified than all the Dems and most of the Repubs.
2) Are Mormon doctrines part of Christianity?
The answer is no. Mormonism is a false religion that denies central Christian doctrines starting with the Deity of Christ. Note that I did not say that Mormons are not Christians. People who attend a Mormon temple and who identify themselves as Mormons may well be Christians. But if that is the case, then they are bad Mormons.
In my opinion, the real question should be:
Does Romney's open and active embrace of a false religion sufficiently call his judgement into question as to disqualify him from gaining a Christian's support?
I wonder why Hugh makes such a big deal about this? Practically speaking, this is a moot point. Only a fraction of Christians are even thinking about this question. That is a nearly negligle part of the overall voting population.
|
|
|
|