Monday, December 03, 2007
|
|
Heh
|
|
Posted by:
Hugh Hewitt at
10:11 PM
|
For nearly a year MSMers have been demanding Mitt Romney give a speech about his religion.
Now the former Massachusetts governor announces he will give a speech about religious liberty --five days before absentee ballots are available in New Hampshire, and days before the country tunes out politics for carols, family, turkey and football-- and the big media turn on cue and begin to focus everything on the Bush Library and the speech.
Romney will walk on to a stage with a thousand reporters and hundreds of thousands of voters watching and give a speech on --religious liberty. He will be surrounded by his wonderful family in front of an appreciative audience at a setting that is as presidential as they come outside of the White House, and the MSM has no choice but to cover it because they have demanded it.
The Romney plan continues to roll out. Even the Huckabee pop has helped by lowering Romney's expectations in Iowa, even as Rudy has to fight off bad headlines and a McCain Campaign buoyed by the Manchester Union Leader's endorsement. (Rudy needs the last few McCainiacs to throw in with him.)
When I talk to groups about Romney's appeal to business leaders, one of the aspects of his past success which I stress is the years he spent buying, improving and selling companies, and how that required an ability not just to understand the company he was investing in, but the ability to predict what the market landscape would look a year or two or three down the road. Even the best management team couldn't have made a buggy whip company turnaround as the automobile came online. Similarly, the turnaround of the Olympics required Romney to look far beyond the meltdown he inherited to the long range possibilities of recovery for a great brand in a great setting.
When he set out to run for president, he knew the anti-Mormon fanatics would be there every step of the way, and that religious bigotry on the left and right would be a handicap. We won't know until after the campaign is over, but I suspect in the headquarters of Team Romney there is a timeline drafted long ago that has on it an entry --"a week before the first absentees are cast, give speech on religious liberty." I will be surprised if the speech Romney gives on Thursday will have much to do with theology, but I expect it will have a great do to do with political theory.
The ability to anticipate events and especially difficulties is among the greatest attributes of leadership. Romney has it. Giuliani has it. I don't see it anywhere else in the field on either side of the aisle.
I had some noisy anti-Mormon callers today, and they will continue through November. Though they are deeply sincere in their convictions, they are far outside the mainstream of American political tradition which explicitly prohibits governmental religious tests for office and which implicitly rebukes private religious bigotry though not vigorous disagreement about theology. The louder these voices become, the greater the reaction against them.
UPDATE: Comprehensive coverage --and I do mean comprehensive-- at Article6Blog.
UPDATE 2: E-mailers are accusing me of changing my mind about whether Romney should give "the speech." They are, I suspect, Pittsburgh Steelers fans who refuse to learn. So I have gone back and bolded the words "religious liberty" in the post above. A speech about "religious liberty" is not a speech about theology. Is that really so hard to grasp?
UPDATE 3: Byron York grabs an exchange between Romney and NPR that glimpses what is ahead. Romney is absolutely correct to drill this interviewer, and 75% or more of America will agree with Romney that this line of questioning is unacceptable:
Romney Takes the NPR Religious Test [Byron York]
Mitt Romney was interviewed on NPR today, where host Robert Siegel was quite interested in Romney's views on the Bible. The exchange gives us an idea of Romney's frame of mind as he approaches his speech in Texas Thursday:
SIEGEL: One last point: In the CNN-You Tube debate, there was a moment when one of the people who submitted a question asked all the candidates whether they believed in every word of the Bible, and two of your rivals – Mayor [Rudolph] Giuliani and Gov. [Mike] Huckabee – both made a point of saying, "Well, in some parts it's allegorical, in some parts it should be interpreted, but yet, I believe in the Bible." And you seemed – if I read you right – to make a point of saying it's the word of God, and even when considering some modification, you backed up, said, "No, I'll just stick with that. It's the word of God." [That] left the impression – and I want to ask you – do you hold a literal belief, say, in the Genesis version of creation?
ROMNEY: You know, I find it hard to believe that NPR is going to inquire on people's beliefs about various parts of the Bible in evaluating presidential candidates, and actually, I don't know that that's where America has come to — that you want to have us describing our particular beliefs with regards to Genesis and the Book of Revelations, so —
SIEGEL: I raise Genesis only because creationism is a national issue in a variety of ways, and –
ROMNEY: Well, but then you could ask me a question and say, "Do you believe that we should teach creationism in our schools, in our science classes and so forth?" and I'm happy to give you an answer to that. But I don't know that going through books of the Bible and asking, "Well, do you believe this book? And do you believe these words?", that that's terribly productive. Particularly when we face global jihad, when we have 47 million people without health insurance, when we have runaway costs in our entitlements, to be asking presidential candidates about their specific beliefs of books of the Bible is, in my view, something which really isn't part of the process which we should be using to select presidents. My point is the Bible is the word of God, and I try and live by it.
|
|
When somebody calls me, or somebody else, a "bigot," that means that the name-caller has run out of substance adequately to challenge what I've written, or said, or wants to intimidate me into shrinking from my duty, under God, to express His Knowledge and my knowledge insofar as my knowledge aligns with the Word of God.
Calling me names goes to ensure that I take, with a grain of salt, any criticism of my view because the name-caller is hiding something behind his name-calling.
So, call me anything you want. That won't stop me anymore than the dogs stop a train. |
|
The Constitution does not preclude me from using a religious test at the polling place. I'll take in there whatever test I want to apply in honesty and integrity. If other people want to edit out from their conscience a candidate's "religiosity," they have to deal with that dishonesty themselves, even though it impacts the rest of us, because, if the wrong candidate gets elected, the rest of us suffer, even though we knew better.
Consider last year's election that enabled Democrats to take Congress, and just because angry and disgruntled Republicans either voted for candidates other than Republicans, or voted, specifically, for Democrats, just to teach Republicans a lesson. And, now, look what we've got. Boneheads! |
|
Jesus was confrontational and provocative. He called people "vipers." He said that He is the ONLY Way -- not every-which-way -- to the Father. He challenged "religious" views.
So, is He a bigot? |
|
»»I'm not a bigot. You Mormons are wackos, and thinking so, does not a bigot make...So Hugh Hewitt and others should stop using the Bigot word. ««
In their own minds, by using that term, they preclude themselves from thinking about the things we write. It's a firewall. Unfortunately, that firewall keeps out sense, too.
Still, that shouldn't stop us. In my case, it won't. Cuz I don't care what anybody says, if what they say doesn't align with the Word of God. Jesus didn't care. I don't care.
|
|
csdeven,
So, do we ignore what the Word of God tells us to do, just because you too-freely throw the word "bigotry" around? Are we supposed to be afraid of that? Are we supposed to cower in the corner?
When it comes to the Word of God, I'll do what It says, not what some poster says, or tries to intimidate me to do, or not to do.
You people really need to find a term other than "bigot." That's because the term is so overused again and again and again that it has become meaningless, just like the four-lettered cuss words used to offend and, now, don't; they become just puffs of wind and smoke. |
|
I'm not a bigot. You Mormons are wackos, and thinking so, does not a bigot make.
I'm one of the real "prophets", I'm preaching the true gospel to you.
That's all. There are two subjects being discussed, 1) Romney's Presidential run, and because he's a Mormon, and hasn't flip flopped on the second subject is 2) What is this Mormon belief system anyway and has nothing to do with selecting someone for a job, or president.
Most of my discussions are on 2) and there is no bigotry involved in expressing the Truth.
Don't confuse 1) and 2). If someone says, I will not vote for Romney on the single issue that he is a Mormon. Then there's a slight possiblity of calling that bigotry. Either way, I am not saying that. I have many, many reasons not to vote for Romney, and his personal, core beliefs are ONLY one of them. So Hugh Hewitt and others should stop using the Bigot word. It should be respectifully limited to Race and ethnicity.
Thank you. |
|
»»Does that bigotry keep you warm?««
1Jn 4:1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
You mean, like, THAT "bigotry"? |
|
|
Does that bigotry keep you warm? |
|
You see, so far this whole discussion has been about justifying the Mormon religion as no different from other religions.
The great political leader will speak in less than 24 hours and give the faith speech. But what's missing is that Mormons want us to accept them and allow them the freedom to practice what they want, and they say, hey we are no different than you.
But based on their history and actions, they are controlling and will not converts leave easily. Many on here are quoting how fast growing their religion is, and the number of members.
How immature can you be? You do realize the from 1933 to 1939, the nazi party in Germany was also growing faster than any other party. So growth and followers means nothing when it comes to determining the Truth.
So back to the Why?
You see Mormons believe they are the ONLY religion. There is NO ROOM for any others, the Mormons are the way, the truth, and the life. Not Jesus Christ. Pretty simple people. The deception they carry on with is also stunning. Do you see it? Church of Jesus Christ of Later Day Saints....but they MUST not believe Jesus' words, so WHY? do they include him in their name?
To try to appear acceptable to the 98% of the United States that is not UNDER THEIR CONTROL...
One Nation, Under Mormon, for liberty and Justice for Salt Lake City...something like that |
|
Yep,
I can't argue with your sincerity. But comments like, joint-heirs with Christ cause concern.
It seems the LDS interpretation would be along the lines of, ..hey, we're going to be like or equal to Jesus...I guess that whole having our own planet thing might just work out...
When the orthodox, and contextual interpretation is that we will be resurrected. Resurrected, that's all. It doesn't say we will have equal status with Jesus and that we will go off to our own planets. See Romans chapter 8. It talks about eternal life.
If everyone would step back and ask some basic questions, it becomes revealing.
1) Why is the Mormon church so controlling of their members? They really get into the details of their lives and it's not the choice of the members its an aggressive stand by their leadership.
2) Why is it that Mormons don't recognize the beliefs of orthodox Christian religions? They are not like Paul in the New Testament, a missionary I might add, that preached the gospel. Paul didn't control the converts, because the entire gospel message is about setting us free from our sin, and setting us free from a hierarchal religious organization. The curtain veil was torn asunder when Christ died on the cross, why do Mormons put themselves under leadership that is similar to the Pharisees? It sure seems like they are taking this freedom that Jesus spoke of, and Paul taught and reversing direction.
As a Christian believer, I've attended regularly at Lutheran churches, Community Churches, Evangelical Free Churches, Baptist Churches, non-denominational Churches, Catholic churches.
All of these are mainstream, none of them have tried to control me, and said, ...you can't leave here...what's the matter with you....you will be damned...and we will take it out on your relationships with your family and we will leave you...
Mormonism doesn't allow this freedom. Why?
|
|
Romney is against Illegal Immigration, right?
So someone needs to ask him why Jesus disobeyed the law on immigration and came and spoke with Joseph Smith in 1830?
Seems the whole religion is based on illegal activity. |
|
|
Romney is criticized for flip flopping.....I wish he would flip flop and claim to have seen the light and become a Southern Baptist. 1) His eternal soul is more important than being President, 2) it would be awesome political fodder for the media... |
|
|
|
|
The bigotry must be their life's blood. |
|
|
Is there a limit to how many posts you can make? I haven't been able to post here in 24 hours.... |
|
I'm not at all embarrassed by either "exaltation" or the "celestial kingdom," and, in fact, I've already addressed them in other posts here, at least in passing.
For those interested in a brief treatment of the subjects, I would recommend going to
http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/booksmain.php
and then scrolling down to "Latter-day Christianity: Ten Basic Issues." If you click on that title, you'll see the titles of the various chapters, and will be able to choose which seem most relevant.
What I find depressing about these exchanges is not the fact of being "challenged on my beliefs" -- a committed member of a religious minority is likely to have experienced such challenges for much of his or her life; I certainly have -- but the confrontational hostility of many of the posts here.
As a matter of fact, I've devoted my professional career to the academic study of other religious traditions (notably Greek Neoplatonism, early Christianity, and Islam), and I'm quite well aware of the fact that "there's 'life' outside of LDS." You presume far too much when you assume that I'm a believing Mormon because I don't know anything else, or because I fear conflicting ideas. (For what little it's worth, for example, I'm multilingual and have spent years of my life living in Europe, the Near East, and Africa. I've been around the block a little bit.) |
|
Hugh- are you really in the satchel for Romney this bad? What- does he have compromising pics of you somewhere?
You've serviced him well, Lewinsky-style, but enuf. That guy is a phony- no, not for his faith, but for his utter lack of political convictions. He'll say, do, or take any view simply to position himself better to a- perceived- portion of the electorate base, any personal political principles and beliefs he might hold be damned. |
|
So Daniel,
You ignored the point about "Exaltation" and "Celestrial Kingdom"
Oh, do tell us where we will find this taught in the Bible.
Yeah, "good grief" is right. Embarrassing question, isn't it?
Consider your momentary depression of being challenged on your beliefs to be a momentary event if it leads you to the truth that Lilith has discovered.
You have much in common with Lilith, both followers of the LDS church, you may want to see if there's "life" outside LDS... |
|
I'm either lying or I'm ignorant, Lilith? Charming.
"I can tell you that Mormons do NOT believe that the NT 'accurately depicts the life and teachings of Jesus.'"
If you can identify a single miracle attributed by the New Testament to Jesus that we deny, or any specific part of the New Testament narrative about him that we reject, I hope you'll point that out for readers here.
"And as for this statement: 'Mormons believe in his [Christ's] atonement (and accept it as the only way to salvation)" I must tell you, that depends on what your definition of salvation is.'"
We will be resurrected only because Christ was resurrected. We have hope of salvation only because Christ has paid for our sins. None of us, being imperfect, has a RIGHT to enter the presence of God. In his mercy, however, Jesus has atoned for us -- if we will only accept his sacrifice.
"Exaltation, not salvation is the goal for Mormons. It also explains all the 'good works' they're always doing for everyone to see."
So, professing Mormons like myself are either dishonest or ignorant, and, to top it off, we're Pharisees, doing "good works" not out of sincere devotion but in order to receive applause from onlookers.
Good grief.
As for some of the others here, the rule seems to be that, since Mormonism differs from their beliefs, it's a cult.
It's impossible not to be depressed by the level of discourse of several of the people here. |
|
|
And please stop repeating the falsehood that the Mormon church is the fastest growing church! The Roman Catholics and Assemblies of God are both ahead of the LDS (see Worldwide Faith News archives http://www.wfn.org). |
|
Daniel said:
"Mormons believe that the New Testament accurately depicts the life and teachings of Jesus...[and] believe in his atonement (and accept it as the only way to salvation)..."
Forgive me if this has already been addressed, but I had to stop reading many posts ago to clear this up.
First, let me be upfront and say that I was a fully practicing Mormon my whole life until recently. And I can tell you that Mormons do NOT believe that the NT "accurately depicts the life and teachings of Jesus."
The 8th Article of Faith says in part: "We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly;..."
In other words, there are many teachings of Jesus that were distorted or removed such as polygamy/temple marriage, baptism for the dead, works-based salvation, etc., which explains the need for Joseph Smith to "restore" these things. Is it any wonder Mitt looked so uncomfortable answering the bible question in the Youtube debate? He obviously couldn't say what he really believes!
And as for this statement: "Mormons believe in his [Christ's] atonement (and accept it as the only way to salvation)" I must tell you, that depends on what your definition of salvation is.
Mormons believe that salvation means immortality only, and that heaven (which they call the "Celestial Kingdom") is where you go after you "earn" your "exaltation" by following a long list of "requirements" here on earth (see Ch. 47 "Exaltation" in "Gospel Principles" on lds.org).
Exaltation, not salvation is the goal for Mormons. It also explains all the "good works" they're always doing for everyone to see.
|
|
»»This country is founded on religious freedom...««
The settlers came from England because the Church of England required them to exalt the Church, not God. The Church of England even kept the Word of God from the people so that they would be beholden to the Church.
As they, themselves, said, they came here to advance Christianity, not establish some every-which-way kind of worship and belief. They believed that, if Christianity took root here, it would flourish. They intended a Christian nation. That's what they got. |
|
»»Jesus was crucified by the Jews, but really God the father allowed it to happen and worked all things to that end.««
The Father knew what He was doing.
The appearance of Jesus in the world and His death were necessary for God's offer of Reconciliation with Man. No other way to do it.
This offer of Reconciliation is available to everybody. However, only those who are born again can partake.
|
|
»»Neo
Swampthing hasn't been around for awhile, brevity is not his schtick, as you may have noticed. ««
Then you don't know what brevity is.
|
|
»»Adam, how do you deal with Jesus' statement that there in neither marriage nor giving in marriage in heaven?««
How about including the context, Scripture upon Scripture? |
|
»»Jesus made no trip to North America. In Acts chapter 1, Jesus left his followers and said he would return in the same way he departed. He didn't say he had a layover at Chicago O'Hare.
This is the main reason it is so easy to identify Mormonism to a Cult.
They mix Christian theology with their own made up system. Mormonism and Christianity are mutually exclusive. ««
BRAVO! |
|
Jesus made no trip to North America. In Acts chapter 1, Jesus left his followers and said he would return in the same way he departed. He didn't say he had a layover at Chicago O'Hare.
This is the main reason it is so easy to identify Mormonism to a Cult.
They mix Christian theology with their own made up system. Mormonism and Christianity are mutually exclusive. |
|
scallywag claims: "The Mormon view of Christ is not that much different than the view held by Muslims"
FALSE. ABSOLUTELY FALSE.
Muslims deny that Jesus was ever resurrected or that Jesus was the Son of God. To them, Jesus is just one more Hebrew prophet.
Mormons absolutely believe in the resurrection of Jesus. It's just that they continue the story past His resurrection and follow Him in his journey to North America.
I'm not a Mormon and even I know that.
|
|
Well said, the only thing I would change is that technically Jesus was crucified by the Jews, but really God the father allowed it to happen and worked all things to that end.
It's quite the genius of the Lord Father to bring that about the way he did, and at the time he did it. |
|
BG writes: "His target markets are the press, reasonable Protestants, Catholics who have been called a cult for decades, secular voters who want separation of Church and State and reasonable people who feel that religion should not be an important part of a campaign."
How many of those vote in the Iowa GOP caucus?
It's VERY late in the game for any GOP candidate to be going after *secular* voters--it's probably too late for new secular voters to even register as Republicans. And right here on TH.com, there are lots of social conservatives who do NOT believe in the "separation of church and state," pointing out that phrase doesn't exist in the Constitution and blaming liberal judges for it. The phrase "separation of church and state" is much more popular with liberals than with social conservatives.
The most Romney can do is allay the fears of Christian evangelicals that he will NEVER use the bully pulpit of the Presidency to advocate for Mormonism. Remember when the media asked Bush who his favorite philosopher was, and he answered Jesus? Mitt Romney has to assure Christian evangelicals that he will NEVER mention Joseph Smith's name in any context.
Then Romney can couple that with an attack on Huck's record, trying to drag him down.
|
|
So much is being written and claimed about Romney and his faithfulness to his wife, and what a great family guy he is, as all Mormons are.
So is this really special?
Does this one act of faithfulness make Romeny and other Mormons sinless? Are they thus perfect?
It seems to me we have a belief system based on performance. This has nothing to do with Christianity. Christianity is a belief system of God's grace. Romans 3:23 says "...all have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God...."
So are you Romney pundits saying Romney is sinless because he's only had one wife? If not, why even mention it? It matters not.
You infer that "family values" are what is important to those that fit in the "evangelical box". But you are defining he box, no one is getting into your box.
I'm for grace. Not for works. The criminal on the cross next to the hanging savior entered paradise, not because he had great family values, but because he recognized that Jesus was the Lord, God and Savior.
Mormons are going backwards. They "control" their congregations with rules and laws, and for what? That's Old Testement control. Jesus came to set us free.
Romney chooses to be controlled by his beliefs. I don't want a president that doesn't have the intellectual capacity to study history and understand that the Mormon Cult is not a religion. The fact that he claims it is equal or better than Christianity is offensive. |
|
Jesus Christ was crucified by the Jewish leaders because He equated Himself with God...
Jesus of the Bible is God in the flesh. Not a "spirit brother of Lucifer" not the Son of God only...He is God in the flesh. He lives today and He is God.
God was not a man before...He is eternal which means He always existed and will always exist and Jesus always existed as all things were created by Him and through Him.
To believe the gospel message of Joseph Smith is to believe a different gospel altogether and Paul wrote that those who believe another gospel other than the one he brought to the Galations is wrong. He called those who do follow another gospel "accursed"- damned to hell.
So, why should we follow someone who believes a different gospel than the one in the Bible??
We shouldn't. |
|
http://www.irr.org/mit/biblepage.html
Cheers |
|
Again, the LDS have different specific views. No, the New Testament gives no examples of the Apostles performing baptisms for the dead. But Paul was aware of it, he didn't mention that there was anything wrong with it. It can go both ways on face value.
The LDS understand Jesus' statemnet to mean that people don't get married to each other after this life. Just like baptism, marriage is something that needs to be done before the judgement day. I guess if you believe that there are Heavenly Parents, it makes perfect sense. If there are not Heavenly Parents, it would be odd to be married in heaven.
The LDS teach that only a prophet called by God (not just someone who feels called or has a degree in religion) is authorized to reveal His will. If God revealed that baptism for the dead was hiw way of offering salvation to those who never got a chance to choose baptism in life, it would be as authoritative as the scriptures, for once that revelation is written down , it is considered scripture. If ou believe in Lutheranism, then you believe who you believe.
I would say that Mormons are not "secretive." If you want to enter an LDS temple,l wait for one to be built in our area, and take the walk through before it is dedicated (as thousands do). There's nothing secret about it. Mormons make covenants (pomises/contracts) with God in those temples that are very personal and very sacred in which they promise God to obey Him, follow the gospel, live a chaste life (yes one wife and only with your spouse), and to sacrifice to help build God's kigdom. Baptisms for the dead (they're just like an other baptism) and marriages. These are personal and sacred experiences, so they don't talk about them. It would like not talking about the hostia in communion because it represents sacred, personal things. There's no secret. |
|
Sorry, but you obviously did not listen to the "owner" of this blog.
You see he called the CNN reporter this afternoon an IDIOT and a DUFUS.
So, I like to use the same vocabulary as those I discourse with.
If you have any value to add, I will read it and comment, other than that, good night. |
|
Oh, Hugh is not a Mormon, but he's studied it for "10 years...".
Wow, impressive.
Here's another way to look at his comments from today. He claims Mormonism is not a mystery, because "he's studied it". Well, how many people have been able to do likewise? Not many. The one's I know, identify Mormonism as a Cult. I choose to believe those "experts" over the Dufus, Idiot, HH.
This townhall.com blog thing is pretty cool. I highly recommend the link above to the Romneyforpresident...it's great, has good links to people that have studied it for 40 years. Four times better than HH.
Hugh, do you ever post on your own blog and answer the mail? Or do you save your pontificating to the radio where you control the environment and can bully any caller you wish.
I beg you to come to an equal playing field and take on the issues head on. This is not a religion, it is a CULT.
Cheers
|
|
|
Oh, this was going so good, now we are back to name calling. Goodnight. |
|
Pot calling the kettle black. Day two of my Hugh Hewitt experience. He certainly doesn't dissappoint.
He's TOTALLY wrong on the CNN thing, Gaffrey or whatever. I'm a FOX viewer for the most part, but that radio clip HH played today and WHINED about was a joke.
The CNN guy was quoting a POLL. He didn't pull the 20% out of his, you know what, kind of like HH pulls out his criticism.
The CNN guy OWES NO ONE an apology. He was stating a Poll and also a common belief that "Mormonism is surrounded in mystery". Based on the argument here on the blog, it is clear there is plenty of mystery to go around.
If you state something about Mormonism on here, you are either wrong, or misinformed, or need to be educated. Sounds like plenty of Mystery to me.
Second, 2% of the population is Mormon. Therefore, 98% of the people "have to educate" themselves about the cult, I mean religion.
Since they are predominently in Utah, and most people live within 100 miles of either ocean, you just don't come across Mormons very often.
HH's comments are laughable because he doesn't follow any logic. You see, in the same poll if they did the following, the results would be as such.
"The fact that McCain is Lutheran, would that affect your vote?"
"The fact that Hillary is Methodist, would that affect your vote?"
On and on this could go, and the results would likely be less than 1%. Why is Mormonism 20% HUGH??? because it's a Mystery, that's why, you big DUMMY, you IDIOT, you DUFUS. |
|
|
Adam, how do you deal with Jesus' statement that there in neither marriage nor giving in marriage in heaven? |
|
"There is not religious test to run for office in the US. But in the privacy of the voting both I can choose what qualities I like or dislike in a candidate. Is Mitt going to take that away from me. I can vote for a man or woman because I like his hair dye, his accent or the cut of his clothes, or his war record. And I will, who is going to stop me."
What you fail to understand is that a candidate's religion, such as Mormonism, is a kind of magic talisman. It can be used as a positive factor, as in "his faith has strong family values," but if you have negative feelings about any religion, you're nothing more than a common bigot, and may God have mercy on your soul.
|
|
Great site to educate oneself on Mormonism. Funny, didn't seem to post, so I'm doing it again.
http://romneyforpresident.townhall.com/ |
|
Daniel, yes 1 Cor 15:29 is a bit thin to hang the doctrine of baptism of the dead on. Are there any actual episodes of the apostles doing it in the NT?
I was thinking of Origen as an early example of trinitarian thought, yes some of his unorthodox beliefs were overturned in the 6th century. But my point stands, Smith overturned him, and more importantly Augustine, Aquinas and Luther. So whom are we to believe? |
|
http://romneyforpresident.townhall.com/
|
|
I am so pleased to have discovered this blog for educating myself on Mormonism. This fellow went to great lengths to provide the information, and he has links to other important sites. It's pretty clear, Mormonism is not Christianity. In fact it is a Cult like Jim Jones and Jehovah's Witnesses, and Scientology.
Enjoy.
http://romneyforpresident.townhall.com/ |
|
|
|
We have come to an agreement.
Daniel posted just a couple of posts above with the reference in the KJV about baptisms for the dead.
True, the docrtine of celestial marriage is only explicitly mentioned in Doctrine and Covenants. It is not explicitly found in the New Testament.
He was vocal about the differences between Mormons and other CHristian churches, but they other churches at the time also were vocal about those differences, to the point of persecuting Mormons. SMith never advocated the persecution of other Christians. There were preachers in Smith's day who incited persecution of Mormons among their members.
As to the "perfect wolrd..." there is something that we can do about it. We can not let Fox News' take on it become the reality. The news wants entertainment, and entertainment comes out fo drama, which is conflict. So focusing on the differences will get viewers. The problem is that this particular conflict deals with theological differences, and American politics ought to flee from that. Why do we just accept that? Mormons don't want a political confrontation with Baptists. It doesn't reflect reality and therefore is not the real world.
I have considered getting a Greek version of the New Testament.
I agree with you about voting for the nominee, except I would vote for Giuliani over any democrat. I think it would easier to repair an damage he causes than what a democrat would inflict. |
|
Adam - I don't think I said celestial marriages were evil, I was asking for the NT practice of it, as LDS claims a resoration of the original beliefs. And what is your KJV citation for baptizing the dead?
Well, Smith certainly did not downplay the differences between his teachings and mainstream Christianity - and as we are seeing in our discussion, there are major differences, and folks should be aware of that.
For politics, maybe everyone ought to unite, but that is in a perfect world; Fox news just had a report about Huck the Baptist vs. Mitt the Mormon, that's the way it is. The MSM is carrying on about the religions of the candidates. Politics is a hardball game and no one survives who can't stand in the box.
Yes, I took Greek in college, the attic version Plato used, then studied the koinonia Greek of the NT. There are parallel Greek New Testaments of the Greek text with English above it, so if you wanted to learn the Greek alphabet you might find one useful.
I will vote for Mitt if he is the nominee, or whomever wins the primaries except Rudy, I have problems with him on abortion. |
|
|
Before you completely dive off the deep end, perhaps you should actually read my post. I said "I am a Presbyterian- I am still proud to be one, but not sure Hugh is anymore" not sure how that leads to lets Excommunicate him (also not sure how that would be done in Presbytery anyway, but I digress). The statement is acually an observation of how he continues to attack Evangelicals and defend Mormons, perhaps he would be happier in some other denomination since many Presbyterians are Evangelicals. Why that gives you the idea of accussing me of being Holy than Thou, is beyond me. |
|
True, Smith saying that all other faiths were corrupt was not well-accepted.
Yes, early Christians were baptizing for the dead, as mentioned in passing by Paul and the Christian Fathers mentioned it, but as people stopped believing in the practice, Christians stopped doing it. What is wrong, by the way, with celestial marriages? It's one thing to say that Mormons have doctrines different than traditional Christianity, but it's another to say that celestial marriage is an evil thing. What do you know about the LDS doctrine of celestial marriage?
What's wrong with down-playing differences? Do you want to focus on differences, or on commonality (especially considering Romney is running for President of the UNITED States)?
Smith did teach things different from what Origen taught, and Origen was neither an apostle, nor a prophet, but a bishop, scholar, and apologist. In essence, he is like an influential preacher of today and rabbi of the Jews. Origen taught things that the Christians before him didn't believe and that are very much different from what you outlined above. All this means is that Christianity incorporates many different theologies. However, in a political environment, Christians (no matter how they define who Christ is) ought to unite together over their commonalities of the values they all share. At the pulpits and in the chapels, they can divide themselves all they want.
Mitt is right, we aren't voting for preacher-in-chief. This is about the presidency. If he says that he believes in the teachings of Christ, you can be assured that he is referring to beatitudes and parables, the very ones in the Greek New Testament you say you read. (By the way, are you implying that you read Greek, or that you refer to the New Testament as "Greek" in that it was written in Greek? That's amazing if you can read Greek) |
|
"Were early Christians baptizing the dead?"
According to 1 Corinthians 15:29, yes, at least some were. (This is a point of contention, I know, but we're not altogether out in left field on this point: No less a New Testament scholar than Krister Stendahl, the former Lutheran bishop of Stockholm and dean of Harvard Divinity School, has written, obviously without converting to Mormonism, in support of the Mormon reading of that passage.)
"Smith overturned Origen."
Not entirely. For example, Joseph Smith taught the premortal existence of human souls, as Origen had done. It was early Christian councils that overturned Origen in the centuries following his death; Joseph Smith restored that teaching.
"I read the Greek NT."
So do I. |
|
adversaries of mine have gently smacked me for assuming you're 'new here'. Sorry. And, seeing Adam's space exhaustion since this a.m., I'd say maybe you are Brief!
VPat & A/B/S...Thanks, Guys. |
|
Adam -Many evangelicals perceive LDS as as threat, in part because of market share, as you mention. Did Smith say all the churches were corrupt? That is not well accepted.
Were early Christians baptizing the dead, having secret temple ceremonies and celestial marriages?
Who is the arbiter of what is and is not allowed for discussion? Mitt sells himself as a person of faith, and it the question follows , what is that faith placed in. I too wish we could stick to politics, I started this discussion with some trepidation.
Smith overturned Origen, Augustine, Aquinas and Luther, who all believed pretty much as I outlined above; that is going to cause conflict. Neither you nor I, and certainly not Mitt, can change that.
When the young missionary men come to my door, the talk about how LDS is similar to orthodox, while downplaying the differences. Some perceive that as decetiful. I read the Greek NT so I can discuss this sort of thing, others, as you say, see it as a threat. |
|
It is a good discussion, but why does it have to define Romney as a dangerous candidate for evagelicals?
Again, I'm not trying to make doctrines Romney's issue, all I have mentioned is that "traditional Christianity" does not beleive the same thing as the early Christians. Yet evangelicals, who don't adhere to early Christian theology, claim Mormons are dangerous because of their beliefs. Allow me to calrify what the danger really is, Mormonism is dangerous to the prosperity and profits of evangelical ministries because the LDS faith is the fastest growing religion in the world. It's not about the definition of the Trinity.
The theological differences should be for discussion in appropriate situations only. Presidential elections are not the place for it, except when the beliefs are threats to national security.
By the way, I don't think that by having a different vocabulary the Mormons would be better understood. All Christians use the same vocabulary because they all beleive in Christ and share the language of the gospel. I think Mormons would be better understood by the mainstream if they would attempt to understand them and befreind them instead of marginalizing them and trying to send them to hell because they promise God to be chaste and faithful to their spouses in Mormon temples (for example). |
|
|
|
Adam -God is a unity, we don't believe in three separate beings. The Trinity posits three separate persons in one being. God in Three Persons Blessed Trinity, as the song goes.
We believe Jesus is the eternal Creator,from the beginning, not made, not born - by Him all things were make - in Colosians somewhere if I recall. Satan is a created being, in no way similar to Jesus. Jesus is good in His nature, there was no choice for Him to make.
I do not believe we are spirits, we are bodies, souls and spirits, all together, another 3 in 1 person. Where does the KJV refer to 'spirit children'?
We Lutherans teach salvation is by grace only, there is nothing good in us to make us more fit for heaven.
We believe in a literal hell for those who refuse this grace, salvation is 100% the work of Jesus, all our righteousness is filthy rags. All we have to stand before God is the righteousness of Christ, nothing more.
We believe in a literal hell of fire and darkness, eternally separate from God for unbelievers.
So, we use some of the same words Adam, but it is clear we give them different definitions, and therein lies the rub. I think LDS would be better understood by mainstream Christians if they had their own theological vocabulary. We can both look at a chair and agree it is the color 'green', no problem. But it is obvious we are not talking about the same things at all when we say God or Jesus, and IMHO, this one source of mainstream antagonism to LDS.
Good discussion though. |
|
Now you may say that the LDS Jesus is different than yours because the LDS beleive He is a Son of God and the Lutherans beleive He is of the essence of God, but then ask yourself, is this "different Jesus" an evil one? Does He teach things that I don't beleive in? Do you find strong family values as something that "your Jesus" taught? Does the "LDS Jesus" teach Mormons about strong family values? Hard work? Charity? Etc?
The LDS hold the same traditional Christian values as evangelicals and orthodoxy. I don't understand how the origin of Christ is what would make Romney a dangerous president. I'm not asking you personally, but I'm asking this gernerally: When evangelicals and Mormons share so many values and fight for so many of the saem causes, why would evangelicals distance themselves from Mormons in political situations because of differences of theology? Utah gave Clinton his worst approval ratings and the lowest election percentages of the entire country. Utah also gave Bush his highest election percentages and approval ratings in the country. In elections that are getting so close, (2000 election, Bush won by the number of votes Utah has) can conservatives afford to marginalize one of their own because they beleive in eternal marriage? |
|
Again, my poit is not to dispute theologies, it is to show that because there are differences between evangelicals, how can evangelicals require Mormons to clarify their doctrines? In many cases, evangelical leaders claim to know LDS doctrines, so they're not out for clarification, but for ridicule.
I personally don't see much of a difference in what you claim that you bleieve and what the LDS believe. The LDS beleive that they are three separate beings (the Father and the Son have physical but perfect bodies) and we mortals have physical, imperfect bodies. The LDS beleive in the Virgin Birth/Conception. The difference would come from the LDS believing that all of us (including Jesus and the devil) were spirits and were in spirit form born to Heavenly Parents. Jesus chose good, the devil chose bad, and we all chose who to follow. We get a physical body and again are to chose who to follow. Mormons do beleive that God is a spirit who resides in a physical, perfect body, just as we are spirits who reside in mortal, imperfect bodies. The LDS Jesus is the spiritual Son of God, and the Literal Son of God. We mortals are only the spirit children of God (the Father). Now, that would be a "different Jesus" if you don't beleive that Jesus was a literal spirit child of God, but is essentially a differnt person of the Divine Being of God.
The LDS beleive that separation from God is spiritual death and is considered "hell." Christ overcame this death and offers us the opportunity to overcome it too if we keep His commandments. Everyone lives different lives and will recieve a reward based on how valiantly they lived, and the most faithful will be able to live with God in both a mental state and a literal place of "heaven." Hell is not necessarily a literal place, and is definately not a place in some deep cave with fire and pitchforks. |
|
This country is founded on religious freedom, but when you get down to it, we make distinctions between "acceptable" and "unacceptable" religions. I think that's what's underlying the religious issue Mitt Romney faces.
JFK, in his famous speech in 1960, only talked about Catholics, Protestants and Jews. For most at the time, all of those religions were clearly acceptable in terms of freedom to worship. Few questioned the legitimacy of Catholicism as a religion, but some people were actually concerned that JFK would have to answer to the Pope.
It's different with Scientology, Jim Jones and the Moonies. Most of us don't consider these "acceptable" religions that should be accorded the same legitimacy as Catholics, Protestants and Jews, or even Islam, at least in its nonvirulent form.
The argument over the LDS Church seems to be driven by the fact that some in the electorate see it as in the "unacceptable" religion, more like Scientology and the Moonies than Unitarianism.
My personal feeling is that this is unfair. As a Westerner, I've lived and worked with Mormons throughout my life and always found them to be kind, generous and hardworking people. I don't agree with many of their beliefs and think some of them quite odd, but I think many people's beliefs are quite odd, so that's not the controlling factor.
I think they should be judged by the "by their fruits you shall now them" standard, rather than the "ravenous wolf in sheep's clothing" one. |
|
No matter what Mitt says in the speech, Hugh will declare it a home run.
Mitt could fall on his face as he approaches the stage.
Hugh will declare it an act of bravery for getting up!
Mitt could insult all persons of religion.
Hugh will declare that he did the right thing!
I'll wager Hugh already has the postspeech post written! |
|
This is such a non-issue for a Republican primary. While I disagree with the predominant Mormon characterization of Mormonism in the public spotlight, Romney's campaign is hardly about his faith. I really liked Romney early on, and still think he's a decent man. But now I think he's undermining his own campaign with his pancake-like doublespeak and mixed performance in the debates. While it remains to be seen if his fall in the polls will affect the outcome in the primaries, the fact remains that his campaign is hitting turbulence and his supporters are scrambling to provide damage control. This has nothing to do with bigotry or Mormonism, but instead a lively debate among conservatives, accompanied by careful consideration among voters as they start paying more attention.
For the record, I'm still undecided. |
|
bit of trepidation. I have not read all of what "swampthing" has posted. Maybe, i will when i have more time, later tonight. His post at 8:07am, saying that those who are "born again" have a relationship and not a religion, is right on the mark.
My original comment was to these leftnuts who try to tell us the error of our ways in the veting of our candidates. I could care less what you goofballs think. Go save the polar bears from drowning but keep your silly elitist notions at Starbucks. Stay away from decent people, for crying out loud. I find you people tedious at best. You have disdain for all that i hold dear, first and foremost, my precious savior. If you could, you make it unlawful to mention his name. Many, greater than you, have tried down through the centuries. All have failed as you, most certainly, will also fail. For you, in your small little minds, can do nothing but advance his precious name. So let us choose our guy, you choose yours, and we'll see who wins. So, spare us your critical analysis, it is neither critical nor wanted. Go have another latte and imagine a world without Jesus Christ, that won't happen in this life, but know thou this, in the next one, you'll get your wish!! |
|
|
...is embarrassing himself. The whole nonsense about Romeny winning the debate was complete garbage. It's ok to admit that your guy lost the debate. It's not like he lost the nomination. It reminds me of middle school. "Well, we still won" (even though we lost). |
|
The Rasmussen Smackdown
The latest Rasmussen tracking poll in the GOP race. Rudy and Huckabee are tied, followed by McCain, followed by Thompson. Mitt remains in fifth place.
Ouch.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/ele ction_2008__1/daily_presidential_tracking_polling_history
Say what you will, Huckabee is surging right now. I doubt it will last forever or he will end up being the nominee (the long knives are already out for Huckabee) but it is making things interesting in the short term.
It is driving Hugh Hewitt absolutely bonkers.
|
|
Adam,
God is a Spirit.
Jesus is both true God and true Man.
God is triune, three distinct persons in one divine being - the Holy Trinity. The Son does not take on the person of the Father or Holy Spirit.
My own opinion is that when the LDS talks about Jesus, that is a different person (to mix my terms here a little), than the Jesus taught in my Lutheran church. If we disagree on His origin, concpetion and nature of His being, I conclude we are not talking about the same 'Jesus'.
Jesus became flesh at the incarnation - the Word became flesh and dwelt among us. He had a body at his resurrction, as I pointed out.
If you want to read more, here is Luther's Small
Catechism: http://www.bookofconcord.org/smallcatechism.html
About Bush speaking, Evangelicals from the bulk of the GOP voters, LDS Republicans are a minority, and that may be unfair, but that's the way it is.
Do you believe in a literal hell, separation from God, for those who refuse to believe? |
|
Alex 1 If he does not discuss LDS, what is the point of his speech? He can talk about religious liberty, and that's fine, I am sure he will be more subtle about it than Hugh calling folks bigots and nutters.
I think all of our Presidents have been Protestants of some from except Kennedy.
About blame - Mitt sold himself as man of faith and family values, so one thing leads to another, what is that faith in, what is the source of those family values.
Now we can just wait an see; Mitt had a narrow needle to thread, if he comes across a authentic it will help, but it will be very easy for him to bomb with this.
By the way, Huck is not my fist choice, but he comes across as authentic and likable, and that's not something the MSM can conjure up or Hewitt can destroy. |
|
Perhaps you should reread my post and reconsider what you think I believe on the resurrection. It's good that you see he was resurrected with a physical body. Not many Christians do. Now about the Father, does the Father have a physical body because the Son and the Father are one, or does the Son shed the physical body when taking on the personification of the Father, or are they two separate beings and the Father has no body but the Son does. I'm curious because I have run into all of these explanations from "Christians." Perhaps you could clarify it? You're reading the same Bible as everyone else.
With that kind of difference on theological doctrines, the evagelical communities say they want Romney to calrify his beleifs. I'm just pointing out the silliness of the evangelical position. What position are they in to ask clarification on Mormon doctrines, when they don't agree among themselves? On top of that, none of the LDS doctrines are threats to national security, just as none of the evangelical doctrines are potential threats.
Why would evangelicals be turned off and offended if Romney did talk about theology in an appropriate setting? I think that speaks more volumes of how serious this religion issue is. It's kind of a "don't ask don't tell" policy when it comes to candidates' theological beleifs that differ from evangelicals. But it's ok for evagelicals to triumph their theological beliefs as a standard for predidential credentials. Bush spoke openly about his beleifs, and many Mormons voted for him and weren't turned off by it. Why doesn't it work the other way around? |
|
"As for my reference to the Muslim view of Christ, . . . the Mormon view might as well be the Muslim view."
Sorry. To me, that's simply ridiculous. (I should note that I hold a doctorate in Islamic studies.) The differences between the Muslim view of Jesus and the Mormon view of Jesus are enormous, and fundamental.
"Mormonism teaches that its adherents will someday be the EQUAL of Christ and 'gods' in their own right."
We believe Christ's words that we will, if we're faithful, inherit all that the Father has. We agree with the early Christian fathers and their doctrine of "theosis" or "deification." (Any good academic history of early Christian thought will probably discuss this topic.) We do not, however, believe that we will ever be Christ's equals; he will always be our Lord.
|
|
|
Sorry. In scenario 2, it should say, "Romney has continued to take Giuliani/McCain supporters, while Huckabee has taken some of Romney's..." |
|
"First, let me say that my objections to Mitt are chiefly due to his leftist tilt over the years as governor of MA."
We can disagree on that -- I don't think it remotely plausible to call him a "leftist" -- but at least it would be a political disagreement in a political campaign, not a theological litmus test.
"As for his Mormonism, my primary objection is his obfuscation of the doctrines of the faith by claiming that Mormonism is somehow just another Christian denomination. Politically speaking, that is downright deceptive."
But I MYSELF maintain that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a Christian denomination, as Roman Catholicism, Presyterianism, and the Southern Baptist Convention are.
We're not going to deny that we're Christians just to be accepted politically. The presidency's not worth that much, and, anyhow, we're not prostitutes.
That there are substantial differences between the Mormon form of Christianity and more mainstream forms of Christianity is undeniable and obvious. Taht we believe that we belong to the restored Church of Christ is beyond denial. But we're not lying or pretending when we say that Jesus Christ is our Lord and Savior. That's our genuine belief, and the core of our faith.
"Brigham Young hated Evangelicalism and openly denounced it. Let's not pretend here, Mitt."
Brigham Young had some harsh words for the "Christians" who had driven his people from New York to Ohio, from Ohio to Missouri, from Missouri to Illinois, and from Illinois into the arid Great Basin West, and who had murdered people very close to him. Mormon graves line the major westward trails by the hundreds. I don't think it at all fair to say, though, that he hated "Evangelicalism" -- which, by the way, may (in a sense) not even have existed then.
|
|
This leads me to a few possible scenarios.
1) Romney supporters are very different than Huck/Fred supporters. If Romney has continued to maintain his numbers while Huck has skyrocketed and Fred has tanked, that would lead me to believe that Huck and Fred are competing for a certain type of voter that hasn't supported Romney all along. If that's true, then Romney and Huck will have to compete for the Rudy and McCain supporters, which would lead me to believe that Romney would have an edge.
2) There is a small but significant overlap in Romney and Huck supporters. Romney has continued to has taken some of Romney's conservative Christian supporters. Again, this would leave me to believe that Romney has a long-term edge.
There's my analysis. With little money, not much organization beyond IA, and the reality of being confronted as a rising star with more attacks, I really think it unlikely (30%) that Huck makes much more noise beyond IA and SC and probably AR. It'll be Romney vs. Giuliani most likely, although Huck and McCain will hang around for a while.
And would Ronnie Paulie please give it up??? |
|
I'd like to start out by simply saying that I am a "conservative Christian" from Minneapolis who likes Huckabee(20%), Romney(30%), and Giuliani(35%), and McCain is growing on me(15%). I really can't stand Fred. So maybe I'm weird. But at least I'm relatively unbiased.
I agree with BG's comments at 11:17 yesterday. If you look at RCP's graphs for IA, NH, and SC, Huck's numbers are indirectly related to Fred's, not Romney's. Incidentally, Romney's seem to be indirectly related to some degree to Fred's as well. This means that Fred is on the way out, which is where he deserves to be. I never understood the excitement for his campaign anyway.
So Huck's rise, if you really look at it, has not really threatened Romney's popularity. Romney has stabilized but has hardly plummeted. Huck has decommissioned Fred, which is why Fred has run so hard against him. |
|
Whether this opens a can of worms has a lot to do with what his speech is about. If he were to go into LDS theology (which from all reports I've heard, he won't), I think you would be right. If, however, he addresses the religious liberty issue, then I don't see a problem.
Discussions about religion happen naturally anyway. As long as he is not explicitly and directly using his presidential podium as a sounding board about his religion, he will be fine. For this reason, I believe he will sidestep questions about his religion, and address the issue in general terms.
In the end, you can't blame a discussion about Mormonism on the fact that a Mormon entered the room any more than you can blame a discussion about the Reformation and Calvinism on an Evangelical Christian who walks into the room. It takes two to tango. All of the discussion about his religion has occurred in spite of his general restraint on Romney's part. During this campaign, there have been more that have approached him about his religion than that he has approached about his religion. |
|
Adam- Was Jesus resurrected in a spirit body? He invited doubting Thomas to put his hand into His wounded side, that's a physical body. He also asked the disciples for broiled fish, and He ate, after the resurrection, a spirit cannot eat fish, even when I cook it.
Anyway, my point is, if Mitt starts talking about these kinds of questions, he campaign is going to be swimming with the fishes. |
|
Let's all just be honest about this. People find Mormonism weird (for whatever reason) and no matter what Mitt does (or doesn't do) about his religion he will be criticized for it. I'm all for giving up on the issue of religion, but I think that you know that deep down, people are uncomfortable with Romney because of his religion. I have only brought up the unconscious silliness in not voting for a Mormon because he isn't a "Christian." What that really means is that he isn't an evangelical. Evangelicals aren't the only Christians on earth. Mormons have for years voted for evangelicals with no problem. SO have Jews. So have Catholics and Muslims. Why is it so hard for some evangelicals to vote the other way.
Again, I'm not trying to get into the theology issue, but that is exactly the reason why Romney is giving the speech (people think his theological beleifs are dangerous to the country) and he has that he won't discuss theological beleifs.
Are you going to tell me that the reprts of evangelical conservatives gathering around Huckabee in Iowa (and not in New Hampshire) isn't about religion? |
|
|
and/so/but thanks I'm back on my meds! |
|
For which LDS doctrine would Americans not trust a Mormon? For which Islamic doctrines would American's not trust a Muslim? You know that Giuliani, Huckabee, Thompson, and McCain would have the exact same response that Romney gave on the issue of Muslims in his administration.
I am for religious liberty, but national security kind of makes things a little sticky for public elections. Muslims are perfectly capable of being presidents, but it is legitimate question of national security to ask a Muslim candidate about their beleifs on extremist Muslim theology.
Romney has been asked about extremist Mormon theology... polygamy. Don't you remember what he said abuot it? And you don't trust him because of his faith? It's not a religious test, it's a national security test. If a Muslim candidate gave gave a satisfactory answer, and was able to show that they weren't extreme, and their platform was gold, of course America would vote for them.
Again, when it comes to the theology disputes between Mormons and Evangelicals, history is on the side of the LDS when it comes to original Christian doctirnes. Many "Christians" don't beleive that resurrected beings have physical bodies (a teaching of neoplatonism). Early Christians were criticized by pagan, Greek philosophers for beliving that they would resurrect with physical bodies. I'm only bringing this up because it's hypocritical of "Christians" who don't follow the beleifs of ancient Christians, would say that Christians who do aren't Christian. Good luck in overlooking that. |
|
I don't think you get it. When I mentioned that, "So now Mormons are on the same level as Muslims," I was refering to the opinion that Mormons and Muslims are both viewed as negative things that the person who attacked Mormon theology held in a prior post. It's a summary of HIS thoughts, not mine. I assigned no "level" to religions, I think you've misunderstood me.
I think that you're caught up in a trap that we need affirmative action in the white house... that somehow, we need to establish a quota of people of different faiths and ethnicities in order to be considered for the presidency. It looks like to me that you've built a strawman for Romney... when did he ever say that he would specifically allow Christians and Jews into his administration? He has only been asked about Muslims - and even you know deep down that if a politician calimed to be Muslim that you would want to know what kind of Muslim, so I don't think criticizing Romney for a concern that you both share is honest. Mormons are not known to want to control the world and blow up innocent people to do so. They never have been known in that way. |
|
|
I think we've disagreed some in the past, but I find I really like what you're selling these days. |
|
|
Adam, the comment boards on numerous sites are full of this kind of theological discussion, and none of it is pretty. I think Mitt is opening a can of worms with the Speech, if MSM picks up on this and everyone starts discussing LDS vs historical Chrisitainity, it will sink Mitt. |
|
Adam:
"Mormon theology is closer to what the origianl (sic) Christians and the Apostles beleived (baptism for the dead for example)."
In other words, WE are the REAL Christians. Great angle, Adam. Good luck with that. |
|
You just don't get it.
When you write, "So now Mormons are on the same level as Muslims," you betray the hollowness of your calls for religious liberty. If you were truly for religious liberty, you wouldn't assign "levels" to religions.
Mitt brought this partner to the dance. He talks about how Americans want a "person of faith" as President. He plays up the homey, churchgoing, big family angle at every opportunity. Then, he dismissed the need/role for Muslims in his government.
In short, he wants religious liberty, but only extends it to the groups he approves of. Not surprisingly, this umbrella protects Christians, Jews and Mormons. But it is not big enough to cover Muslims, or atheists. |
|
The idea that Mormons beleive "disturbing" doctrines is a good scare tactic to incite the ignorant. The Mormons do not have bizarre beliefs. Not anymore bizarre than rock-and-roll songs about Jesus cause demons to be cast out.
It's amazing to me how much all members of the LDS church (even the little 5-year-olds) know more about the general history of Christianity than do life-long evangelical "Christians." I guess the preachers try to keep their followers ignorant of the truth about history in order to keep them dropping bills in the collection plates. The current Christian tradition derives its creeds from the Nicene Creed. It was determined by popular vote of bishops from around the Roman Empire, 300 years after Christ's resurrection. It came to blows over certain issues (Eusibius appearantly started smacking a fellow bishop around for his views on God). Keep in mind that what they voted on as "Christian doctrine" was not entirely what the Apostles beleived, nor what the first Christians believed. Would evangelicals be so quick attack Peter, John, Paul, Matthew, etc for saying that they saw Christ face-to-face after His resurrection, as they do Joseph Smith? If evangelicals can't even agree on the current corporal nature of Christ, how can they claim to know who He is, or what His will is? They have their Bible (yes each Christian faith determines what is the canon they will accept). Mormon theology is closer to what the origianl Christians and the Apostles beleived (baptism for the dead for example). Evangelical theology is so blended with Orthodox Catholic tradition and Greek, pagan thought (Neoplatonism) that it can hardly claim to be the authority on who is "Christian" and who is not. |
|
He has it right when he said that evangelicals are upset that they're losing revenue to the LDS church... the fastest growing church in the country. This church doesn't pay its clergy a cent for its work. Romney served for years in a position equal to Huckabee, and he never got anything for it. Ask Huckabee how much he earned as a preacher. How much did Jesus earn? It's so hypocritical for evangelicals to claim to be the "Christians" of the world, and yet they can't get by without charging people for believing their brand of "Christianity." It's all about the money.
I liked the quote from above... I don't remember who it was, but they claimed to be an expert on Mormon theology (obviously they aren't LDS) and said that the LDS veiw of Christ is the same as the Muslim view of Christ. Wow! So now Mormons are on the same level as Muslims. Look at all the biggotry in that claim, let alone he gave no evidence to support the claim. How is the LDS view of Christ similar to Islam? It's amazing how people who have never set foot in an LDS chuch are experts over people who have been life-long members and served in high positions (like Romney).
Attention anti-Mormons: In 2007, Fawn Brodie is not only old news, but her picture she painted of Smith (using her bogus gimmick of psychobiography)is pure disgruntled feminist fantasy. She did the same hit-job on Thomas Jefferson. Check out what real scholars say about her methods. A better way to learn about Mormonsim is to read the actual primary sources and question the motives of all sides. Are you too lazy to do REAL research? |
|
|
Swampthing hasn't been around for awhile, brevity is not his schtick, as you may have noticed. |
|
BG wrote: "Romney will adapt when he needs to without abandoning his basic principles."
Please expound those principles, BG. They seem non-existent to me, unless "Change my positions to pander to whatever group I need votes from" is now a "principle." |
|
Swampy is FAR from brand new here. He has been dormant for a while, but when he is around, he makes his presence known....
Welcome back ST. I think you are a little crazy, but good to know you are doing OK. |
|
From Hugh's post: " ... in the headquarters of Team Romney there is a timeline drafted long ago that has on it an entry --"a week before the first absentees are cast, give speech on religious liberty."
BUT....
Team Romney says that Mitt just decided last week to give the speech!? Which is it? Maybe he decided a long time ago to decide last week to decide to do it now.... |
|
Yikes, Big Boy. Nope, I'm not on the 'writing' end. Just the hammering of writers end.
Hint: You're brand new here(and welcome)and
6-posts in a machine gun row will only lead to snickers from veterans at HH. Trust me. |
|
Great post at 12:34. Best I've seen on this board in a while. Disspassionate, analytical, and dead-on. Romney is raising this now, only because he is hoping to spin it into media coverage and votes, not because of a true bigotry problem.
|
|
"Romney will walk on to a stage with a thousand reporters and hundreds of thousands of voters watching and give a speech on --religious liberty. He will be surrounded by his wonderful family in front of an appreciative audience..."
Every knee and bow and every tongue confess... |
|
Romney and Hewitt: a match made in heaven.
The selective amnesia and fluidity of conviction that these two share is impressive. No prior statement or conviction is sacred; no commitment is ironclad. Thus, "you will not find me wavering on being pro-choice" is followed by a complete 180, and Hugh in turn splits hairs over the definition of religious speech.
Disgusting. This is the same political ethos that gave us Larry Craig, Bill Clinton, Mark Foley and a host of others (of all ideological bents). That is, no fact is so ironclad as to not by alterable by spin.
A pox on both their houses. |
|
|
Mitt is a mormon who shares the same values as we fundamental christians. Huckabee is a fundamental christian who lies on national TV almost every time he opens his mouth and does not believe in law and order. We are to love everyone but sin and crime both come with consequences. I love the illegal alien and hope that they have a great life and come to know the Lord but they chose to break the law and that has consequences. Huckabee could be a great Christian leader but his ego is detering him and his lies will be found out and ruin his campaign. |
|
Romney's Hillary-like performance in the debate doomed his candidacy. An unknown who hadnt worked for any conservative causes in the past his evasive answers and eerie pasted-on smile did not make the sale. who cares what any of these idiots say about religion? A truly spiritual person does not make politics his life's work so these conniving, ambitious egomaniacs (all of them without reference to party or ideology) should not try to convince us that they are more saintly than the others.
Also I've been told that the Hillary campaign has been interviewing former students at the elementary school attended by Gov. Romney and the 'chocolate milk' incident is about to hit the front page of the Washington ComPost. |
|
Opps, Hugh has gone back and highlighted that the Speech is about religious liberty. I am sure the lumpen in Iowa are waiting with baited breath to be lectured about religious liberty and tolerance. How dare they support Huck, after Mitt has spend millions for their votes.
There is not religious test to run for office in the US. But in the privacy of the voting both I can choose what qualities I like or dislike in a candidate. Is Mitt going to take that away from me. I can vote for a man or woman because I like his hair dye, his accent or the cut of his clothes, or his war record. And I will, who is going to stop me.
This is my voting right. |
|
Yes, swamp there is only one way:
John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me
With respect I doubt your interpretation, not what Jesus said.
|
|
swampthing writes: Tuesday, December, 04, 2007 6:49 AM
RE: REAL Christianity
Romney: »»I don't know that going through books of the Bible and asking, "Well, do you believe this book? And do you believe these words?", that that's terribly productive. ««
A REAL Christian wouldn't say something like that.
A REAL Christian is happy at the opportunity to answer such a question, if only to reach an audience beyond the questioner with the Good News.
There is only one entity that wants to squelch the news of the Good News, and that is the Devil. The REAL Christian is happy to do the opposite of what the Devil wants.
Swamps syllogism is precisely this:
-A REAL Christian wouldn't do that
-Romney, a Mormon does that
-Therefore Romney, a Mormon is not a REAL Christian and does what the Devil wants
Did I get that logic right swamp...
I'll get you answer this afternoon as I have to be off to work. I await your reply with baited breath.
|
|
»»I was trying to be concise about what you have written this morning. ««
Instead, you chose to misquote me. That's dishonest.
»»Perhaps you can explain what you really meant to say.««
I wrote what I meant to say. You, on the other hand, wrote what I didn't say. |
|
»»With respect I doubt your interpretation, not what Jesus said. ««
So, in your view, when Jesus said
John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me
He DIDN'T mean that He is the ONLY Way to the father. Is that it?
Well, then, what DID He mean??
|
|
|
I was trying to be concise about what you have written this morning. Perhaps you can explain what you really meant to say. |
|
Hugh said: "The ability to anticipate events and especially difficulties is among the greatest attributes of leadership. Romney has it. Giuliani has it. I don't see it anywhere else in the field on either side of the aisle."
You missed on candidate Hugh. McCain had it about the Iraq Occupation. That is more important than winning a primary election.
I do not disagree with you, however, that Rudy and Mitt try to be proactive and foresee events.
|
|
»»What did you mean to say?««
I was very clear. Of course, that doesn't mean that what I write will get through to a foggy mind that is bent on misquoting and misrepresenting others.
|
|
swampthing writes: A Scoffer Doubts Jesus; Nothing New
I believe the scripture you quote with all my heart and soul:
John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
That is truth and light!
With respect I doubt your interpretation, not what Jesus said. |
|
»»swampthing writes: "There's the little matter of the fact that I didn't write what you say I wrote."
Why then did you include talk about Devils and demons or demoniacs? What did you mean to say?««
I didn't write what you said I wrote. You misquoted me. That's dishonest. No surprise there.
Go back and read my posts. Then you can come back and talk authoritatively about what I wrote.
|
|
All of a sudden, there's a poster, or two, misquoting other posters.
Hewitt should put a stop to that NOW. |
|
swampthing writes: "There's the little matter of the fact that I didn't write what you say I wrote."
Why then did you include talk about Devils and demons or demoniacs? What did you mean to say?
|
|
Joh 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
If, by that, Jesus did not mean that He is the ONLY Way to the Father, what DID He mean? |
|
»»swampthing writes: "Mormons are demons because that is my private interpretation of what Jesus said."
Does that about sum it up swamp?««
There's the little matter of the fact that I didn't write what you say I wrote.
|
|
»»swampthing writes: "I will interpret what Jesus said. Everyone else is a demon or mislead. " ««
How many different ways can you interpret
Joh 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
You aren't saying that He doesn't know what He's talking about, are you? |
|
swampthing writes: "Mormons are demons because that is my private interpretation of what Jesus said."
Does that about sum it up swamp?
Enquiring minds want to know...
|
|
political anvil wrote:
'I was really turned off by Hewitt equating the callers choice to not like Romney's religion to being black. Black, Chinese, being a woman is not a "choice" it is a biological event. One does not choose to be Black. But one does choose their religion, and candidates are evaluated on their CHOICES.Many of us don't LIKE his choice. I don't know what Hugh Hewitt has on the line, his ego? But their was no reason, absolutely none to be so rude to the caller.'
Hugh was similarly rude to the pro life advocate who endorsed Fred last week. Again, what is it about Mitt that makes folks like Hugh lose all reason and go on wild emotional jags? What else do we need to know about Mitt that inculcates this bevavior, it is cult like devotion.
Some of the other radio hosts like candidates, but they have not gone crazy for their choice. Why Mitt and Hugh?
|
|
"Jesus made it clearer" should be "made it clear."
|
|
»»swampthing :I interpret , I decide
swampthing writes: "I will interpret what Jesus said. Everyone else is a demon or mislead. " ««
Jesus made it clearer. The Word of God is of no private interpretation.
»»swampthing writes: "How can little ol' me say who is a Christian?"
I wondered that my self. Go back a read what you have written here. You sound ever so much like a Christian version of a Salafist?««
Oh, well. Have fun with your perceptions. |
|
»»swampthing, you have made a lot of mistakes this morning.««
What YOU believe are mistakes are not necessarily mistakes. You are reacting to your perceptions.
»»You came very close to calling Mormons demonic and in league with the Devil (I think you said demoniac) is that what you intended? ««
Jesus said that He is the ONLY Way to the Father.
The Mormons, of saying that the Book of Mormon is a newer Testament, that God had more to say on the subject. He didn't. There aren't three Testaments. There are only two. The Book of Mormon is ABOUT the Word of God, NOT the Word of God.
In any case, I called nobody "demoniac."
I wrote only that a person must test the spirits, to see whether they are godly. That's 1 John, and I wrote that we must be careful about questions coming from those who intend to cast doubt on the Word of God, that they are "demoniacs" who are asking trick questions with hidden agendas, and that, when we answer the questions as put, we accept the covert agendas. That's the way "demoniacs" work.
So, it is YOU who should go back and read my posts. |
|
swampthing writes: "I will interpret what Jesus said. Everyone else is a demon or mislead. "
Hmmm....
|
|
swampthing writes: "How can little ol' me say who is a Christian?"
I wondered that my self. Go back a read what you have written here. You sound ever so much like a Christian version of a Salafist? |
|
»»Swampthing writes: "I will decide who is a Christian. and what it means to be born again.««
Jesus already decided that. |
|
swampthing, you have made a lot of mistakes this morning. Go back and look at what you have posted.
You came very close to calling Mormons demonic and in league with the Devil (I think you said demoniac) is that what you intended? |
|
»»Swampthing defines REAL Christianity
Swampthing writes: "I will decide who is a Christian. and what it means to be born again.««
I did???
How can little ol' me say who is a Christian? The Word of God has already said it. I merely report. You decide. |
|
»»He doesn't need to talk about Mormonism at all, just share is god-based values.««
We wonder what "god-based values" is. Which god? |
|
Swampthing writes: "I will decide who is a Christian. and what it means to be born again. All others are Takfir. They are all in league with the devil."
What is the Christian equivalent of a Salafist?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salafi |
|
It is brilliant because it makes for good theatre and focuses the news cycle back on Romney.
As an avid Romney fan, I watch the news about him every day. For the last month, Romney can't get a second of facetime on the news. And when he does get mentioned, it is always something negative.
Compare this to Huckabee who is on FoxNews pretty much every day and even ABC, CBS and CNN are all doing puff-pieces on him.
When Huck is down 4 to Romney it Iowa, the MSM declares it a "tie" due to the margin-of-error. When Huckabee is ahead 4 in Iowa, the MSM declares "Huck surges into the lead!".
Also, we ONLY see polls that show Hucki ahead. Polls like the NEWEST one from Iowa showing Romney ahead by 1 are completely ignored.
So the speech is brilliant because it focuses attention back on Romney. He doesn't need to talk about Mormonism at all, just share is god-based values.
|
|
»»Bring out your proof swamp...
swampthing writes: "Romney that has on SEVERAL ocassions called Obama Osama, and pointed out Obamas middle name."
Please give us a citation on this contention. I remember him mispeaking Obamas first name once. Who hasn't. I am doubtful you will find any such quote from any reputable source.««
When I copied and pasted, I mistakenly included those things which are the words of another person. So, I didn't intend to include them in my post. I'll have to be more careful from now on.
|
|
swampthing writes: "Romney that has on SEVERAL ocassions called Obama Osama, and pointed out Obamas middle name."
Please give us a citation on this contention. I remember him mispeaking Obamas first name once. Who hasn't. I am doubtful you will find any such quote from any reputable source.
|
|
It's curious to read Romney's supporters calling people bigots and asking for religious tolerance when it was Romney that has on SEVERAL ocassions called Obama Osama, and pointed out Obamas middle name.
Now, I don't support obama (or any democrat candidate) but clearly, Romney is a hypocrite.
»»whether you like it or not, we Christians see your religion as being as different from ours as Islam.««
That's true. We do.
However, those who are truly born again do not have religion, rather relationship.
»»I have Mormon and Muslim friends whom I do not judge.««
So, you do not stand up for the Word of God?
»» What prevents me from voting for Romney is the fact that he is plastic, a flip-flopper, and essentially an opportunistic liberal. Pigs will fly before he ever gets my "endorsement." Present us with a better specimen of the Mormon religion and I would gladly vote for him. But, it isn't going to be Mitt.««
However, IF he is the nominee of the Party, will you vote for the Democrat, or will you sit out the election and enable the Democrat? I hope not. Cuz, in the last election, angry, disgruntled Republicans also set up the election. They enabled and empowered the Democrats.
No matter who the Republican nominee is, I'm voting for him because the worst Republican is better than any Democrat. |
|
NeoConScum,
I used to be in broadcast news. I was anchor, reporter and writer of radio news. That's where I learned to write. Long, drawn-out sentences distract, not enlighten. If the listener, or reader, must dwell too long on the thing, to try to decode it, he won't get the idea of it.
I spent a little time in television news, too. I didn't like it. I don't like that thing looking at me. In any case, most people who go from radio to television read the TelePrompTer radio style. It's very difficult to read TelePrompTer. |
|
It's curious to read Romney's supporters calling people bigots and asking for religious tolerance when it was Romney that has on SEVERAL ocassions called Obama Osama, and pointed out Obamas middle name.
Now, I don't support obama (or any democrat candidate) but clearly, Romney is a hypocrite.
Unfortunately for you, whether you like it or not, we Christians see your religion as being as different from ours as Islam.
I have stated before, however, that Romney's religion would not prevent me from voting for him. Indeed, I have Mormon and Muslim friends whom I do not judge. What prevents me from voting for Romney is the fact that he is plastic, a flip-flopper, and essentially an opportunistic liberal. Pigs will fly before he ever gets my "endorsement." Present us with a better specimen of the Mormon religion and I would gladly vote for him. But, it isn't going to be Mitt. |
|
NeoConScum: »»SwampThing: FOCUS. Brevity isn't a character defect. A tad compulsive, Brutha? ««
Did I misread your post?
At first, I read it to mean a constructive criticism.
Now, however, I read it to mean that you, in the writing profession, I presume, like my brevity. If that's the case, thanks. |
|
From Rich Lowery column this morning ... very good advice.
"But simply using the Bush Library speech to restate Romney’s standard lines about his faith and promise to follow the Constitution won't cut it. Romney can only get past this obstacle on his road to the White House by candidly acknowledging that Mormons and orthodox Christians do indeed have radically different views about Jesus.
By doing so, Romney would simultaneously demonstrate undeniable independence from the tactical rhetoric of Mormon proselytizing and thereby lend new credence to his claim to share basic values with orthodox Christians."
|
|
NeoConScum: »»SwampThing: FOCUS. Brevity isn't a character defect. A tad compulsive, Brutha? ««
Just a friendly question...
You be sayin' that I'm not brief enough??
I pride myself on my ability, thank God, to write compressed bursts of thought. It's threatening to a lotta people [not directed at you, just a general statement].
Mosttimes, I frontload my posts, in anticipation of replies. In other words, I intend to take the wind out of the sails of my detractors. I understand that's frustrating for some. I intend it to be frustrating [not directed at you, just a general statement].
|
|
... to the Devices of Satan
»»I'd vote for Michael Medved. He clearly rejects the absolute deity of Christ...««
So does the Devil.
»»... but at least he's honest about it....««
The Devil is honest about it, too.
»» ...He wouldn't try to deceive me for my vote.««
The Devil tries to get me to think that way, too. |
|
Nicely put & easy to get, 606. I don't think, for one minute, that Mitt's religion will interfere with his doing a great job. His spiritual life has only made him a better man and leader. Among other things, the Clinton Sleaze Machine will find less than nothing on him. I'm slowly but surely moving from Rudy to Romney. And, I'd happily support either in the General Election.
SwampThing: FOCUS. Brevity isn't a character defect. A tad compulsive, Brutha? But, I love the monniker. (Worked on the Series for USA Net--'90-'92) |
|
First, let me say that my objections to Mitt are chiefly due to his leftist tilt over the years as governor of MA.
As for his Mormonism, my primary objection is his obfuscation of the doctrines of the faith by claiming that Mormonism is somehow just another Christian denomination.
Politically speaking, that is downright deceptive. Brigham Young hated Evangelicalism and openly denounced it. Let's not pretend here, Mitt.
That does not disqualify him from office... being deceptive about it does, however.
As for my reference to the Muslim view of Christ, as far as Evangelicals are concerned, since we hold Christ to be the one, eternal God of all creation (without beginning or end) the Mormon view might as well be the Muslim view.
In Islam they view Christ as an exalted prophet far above all other prophets except Mohammad. ANY demotion of Christ is an absolute blasphemy to Evangelicals. Worse tan that, Mormonism teaches that its adherents will someday be the EQUAL of Christ and "gods" in their own right.
In that way, it is somewhat worse than Islam to us... but Mitt is free to believe whatever he likes. That does NOT disqualify him.
Again, that is not my objection to Mitt and I am not going to argue the validity of any faith system here... the point is that for Mitt to try and deceive Evangelicals by calling the LDS "just another Christian denomination" is a bald-faced lie... and a statement Brigham Young would reject with supreme prejudice.
I'd vote for Michael Medved. He clearly rejects the absolute deity of Christ... but at least he's honest about it. He wouldn't try to deceive me for my vote.
|
|
»»I hope that others on this thread don't pigeon hole evangelical Christians as religious bigots or anti-Mormon.««
You're too late. |
|
»»Let's put the religion part behind us and vote for the one that will be there for our country, helping the people of these United States. ««
Yes, let's forget about religion and get back to relationship with Jesus! |
|
»» The way I look at it, I'm not voting for or electing a chaplain in chief. I'm not voting for or electing a pastor or deacon. I'm voting for President of the United States.««
And, unless you know what motivates his decisions and animates him, you don't know for whom you are voting. His beliefs are important to my decision-making process. They may not be important yours.
»» Romney is dead on right.««
How do you know, unless you consider how his beliefs motivate his decisions and animate him? |
|
Romney: »»I don't know that going through books of the Bible and asking, "Well, do you believe this book? And do you believe these words?", that that's terribly productive. ««
A REAL Christian wouldn't say something like that.
A REAL Christian is happy at the opportunity to answer such a question, if only to reach an audience beyond the questioner with the Good News.
There is only one entity that wants to squelch the news of the Good News, and that is the Devil. The REAL Christian is happy to do the opposite of what the Devil wants. |
|
»»NPR has no business asking him "do you believe these words or that book". ««
The question is relevant. Their answers were irrelevant and wrong. Even Huckabee.
Jesus, chatting with a curious Nicodemus, asked, "You're a great teacher in Israel, and you don't know this??"
How many thousands of years have passed, and those who profess to know the Word of God backwards and forwards couldn't even answer that simple question. My Goodness. |
|
The Constitution does not forbid a voter from taking a religious test to the polling place.
Mormons say that they believe that the Book of Mormon is "another Testament," a third Testament, of the Word of God. Of course, it is not. It is ABOUT the Word of God Which is composed of two Testaments.
A testament is a Will. It is effective only upon the death of the testator. He needs only one. In this case, That's the New Testament, not the New Testament and the Book of Mormon.
In any case, I will vote for the Republican nominee in the general election. That's because any Republican is better than any Democrat. I hope Romney is not the Republican nominee; but, if he is, I will vote for him for that reason.
My candidates are Thompson, Huckabee, Duncan, in that order. |
|
The Republican candidates were aksed whether they believe "every word of the Bible." Now, what does THAT mean?? Like 'the' and 'a'? Yes. Of course, for
Mat 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone,
but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.
God did not say what the Devil said, did not agree with the Devil, only reported what the Devil said. Out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks, and God speaks only good, not evil.
So, not every statement in the Word of God is true, for the same reason that not every statement made in a news report is true.
F'rinstance, nothing the Devil says is true. Yet, the reports of what he said ARE true. The statement quoted is false; but the statement about the quote is true.
So, whenever a demoniac asks you whether you believe the Word's words are true, you must remember that it is a trick question, and ask, "Which words?" cuz it all depends. |
|
I have reached my last nerve with all this BS. I am Roman Catholic and I support Mitt Romney 120%. I don’t believe for one second that any (ANY) of the people who are bashing Mitt (and Mormons in general) do so with any bit of genuine integrity. All of it is absolutely DISINGENUOUS. It is solely because they have another guy and instead of speaking up for their guy, they want to make snide, asinine and knowingly untrue insinuations about Mormons and in turn Mitt.
Just so you know, all of your motives are as transparent as glass. Even worse, you don’t have a clue about the intelligence and heart of the American people. Make no mistake, every time in this race the press, his opponents and their disingenuous minions try to foil Mitt, he turns it around on them and makes them look like fools.
You know the character of a man because the life he leads leaves tracks. You know Mitt Romney is an honest man because he has lived an honest life. So when the hell are all the other candidates in this race going to hold their life and works up to the scrutiny of the tenants of the various religions they claim to espouse? It is easy to say your Baptist, Protestant, Methodist, Catholic or whatever, but no one who truly walked with God (religion or no religion) would ever stand by and watch someone else be so wrongly, self-righteously and disingenuously persecuted using His Name.
|
|
|
|
and I plan to vote for Romney. The way I look at it, I'm not voting for or electing a chaplain in chief. I'm not voting for or electing a pastor or deacon. I'm voting for President of the United States. Romney is dead on right. NPR has no business asking him "do you believe these words or that book". If they wanted to persue a line of questioning about creationism, they should have asked "do you think creationism should be taught in public schools".
Jim C |
|
An excellent column Michael, full of foresight.
to: Michael Medved
from: A Hugh fan
re: Your Townhall column of "What's Behind the Huckabee Surge?"
Michael,
Please do all of us a favor and let your friend Hugh Hewitt, whom I have always greatly admired and defended, in on the tax figures. Hugh seems happy to parrot the Club for Growths smears on Huck, which is embarrassing for some as smart as Hugh who should know better.
Secondly, Hugh is calling all pro-Huck people who don't want Romney "anti-Mormon bigots" - please check the disgusting exchange he had on yesterday's program with a caller.
Hoping you bring the Good Hugh back from the brink,
Brent |
|
to: Michael Medved
from: A true fiscal and social conservative
Michael, thank you for your column on Townhall "What's Behind the Huckabee Surge?"
Please do all of us a favor and let your friend Hugh Hewitt, whom I have always greatly admired and defended, in on the real Huckabee vs Romney tax figures. Hugh seems happy to parrot the Club for Growth's smears on Huck, which is embarassing for someone as smart as Hugh who should know better.
Secondly, Hugh is calling all pro-Huck people who don't want Romney "anti-Mormon bigots" - please check the disgusting, inexcusable name-calling exchange he had on yesterday's program with a caller during hour one.
Hoping you bring the Good Hugh back from the brink,
Missing the Hugh of integrity,
Brent |
|
This type of cheerleader blogging and broadcasting is the reason I can only listen to your 3-hour Romney for Prez informercial - er, I mean radio show - in short intervals.
Romney's 'Mormon speech' is the political equivalent of a desperation Hail Mary pass in football. Mitt and his campaign folks see that folks aren't buying into his act, and the constant flip-flopping on issues (ala John Kerry - something in that Massachusetts water).
After you mentioned that Ron Paul had a 'Jew problem' and 'Neo-Nazi problem,' I realized you're little more than a partisan Republican shill and cheerleader. You've got a lot of work to get your credibility back. |
|
I don't for a moment think that all or even most evangelical Christians are bigots or anti-Mormon. I understand that we're hearing from a relatively small, albeit very noisy, minority. I have a number of good evangelical friends, and I think highly of a number of evangelical writers.
I have to admit, though, that, despite the fact that I've been quite aware for many years of the depth and extent of anti-Mormon sentiment in certain quarters (overwhelmingly, I have to say, among conservative Protestants), I've still been shocked and more than a little depressed by the virulence of some of the things that I've read about my faith since the Romney campaign began. And the fact that Governor Huckabee seems to be explicitly running, and very successfully too, as a Christian candidate -- presumably in distinction to Governor Romney -- doesn't cheer me up a bit. Sometimes I wonder if my family and I might not be second-class Americans in the eyes of a number of people out there. (I don't want to overdo it, but I've been thinking of Theodor Herzl's reaction to the Dreyfus trial.)
Thanks for your respectful tone and reasonableness. |
|
|
I think this is so ridiculous. When our first president of these United States was put into office, did people complain about his religion and his views about the Bible? Through all our presidents were there ever ridicule like there is now about what church they went to? Hardly. This has Satan enjoying this whole thing, knowing that if we all fight about such trivial things then he wins. Our United States was made by the grace of God, He was there when we signed the Declaration and He is with us today. Let's put the religion part behind us and vote for the one that will be there for our country, helping the people of these United States. We need to step back and stop being the police of the world and take care of our own country. We help alot of countries and never get paid back for all our tax dollars that are spent for them, but if we need something from them, do they hand it to us with no thought of paying them back? HA |
|
I appreciate reasoned, honest discussion even though we have theological differences and I appreciate you willing to take the time to engage me.
My former college roommate is a Mormon and I have some good friends that are Mormons. I have no prob w/Mitt if he's our nominee.
Right now, I'm leaning towards Rudy but I prefer Mitt over Huckleberry.
I hope that others on this thread don't pigeon hole evangelical Christians as religious bigots or anti-Mormon.
Heck, I would prefer Jewish Joe Lieberman over baptist Bill Clinton. |
|
"You people miss the point when you try to get us evangelicals to accept Mormons as Christians.
"It is our beliefs and we are not going to change to make you feel included. There are major theological differences between the two religions."
There are, it is true, significant differences between the Mormon form of Christianity and non-Mormon Christianities.
We don't, however, grant evangelicals -- or, for that matter, Catholics or the Orthodox -- monopoly rights to (or a copyright on) the term "Christian." It simply isn't yours to bestow or to withhold at your pleasure.
|
|
This is not a good medium for subtle theological discussions, but I'll give your question a try. (It's refreshing to encounter somebody here who is not trying to tell ME what I believe, and to roast me for things I DON'T believe.)
We believe that Jesus is the Son of God the Father, that he was the Son of God even before he came to earth, and that he was, in fact, the being known to the Old Testament Hebrews as Jehovah. We have no problem referring to him as "God." We do not believe that he is a "created being," but you should understand that we believe that the individual spirits of all humankind are, likewise, uncreated. However, that said, Jesus is not merely "one of us." He is holy and perfect, while we, to put it mildly, are not. We certainly affirm the scriptural descriptions of Jesus as "the alpha and the omega," "the beginning and the end."
We are not, as you will soon learn if you didn't already know, orthodox or mainstream Trinitarians. But we believe in a "Godhead" -- and we sometimes do use the term "Trinity," though less commonly these days than we used to -- consisting of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (we usually say "Holy Ghost"). I think that the Mormon understanding of the Godhead is actually quite similar, in many ways, to what is often called "social Trinitarianism" -- a position that has advocates among both Protestant and Catholic theologians in recent decades. |
|
Doesn't matter that his states taxes are lower than some others, fact is that he raised them, many times.
He's wrong on immigration (he's a bleeding heart on that one . . .remember, taxes aren't HIS money, it's ours).
And romney raising fees while cutting taxes. Yes, he did. People who used the services paid for them (like in businesses, where you pay for what you use), not people who didn't use them. Didn't use the service? Didn't pay the fee. Perfect? no. Better than Huckabee? Not even close.
What about Huckabee's ethics violations? What about him setting up a wedding registry so that he could evade bribery laws? This will blow up in the GOP in the general. He's a lifelong POL with a populist streak. Yes, I have studied the record, and he scares me. If it can't be Mitt, let it be Fred. But please not Mr. Big-Government. I repeat, he IS a pro-life Bill Clinton.
Mitt is squeaky clean on the ethics issues, and he turned around a state deep in the red. We've got a country deep in the red. We don't need a professional Pol with a history of tax hiking and a bleeding liberal heart. We need Romney. |
|
the question to romney was whether he needed a muslim in his cabinet in order to effectively fight jihadism. essentially saying that the only way we can aggressively fight radical islam and still have the moderate ones believe we're not anti-islam would be to have a token muslim in the administration. the premise is ridiculous and just a form of affirmative action.
seriously, even if you don't like romney, you can't honestly believe that any candidate would make a blatantly bigoted statement at the height of a campaign. |
|
Since you're addressing theological questions, can you tell me if Mormons believe that Jesus is not only the Son of God but that Jesus IS God? That Jesus is not a created being but is, as Jesus claims, the alpha and the omega, the beginning and the end?
I'm an EVC and I would be more comfortable w/a Mormon like Mitt than a "baptist" like Bill or a born-again Christian like Jimmy Carter. In fact I would prefer Mitt over a baptist Huckleberry. |
|
about religious liberty a bit thick even for habitual liar like Romney? After all he only few days ago said that he wouldn't hire muslims into him administration?
Religious freedom, indeed. |
|
i don't believe mormons want you to "accept" them into your doctrinal fold. that would not make them distinct from you. you should be exclusive as far as the tenets of your faith go.
the problem here is that evangelicals are being exclusive concerning public office and wanting to confuse romney's personal beliefs with it.
arguments are being made about romney being fit for office because of his religion which is contradictory article vi of the constitution.
|
|
yeesh, what kind of writing is this:
"Romney will walk on to a stage with a thousand reporters and hundreds of thousands of voters watching and give a speech on --religious liberty. He will be surrounded by his wonderful family in front of an appreciative audience..."
Will angels and doves descend also? Will the sky open and a voice say "This is my candidate - listen to him?" This is verging close to parody. Pull back before it's too late! |
|
A good topic- IF it really is the topic. In these times, when we are being told that the "sp's" (as O'Reilly calls them/us) are essentially anti-American, do we really believe in religious liberty? What would Mitt say about Jefferson, Franklin and Madison, to wit:
"And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together." (James Madison, letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822; published in The Complete Madison: His Basic Writings, ed. by Saul K. Padover, New York: Harper & Bros., 1953.)
"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibit the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state." (Thomas Jefferson, as President, in a letter to the Baptists of Danbury, Connecticut, 1802; from George Seldes, ed., The Great Quotations, Secaucus, New Jersey: Citadel Press, 1983, p. 369)
"When a Religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not take care to support it so that its Professors are obliged to call for help of the Civil Power, it is a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one. "(Benjamin Franklin, 1706-1790, American statesman, diplomat, scientist, and printer, from a letter to Richard Price, October 9, 1780; from Adrienne Koch, ed., The American Enlightenment: The Shaping of the American Experiment and a Free Society, New York: George Braziller, 1965, p. 93.)
|
|
Quick name three Southern politicians who embrace populism and feel your pain.
That would be Carter, Clinton and Huckabee. We would not get Clinton's bad behavior, but we are likely to get the effectives of the Carter administration with Huckabee in the WH.
|
|
But if I'd been asked for my advice on this suggested speech, I would have said: Governor, do not touch this subject. You are running for president on the strength of your record, your accomplishments, and your analytic intelligence. If you allow your critics to draw you into a debate over the Book of Mormon ... that is a debate that can profit you nothing. And if you must give a speech, say only this:
"America has had presidents of many different faith traditions. Yet the man we regard as our greatest president, Abraham Lincoln, said in 1854 that we had only one national faith: the faith that all men - all human beings - are created equal,. This is the faith that I share, as do all my opponents in this race.
"Each of us holds our own individual understanding of the ultimate truths of human existence. We are imperfect beings, so our understandings must be imperfect too. Given the shortness of human life, we will know the full truth more than soon enough.
"As president, however, my actions will be governed by only one consideration: my understanding of the Constitution of the United States and the best interests and most enduring principles of the American people. That is my highest commitment, and no candidate for any office can or should promise more."
http://frum.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ODU5M2ZlMDM3NmRjM2Rh MTVmMzY2Njc3MDM5NWFmNmY=
|
|
Tom is apparently thinking of ex-communicating Hugh.
Tom said, "I am a Presbyterian- I am still proud to be one, but not sure Hugh is anymore."
If you have read the Looming Tower you know that those who wish to declare others to be non- believers are called Salafist. This act is known as Takfir.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Takfir
|
|
"You have looked at his record, I presume?
I hope a number of people in this discussion study Huckabee's record more thoroughly than they have mormon history. At least then we wouldn't be saddled with a pro-life Bill Clinton in the general election."
Yes, I have. Have you looked at Mitt's? Rudy's? The degree of seperation on taxes and immigration between all the candidates is practically nil.
I'm guessing that you haven't read very deeply into each candidate, for if you had you wouldn't simply be regurgitating the daily talking points of the candidates that have opened fire on Huckabee lately (In your case, borrowing a bit from Fred Thompson, yes?..."He's a pro-life liberal" and all...classic, yet cheap.
Look deeper into Huck's record and you'll see a state with lower taxes than most in the union when he left office and a consistency and candor on the issues that Rudy and Mitt simply can't touch.
Fact is Mitt raised fees (which is just another tax) and is weak on immigration. Rudy is weak on both. Thompson just voted as a senator, did little else, crafted no meaningful bills (none that were passed, anyway), McCain is weak on just about everything, and list goes on.
Huckabee is resonating for a very simple and good reason, and it certainly isn't because the electorate is a bunch of idiots..which amazingly seems to be consenus here.
Issues and candor matter. |
|
You people miss the point when you try to get us evangelicals to accept Mormons as Christians.
It is our beliefs and we are not going to change to make you feel included. There are major theological differences between the two religions.
The point is that Mr. Romney has a right to his beliefs and we have a right to ours. It doesn't mean that we cannot agree on a whole lot of topics, just not some core tenets of our beliefs.
Mormons make good neighbors, in my America, that covers the differences in beliefs. |
|
I thought he got derailed after the Pats-Eagles almost upset, but he is apparently back.
I do not get this populist message at the start. I am no Lou Dobbs fan, but isn't Mitt Romney currently closer to the Dobbs immigration model than Huckabee?
But then Dean says this: "SO WHAT WOULD a Huckabee nomination mean for the Republican party? First, the good news. Huckabee, as we've all discovered, is quite good at seeking office. As a Romney guy, it pains me to say this, but Huckabee may well be our strongest potential nominee. . . Now, on to the bad news... I would . . . be more comfortable with a candidate whose résumé isn't inferior to Bill Clinton's" http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/ 000/014/439htlxc.asp?pg=1
|
|
CivilGuy writes: I'm not a Mormon, but it's interesting the everyone seems to have an idea what Mormonism is all about, especially non-Mormons! And they're probably wrong in every case. Just an observation.
Let's now recognize CivilGuy with the Diogenes' lamp. Best quote of the evening.
For the unlettered here:
Diogenes, the cynic, was famous for walking through the streets of Athens in broad daylight waving a lantern and announcing that he was looking for a "honest man".
http://millionsofmouths.com/diogenes.html
|
|
fair enough.
But lay off his religion. |
|
says that a person has to be "mentally ill" to be a Mormon.
And we're not supposed to use the "b" word to describe such comments? |
|
"Romney is number two and Huck is number one."
If Huck is number one, then he'll soon be number two. He won't have a shot at Giuliani in the general.
If Huck is number one, then we'll get to choose between the pro-life Bill Clinton and a tougher-on-terror Hillary Clinton.
Wow, I'm thrilled at the prospect.
Then there will at least be hope that Ron Paul runs as a third party so we can cast a protest vote.
|
|
just a lazy style of typing. don't really care to change it for posts on the internet. if it hurts your eyes, don't read it. no offense meant by typing our savior's name in lower case. i don't differentiate anything with capitalization, and if that offends you grammatically, then you should probably proof read your own post.
note that if i meant to denigrate our savior's name i would signal it in the same style that christopher hitchens' does in the title of his recent book, "god is not Great". if you can't comprehend that, i'm not surprised in the least since you evangelicals tend not only to approach your politics as "holier-than-thou." |
|
Where do some of you folks come UP with this stuff?
bleechers: "The Mormon view of Christ is not that much different than the view held by Muslims."
Right.
Muslims don't believe that the New Testament accurately portrays Jesus, don't believe Jesus to be divine, don't believe he established the Christian church, don't believe that he was crucified, don't believe in his atonement, don't believe that he sits at the right hand of God, and don't believe that he will judge the earth.
Mormons believe that the New Testament accurately depicts the life and teachings of Jesus, believe that Jesus was and is divine, believe that he established the Christian church, believe that he was crucified (and that, thereafter, he physically rose from the tomb), believe in his atonement (and accept it as the only way to salvation), believe that he sits at the right hand of God, and expect that he will return in glory to judge the earth.
Virtually identical.
Good grief. ENOUGH of the NONSENSE. |
|
"Certainly there has to be some dogmatic antipathy towards a group in order to declare anyone that fits that particular description to be a 'bigot.'"
Whatever makes you attach a label to someone isn't always derived from genuine justice or a good sense.
and cyndu, you make me laugh. Not very loudly, but you do. The inability to spell isn't very funny though.
|
|
if Huckabee is winning on issues, then I may as well join the Democratic party . . .
You have looked at his record, I presume?
I hope a number of people in this discussion study Huckabee's record more thoroughly than they have mormon history. At least then we wouldn't be saddled with a pro-life Bill Clinton in the general election. |
|
|
...of the year by Voice of Reason "Mitt is exploiting his religion for political gain. " |
|
. . . I see a lot of Polygamy jokes in these comments from time to time.
Look, I'm not a fan of Polygamy, but if I say that there's no room for Polygamy in God's plan, then I've got to reject the Bible as well as at least the fathers of our faith (Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob - and then there's David, Solomon, etc).
I don't like Polygamy. Never have. But it's not a Mormon phenomenon. It's a Biblical one. It should be a non-starter. I don't like it, but apparently God doesn't always feel the same way I do . . . |
|
I'll give you an honest answer to an honest question, if you'll give me one.
Anytime. |
|
I find it amusing to read the attacks on Hugh's support for Mitt. Ruffini shills for Rudy (and also for Huck as a vote splitter to aid Rudy), Erik at Red State shilled for Fred and continues to allege Romney was behind the push polls in a pathetic attempt to keep anti-Mitt stuff alive and yet none of you ever seem to call them on the carpet for their blatant punditry. Hugh doesn't attempt to be unbiased - he is what he is. In the end he will be right or wrong about Romney and so his critics will either get to crow or eat humble pie.
Political Anvil
Other religions can define us LDS and our relationship with Christ all they want. Personally, Jesus Christ is my personal Lord and Savior and the person I most aspire to be like. I revere and read as much as I can about His life so that I can emulate it. I do so because of what my church teaches me and because so many people dear to me in the church live lives dedicated to Christ and ministering to the poor and needy. Our opponents shroud the Book of Mormon in a cloak of misleading distortions - to me it is more of the words of Christ. The Bible covers barely two chapters in John and Acts about Christ's post-resurrection ministry while the BOM has 18 long chapters of His ministry in the Americas. Romans 8:17 tells us we can be JOINT heirs with Christ - that's one of the sources of our doctrine on our god like potential. |
|
Wow.
"lumping the followers . . . with ME and mine . . ."
is bigotry?
What's your definition of bigotry?
I can't think of a single definition that fits your example.
By the way, I think Joseph Smith would see it just the way I said it. Were you aware he also ran for President of the United States? Did you know that? He was an American. He founded three American cities, one of which rivaled Chicago in size and commerce in Illinois at the time. The church he restored (he always called it a restoration of original Christianity) was restored in America. The Mormon story is one of the most fascinating stories in American History. It was established, from day 1 as a Christian Church. The founding event was (as Smith taught) an appearance to him by Jesus Christ.
Now, you may choose to reject his teachings, but I think it's pretty presumptuous for you to think that you've got a monopoly on truth.
Mormons haven't lumped themselves in with other Christians. They've invited Christians from other denominations to join with them, to bring the truth they have with them, and accept the additional truths revealed in these days. That's it. |
|
As a Mormon, (assuming you are not) I don't want to be lumped in with you at all.
I want the courtesy to be able to state, without contradiction from you or anyone else, what I believe.
I want the courtesy to be able to correct others when they misstate what I believe within my hearing or reading.
Otherwise, I couldn't care if you do or don't vote for Romney, or if you ever think the word Mormon again, or whatever you do if you are or are not so inclined.
It is noteworthy, though, how many times in the past few months I have claimed sincerely I believe X, and someone of a generally opposing religious persuasion has answered "no you don't, you believe Y", I'm at a complete loss to know how to answer, except to point out the absurdity of it all.
Why don’t we all just start naming and calling each other randomly.
Cjaguy, you are an arvark. (“No I’m not.”) Yes you are.
|
|
Bleechers - Right on; loved your blog
Scallywag- It bother me that you wrote our Savior's name in lower case was that a typo or does that tell me more than I want to know about you.
Political Liberal- Here Here thanks for saying what needs to be said, you have freedom to practice what you want, but I have freedom to say I won't vote for you because of this choice.
Cyndu- I give up, you remind me of the young men that come to my door in starched white shirts- They won't listen either, and everytime, I ask a queston, they rephrase it.
Political Anvil- It is Presbyterian- I am still proud to be one, but not sure Hugh is anymore.
And BG- Oh why bother |
|
|
I'm not a Mormon, but it's interesting the everyone seems to have an idea what Mormonism is all about, especially non-Mormons! And they're probably wrong in every case. Just an observation. |
|
"So The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is a relatively new Christian church. It's the largest American church to have been founded by an AMERICAN."
Is that how Joseph Smith would see it if you told him that today?
Would he be glad that his church is seen as "just another" by so many of you politically correct folk?
Frankly the persistence to lump the followers of Joseph Smith's teachings with ME and mine strikes me as larger bigotry than anything else that I have read here today. |
|
The speech is a non-starter and there is no reason for it, and it will have no effect on the general voting populous. Romney is being rejected as the anti-Rudy because he comes off as a used car salesman, a panderer and as the Republican version of John Kerry..."I was actually pro-life, before I turned against it to run for governor before then suddenly realizing it was wrong before I just happened to decide to run for President." Please. The American Voter is far more intelligent than the MSM and Hugh Hewitt give them credit for.
Frankly, I don't care if you are Richard Dawkins, the Dali Llama, Mother Teresa, or John Piper, if you waffle on life defining social issues every five minutes that are endeared to your constituents, don't then blame them for being bigots or idiots if they go running to a better alternative.
Huckabee is here to stay because he is articulate, can handle difficult questions far more effectively than his competitors, and appears genuine. He also has no more difficulties with his record than any other candidate. And furthermore, any candidate who is outspent 20 to 1 and can still yet lead in IA in December is not winning on his religion, but on issues. People weren't running from Romeny due to his religion three weeks ago, why is it all of a sudden an issue now?
The reality is that it isn't an issue. |
|
|
| | |