Saturday, May 12, 2007
|
|
Time's Nancy Gibbs on Romney's Faith
|
|
Posted by:
Hugh Hewitt at
9:54 AM
|
|
Here's the beginning of our conversation yesterday:
HH: Now I want to start by letting people know, you’ve been writing for Time Magazine how many years?
NG: It’ll be 22 years this fall.
HH: So you’ve seen a lot of presidential candidates come and go.
NG: I have.
HH: Have you ever seen a conversation about a candidate’s religious faith as intense as the one surrounding Mitt Romney?
NG: I have not, and the closest thing, and it wasn’t even, I don’t think it even came anywhere close to this, was when Al Gore nominated Joe Lieberman as his running mate. And yet, I don’t think even that conversation approached this one. You really do, as many people have pointed out, you have to go back to 1960 to have anything like this kind of conversation. That’s really the reference point.
HH: When I was writing A Mormon In The White House?, I reviewed the famous The Making Of The President 1960 book, as well, ’64 and ’68, when Mitt Romney’s dad was involved in national politics. There was nothing like the intensity, either, or…I lack the word for it, brass knuckled, perhaps, Nancy Gibbs. What was your impression of the people eager to attack the Mormon faith? Were they overly aggressive? Or was it just par for the course these days?
NG: Well, you know, what I wonder when you talk about his father’s run, especially in 1968, is whether what happened in 1960, the fact that the country had an intense discussion about the relevance of Kennedy’s Catholicism, and essentially concluded that the substance of private religious faith is really not relevant to the discussion of qualification for public office. I wonder whether the residue of that conversation was still fresh in people’s minds when Mitt Romney’s father was running, and it has somehow faded, and so now we are, all these years later, having the conversation again, and much more intensely.
Read the whole thing. We have to hope that gradually the MSM will get to where Gibbs already is: Aware that the attacks on Romney's faith are unprecedented and unsavory. Gibbs notes that those in 1960 who were opposed to Kennedy were divided by Theodore White into the ignorant and the bigoted, and that Romney faces the same two camps today. I added that today there is a third group, or actually a respectable division among the bigoted, and that some of those have access to MSM. That's what makes Romney's challenge more difficult. When Jacob Weisberg and Al Sharpton are attacking a religion, the bigotry Romney confronts seems at the same time more respectable and more loathsome, more subtle and much more crude, but it is certainly a more powerful presence in the MSM than it was in JFK's day.
|
|
Why not just change the name of this blog to "Romney is a Mormon"?
It seems that is all you can post about. Every aspect, no matter how trite and boring, of his religion is disected to the n-th degree.
Give it a rest already.
Its like Mitt is encouraging all this talk. I swear he is. I never hear much of his positions, just about all these horrible attacks on his religion.
Mitt is trying to cash in on some sort of reverse victimization.
BLAH!!!!! |
|
|
Great interview! Keep the bright lights shining in dark corners. The vermin of self-righteousness don't like it, and you will hear plenty of angry protests from them. But it is essential to the cleansing of the American soul that this last lingering infestation of bigotry be exposed and dealt with. |
|
I don't remember George Romney's Mormonism being much of an issue in '68 either (I was ten at the time, but following these things closely). Maybe it was residue from the Kennedy conversation in 1960, or maybe it was because Romney's candidacy imploded almost as it began. Or maybe my ten year old mind wasn't wired to detect such talk.
With reference to 2008, especially in light of the past eight years, I think its important for Americans to address the matter of faith. It seems to many Protestants, LDS and evangelicals alike, feel that faith is a carte blanche to believe unreasonable or manifestly contradictory things. And if that's the makeup of a man's soul--the man who would be our President--it has an impact on his insight, his wisdom, even his common sense. After these past eight years, we need a President who has the capacity to see what he does not want to see and hear what he does not want to hear. We need a President with some sense, and not a President whose "faith" enables him to believe a hodge podge of ridiculous and contradictory things.
Also, this business of there being no religious test for office is clearly not what the Framers had in mind. They meant that, say, you'd have to be Congregationalist to be, say, an Assemblyman in Massachusetts. THAT is unconstitutional. But if the Democrats put up a Wiccan or an atheist for President, you can rest assured that Hugh and the gang would hammer away. And that IS the functional equivalent of Mitt's Mormonism.
One final thought. Back when Kerry was running in 2004, there was a big stink about whether or not he was a legitimate communicant (because of his position of abortion). Some bishops complained, and I want to say Hugh was one of those who wondered aloud at both the authenticity of Kerry's faith and the legitimacy of his participation in Communion. I guess, if you split hairs, you can find a distinction between Kerry and Romney, but in the broad sense, especially in light of Hugh's passion on the issue, it is hard to see the difference. After all, like Mitt, Kerry just wanted to quietly practice his faith. Personally, I think Kerry's receiving Communion WAS a legitimate issue. And in the same way, so is Mitt's Mormonism.
If you're gonna wrap yourself up in the Christian faith--and God bless you if you do--then show us whatcha got. And if you're going to call Jesus Christ your favorite "political philosopher," like a certain candidate did back in 2000, then America is well-advised to get to the bottom of it--if indeed there is a bottom, and it is not simply platitudinal, gratuitous, ingratiating nonsense. |
|
Personally, I like the topic. The fact it sews fractiousness and dissent in the Republican base is a pleasant secondary effect. Just joking. I honestly think that religiously minded people need to hash this one out.
But "the intersection of faith and reason," as Frank Pastore puts it, is one that should be examined very carefully by civil society when it picks its leaders. It is precisely at that intersection that we can evaluate the JUDGEMENT of our would-be leaders. Too often, candidates have tried to use that intersection to prove their CHARACTER, but it does no such thing. What the intersection shows us is whether a candidate is clear-eyed or muddle-brained. |
|
I believe that Romney's Mormonism is very important. Mormons are taught from the earliest age that once the Mormon prophet has done the thinking, then Mormons must do what the Mormon prophet says.
Mormons like Romney also still believe in Section 132 of the Doctrine and Covenants as canonized Mormon scripture. In Section 132 the Mormon God revealed plural marriage (polygamy) to Joseph Smith as an "everlasting covenant". Those who do not keep it are to be damned while those Mormons who do keep it are promised that "they shall be gods, because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto them".
Life-long generational Mormons as Romney is know that they will return to the practice of polygamy as soon as the political climate allows.
Romney and Mormon leaders disguise their beliefs and practices by calling themselves Christians, but they are far from being Christians. They belong to a Christian derivitive cult.
Of course, in the U.S. a person can believe anything they want, but I don't want my president believing such irrational beliefs. If his mind is cluttered with deception and belief in religious fairy tales, how will he navigate the international and national political arenas, uncontaminated by his Mormon prophet's thinking?
...from Los Angeles (raised in Utah)
E. Meredith |
|
Excellent post. I find your posts to be thoughtful and articulate. This one was no exception. And although our opinions usually differ, this time I think you have scored a bull's-eye.
It is a truly difficult and complex issue.
Bruce Sherman
Oakland, Oregon
|
|
You've got to be kidding that Mitt is driving the frenzy on his religious beliefs.
I think Mitt would like nothing more than be able to focus on his political platform, not his beliefs. I'm sure the question about his intimate life before his marriage was something he plotted and planned for. I'm sure that he prodded Al Sharpton to make his remarks. I'm sure he has his campaign supporters writing letters to all these columnists to stir them to write all these ridiculous essays. (NOT! to all three.)
You can see his irritation with all the repeated questions lately, which are inappropriate to his abilities to lead.
Mitt Romney has an impressive record and resume, no matter what he chooses to believe. His beliefs obviously haven't hurt his abilities to think, reason, and be successful. That is why the anti Romney's are trying so hard to knock him down. |
|
"Of course, in the U.S. a person can believe anything they want, but I don't want my president believing such irrational beliefs. If his mind is cluttered with deception and belief in religious fairy tales, how will he navigate the international and national political arenas, uncontaminated by his Mormon prophet's thinking?
...from Los Angeles (raised in Utah)"
This is a perfectly fair point and no one wants a president who has irrational beliefs.
But here's the catch: ALL religions have beliefs--some of them quite central to each such religion--that would seem quite "irrational" to non-practitioners of that religion.
That being the case, how does a person of one religion ever support a presidential candidate of another religion?
Bruce Sherman
Oakland, Oregon
|
|
You're just wrong Anne.
Point to Harry Reid and Mitt Romney to see the dichotomy of being a Mormon. You can do whatever the heck you want to.
I know too many Mormons to fall for your lies, Anne. One of the most important tenents of our faith is that we are free to choose to act for ourselves. We don't have any more pressure to behave in a certain way than does any person of any faith. Sure, there is an expectation to follow beliefs, just like Catholics and Protestants expect active followers to conform. But there are no edicts coming from SLC telling us how to think or vote.
Anyone who tries to portray us differently is just not informed. Go to an LDS service and prove it to yourselves. However, that's probably not in your best interest, because that would prove my point. Get it? It's open for proof and examination, everyone.
GET OVER IT, already. It's people like YOU that are guilty of what bri64LA are blaming Mitt.
For heaven's sake, people, get over your ridiculous assertations and just admit you have and agenda and that you are Anti Romney.
At least Hugh and Dean are upfront and honest about their agendas.
|
|
You represent the legions of despicable and brain-dead religious bigots of the world. You misstate, misrepresent, and distort LDS beliefs beyond the recognition of Latter-day Saints themselves.
The everlasting covenant of marriage as referred to is marriage for eternity. This can either be a monogamous or polygamous form, depending on what God commands at the time. God will not condemn those who practice only monogamy if that is his commandment, which it is right now. It's possible it could change, but I think it's unlikely.
Latter-day Saints don't disguise anything. We are Christians through and through. There is no objective test for Christianity one could devise from the New Testament alone that Latter-day Saints could not pass with an A+.
Plenty of your beliefs could be described as fairy tales by those who don't believe them. You could easily be classed as a cult as well. Of course, anyone with half a functioning brain cell would just ignore your bigoted rantings anyway.
If Jesus himself were to return and observe the state of "traditional" or "historical" Christianity, I feel sure he would say, "If this is Christianity, then I am not a Christian."
|
|
The idea that Mormons are robots who can't think is not accurate. It is based on one comment in one talk by the equivalent of a Cardinal. If the Catholic Church had to defend every word that every Cardinal has ever made they would have a very large problem. Tactics like this create much of the anti Mormon diatribe.
The anti Mormons use this particular quote a lot but it is not accurate of how the Mormon Church actually functions. One of the first and primary doctrines of the Church is agency. Freewill in Baptist language.
No matter what the Official Doctrine of the church is, individual members can and do disagree with specific doctrines. As long as you do not start a crusade or attack the leadership you can pretty much beleive whatever you want.
Romney has already demonstrated he is a free spirit by his earlier positions on abortion. Harry Reid is certainly not in step with the thinking of many Church leaders on some issues.
Mormon politicans often take political positions that are at odds with something one of the hundreds of church leaders have said over the course of 150 years. Baptists have the same situation. Many of the Baptist ministers do not agree on many positions except for the most basic.
It is not the doctrine of the church unless it is written and signed by the first presidency (The president of the church and his 2 counselors). Church leaders may give public general counsel in talks from the pulpit but that is not the same thing as official church doctrine.
Anti Mormoms either do not understand the difference between general counsel and official doctrine or they delibertly distort the offical doctrine of the church to suit thier purposes. |
|
Anne saud:
Romney and Mormon leaders disguise their beliefs and practices by calling themselves Christians, but they are far from being Christians.
So Mormons are not your kind of hateful Christian. Thank Heavens for that. |
|
Most likely Anne is not bigoted. She is more likely just repeating the mantras of the anti Mormons because that is the information that she knows.
That is Romney's primary problem. The Mormons have played ropeadope and have not agressively addressed the misconception propaganda of the anti Mormons. The Church in times past has choosen to deal with the propoganda one on one thru thier missionary system. There are advantages to that.
However, there is a lake of misconceptions that Romney now has to surmount in a short time period. The Church on the other hand can take a long term approach to the propaganda and pick and choose it's battles and the timing of those battle.
Romney does not have that luxury. Fortunately for Romney his favorable/unfavorable ratio improves as voters get to know him better. He can solve his problems given sufficent time, money and the right campaign.
The Church on the other hand can simply wait until after the election and then capitalize on all of the interest that the Romney campaign has created. The have time on thier side. |
|
|
I dare say that someone who's been a Mormon missionary, in a foreign country for two years, develops a good understanding of how to communicate with a wide range of people, in a friendly and humble manner--some initially very hostile to you. |
|
|
There are 3 branches, which include checks and balances. Therefore, one branch can never have too much power. Therefore, nobody should give a hang about the prez's religion. I think sometimes people think the POTUS has more power than he actually does. Like Romney is going to get in there and (Evil Laugh) everything becomes LDS. Give me a break. We can't even get the government to fix Social Security. We need to worry about getting back to basic Americanism, getting government out of things. Worry about that before worrying about religion. At this point the government is going to regulate when you go to the bathroom before it becomes a theocracy. |
|
There is a group of people out there who are holding their fire against Mitt.
They are former Mormons who 'discovered' the truth and left the church. They are angry and bitter,they feel like they were duped, and they hate the Mormon Church. Many become athiests and flaming liberals. There are message boards on the web where they say some of the worst stuff about Mormons.
It is that group who will do the most damage to Mitt. Well along with Hillary and her bunch. |
|
|
The Left has done a skillful and successful job of being able to dismiss close examination of various unsavory practices (e.g. the reproductive habits of some of their favorite client groups) as 'bigotry'. Any critical, discriminating examination, and drawing of conclusions from same, is 'bigotry', and this scares people. These tactics are now being employed to stifle free thinking about strange religious sects. Historic Christians ought not be bullied and cowed by such tactics, unless they want to say that Santeria, Christianity, Wicca, and other well-promoted cults are all morally equivalent, and it doesn't matter what type of faith the President holds as long as he's a person of [some] faith. |
|
Actually, I agree with you. The Left is responsible for making certain topics verbotten, and for using certain epithats to end discussion (words like "racist" or "sexist"). It has been very bad for liberal (classically understood) society.
And I agree with you that Hugh is employing the same tactics with MR's Mormonism. Increasingly, one area where you conservatives have held the edge--the willingness to put forward ideas, even if they hurt someone's feelings--your side is now capitulating to the leftist way. It stinks. It is anti-free speech, anti-rational inquiry, anti-truth. And it does lead to the false conclusion that all faiths are equivalent, when indeed they are not. |
|
Granted the President's limited power in our constitutional system (will someone please tell Bush and Cheney), it is still an enormously powerful position. We need someone in there whose judgement is sound, who is not Pollyannish, who has insight and wisdom. Therefore, a candidate's faith is fair grounds for discovering these things.
For the life of me, I cannot understand why it is legitimate for Presidential candidates to cite Scripture and talk about their relationship to Christ, but it isn't legitimate to delve into it deeply. Evidently, Hugh and Mitt's other minions think that its okay to use one's religious faith as a prop. To me, that's flimflam. If your religion is that important to you, then defend it. If you cannot defend your religious faith, then how can you defend America? |
|
You said:
"If your religion is that important to you, then defend it. If you cannot defend your religious faith, then how can you defend America?"
I think Mitt is quite willing to defend his religious faith. I think he's just tired of answering the same old questions over and over and over. I know I, as a Mormon myself, am getting tired of hearing them. |
|
|
Don't care if Romney is a Mormon or a Moron..But with 18 months to ago,how many more of such posts from Hugh can one handle? Its getting tiring already..if it continues too much longer, will move over to the Corner at NR..much better variety of topics |
|
Come on, that's part of the deal. Mitt repeats essentially the same speech over and over again. He stands in endless greeting lines and takes endless photographs. He hears and says the same things ad nauseum. I bet he doesn't complain when he is asked for the umpteenth time who his favorite baseball team is or what he would do to restore fiscal sobriety. Saying it again and again and again is what candidates do. He just wants to draw the line on that particular matter because he wants to treat religious faith as a political prop. In fact, it's a window into his judgement. Either we ban God talk altogether from our body politic--which is both impossible and stupid--or we deal with it in the good, the bad, and the ugly.
Btw, I like Mormons. I know many and I like them all. We Catholics faced enormous resistence in this country for 150 years. Today, however, even conservative evangelicals are more or less accepting of us. Why is that? Because we were able to convince them to accept us--not by refusing to discuss the matter, or by acting as though the mere fact we believed something made it sacrosanct. We reached out, and kept reaching out, and at some point, those narrow-minded numbskulls realized there are worse things in the world than Roman Catholics. |
|
|
Only Romney can heal the rift that is developing between the Conservatives and the Libertarians. The alliance that has been the foundation for the Republican party is breaking down over the very issues that Romney is most capable of addressing. The democrats love the contention regarding Romney's faith because this is the type of bigotry that most alienates our strongest allies (libertarians). |
|
Here is the truth: anti-Mormon "Christians" can't stand five minutes in a conversation with a Mormon on their brand of religion versus the one described and set forth by Joseph Smith. Not five minutes - and they know it.
That is why they resort to distorting Mormonism as the only way they can find to counter it. They have no logical or sensical leg to stand on when confronted with really easy questions, so they just shut down and lie or distort Mormonism in order to shoot at it.
If you look at "Evangelical" answers to Mormonism, you'll see one basic logical argument: Mormons don't believe our tradition and explanation of the facts of Christianity, so they are wrong.
And in that, they mirror exactly the logical argument that the Pharisees made against Christ. And there you have it. The Evangelical or so called Bible-based Christians that attack Mormonism have become the new Pharisees of Christianity: one their own authority the believe that they can tell everyone what is Christian and what isn't Christian.
(Now, here comes the answer that it isn't on their own authority, but it is the authority of the Bible. And after they say that, they can't answer even the most basic question of 'how do you or I or anyone know - or how can we know - that your intrepretation and reading of the Bible is correct? The have no leg to stand on when they are faced with that question.)
As a resident of Texas, I've had numerous chances to discuss Mormonism with other "bible-based" or "evangelical" Christians. And to a conversation, they can't even answer the most basic questions about how their own religion stands up as the true Christianity.
Here is a sample of questions they are completely clueless on how to answer:
1. Can you show me one other time in the history when the church (or organization of the people of God)came from the scriptures to that point. They can't because throughout all history the book always came from the church, not the church from the book, like they claim right now.
2. How can you possibly find support in the scriptures for a paid ministry?
3. You claim to believe in the Bible. Do you believe Paul when he said that he saw Christ, and why you believe Paul?
4. Why don't you believe the Pope has authority, but Peter and Paul did?
5. Why are there so many different sized churches in 'bible christianity'? Some huge ones, some tiny - is this the 'one body' that Christ talked about?
6. You say that Mormonism is a cult of personality, then how do you explain that your churches that are large or small based on the personalities of the ministers that start or run them? Doesn't the evidence actually show that Mormonism is explicity not about personalities, and your churches are. Example: the church down the street from our house was just rocked to the foundation because the very admired minister committed adultry. The entire church was built around his dynamic personality, and six months later they still don't have a replacement. The church is dying because of it. Is that Christ's way?)
Anyway, Anne, show us what your real understanding of your own faith by answer the above questions, then maybe we can discuss how misguided Mormonism is. |
|
|
It would be political suicide for Romney to be involved in the debate himself because it is not a debate. This is more like the song that never ends. The detractors of Mormons post script copied and pasted from anti-mormon web sites and Mormons refute the innacuracies and misstatments. Then the same detractors repeat the same innacuracies. I guess when you don't have anything to argue you repeat your argument. Mormons love to talk about their religion. There is no questioning that, otherwise why would they voluntarily spend two years of their lives doing it. Romney doesn't get involved because it is not a debate it is a circus that just keeps repeating. |
|
|
EVERY candidate makes the same speech over and over again. That is why it is called a stump speech. That is also why reporters have trouble coming up with something to write about every day when they follow a candidate on the campaign trail. |
|
Nobody has a problem with disagreement, least of all Mormons. What I have a problem with is the lies, distortions, half-truths, arrogance, vindictiveness, and hatred that so many so-called Christians demonstrate when they talk about Mormons.
If you make a claim about something to do with Mormons or their doctrine, and you are shown by Mormons themselves who, after all, are the experts in what they believe, that your views are wrong, but you persist in your original claim with full knowledge that it is wrong, then you are a bigot.
Your opinions are fine when they are based on truth. If they are based on lies, though, and you refuse to change them when you are shown that they are lies, then you are a bigot.
|
|
"Mormons are in a pickle. They say they believe the same things I believe (salvation, resurrection, etc)., but then they say that the same book (the King James Bible) from which I get those beliefs from is corrupt....It is like they get to the part of scripture in the King James, where it talks about it being the true word of God, and they choose to ignore that part. Come on, what kind of belief is that?
...Why do Mormons cherry pick what they will agree with from the King James bible? They will loudly proclaim that they believe the same things I believe and assure me that they are Christians, but when I tell them that the Bible is the innerant word of God which promises that the word of God (the King James Bible) is true and complete, they deny it and defer to other texts and a wholly different theology."
Gabby,
I understand what you are saying BUT:
Couldn't today's Jews say the same thing about Christians and the "New" Testament?
Couldn't today's Catholics say the same thing about Protestantism?
Bruce Sherman
Oakland, Oregon
|
|
Some say Hugh "harps" over and over about the religious bigotry against Mormons, and then in their comment go on to show that Hugh's efforts haven't even made a dent. So what is Hewitt to do? And some are saying Mitt Romney needs to defend himself on this point. Well, who would listen? He's obviously biased on the subject of Mormonism. So someone knowledgeable, who's not Mormon, has to provide an objective defense of a "Mormon in the White House." Romney isn't objective enough to do it.
On his radio show, Hugh says his wife is "fetching," but I suspect he's biased. Maybe he's correct, but I'm not going to just take his word for it. I want some objective confirmation. On the other hand, Hugh has actually spent some time studying religion in America (Host of "Searching for God in America" on PBS) So there's some real basis for Hugh's claim to be more objective and more informed about how Mormonism fits into American religious life.
|
|
|
Sorry Hugh et al - the two people that I could never, ever support are John McCain and Mitt Romney - but not for the reasons you may think. You see, I'm one of the millions of over-taxed, villified smokers in this country. Mr. McCain is vehemently anti-smoking and I believe that Mr. Romney's faith prohibits tobacco and caffeine. The little bitty secret is that the one quarter to one third (depending on which survey you believe) of the population who smoke are fed up with elitists (mostly Democrats) stripping them of their liberties while taxing them into poverty. A hard line Reagan conservative who believes that businesses have the right to choose their clientele could sweep the '08 race. In my heart, I know that Mr. Romney just ain't the guy. |
|
Mormons do not say the Bible is corrupt in the way you say it. They say it has imperfections and there are things missing. That is undeniably true. Mormons study and believe the Bible every bit as much as any other Christian.
Nowhere does the Bible claim inerrancy for itself. Nowhere does the Bible claim that it contains all religious truth. Many Protestants believe this and wish it were so, but it is not. Nothing expressed in imperfect human language, even if it is inspired by God, can be absolutely perfect and without error. It just doesn't happen. Mormons have a view of the Bible that is based on reality and not wishful thinking. We believe that all the events, characters, and principles found in the Bible are true. We also recognize that it contains some errors and imperfections, the vast majority of which are trivial and of no consequence. They don't affect the overall message. Mormons believe the Bible to be the word of God. They don't ignore anything in it. But they also don't worship it.
Where we differ from other Christians is in our interpretation. For example, you probably believe in the Trinity. Fine. You have every right to believe in the Trinity if you want to. Mormons reject the Trinity because there is no basis for it in the Bible or in any of their other scriptures. It's just not there. Besides, God has revealed himself to modern-day prophets, and has demonstrated that the Trinity doctrine is false.
Mormons don't want to have it "both ways". They just want to have the courtesy extended to them of defining themselves and to be the experts at what they themselves believe, and not to be told by anyone else what they believe. I have been a member all my life. I have served a full-time mission and I have served as a bishop. I know exactly what I'm talking about. You don't.
Your views on Mormonism did not come from Mormons. I can only guess they came from anti-Mormons. It's time you started getting your information from reliable sources. I urge you to do that. If you refuse, then you'll still be a bigot.
|
|
"Sorry Hugh et al - the two people that I could never, ever support are John McCain and Mitt Romney - but not for the reasons you may think. You see, I'm one of the millions of over-taxed, villified smokers in this country. Mr. McCain is vehemently anti-smoking and I believe that Mr. Romney's faith prohibits tobacco and caffeine."
If McCain or Romney is the GOP nominee and you do not support them, then we must assume that you believe that smokers will be better of under Clinton, Edwards or Obama. Do you REALLY believe that?
Simialrly, are we to assume that, in your mind, the issue of smoking outweighs other trivialities such as the war against Islamofacism?
I think that this is a prime example of the foolhardiness of single-issue voters.
Bruce Sherman
Oakland, Oregon |
|
|
You are the broken record that plays the same thing over and over again about Mormons. People like you, who know nothing factual about my faith, have formed opinions based on the lies you hear told over and over again. It's a waste of time even trying to talk to you about the Mormon faith, because you don't care to hear the truth. |
|
The media in England and USA (including Drudge) forecast a 10% margin of victory for Sarkozy, or even greater, esp. after Royal's debate performance. I believed it would be on the order of 4-6%.
Actually, I have no problem with Sarkozy winning a decisive mandate. The European Right is a far different thing than the America Right. In fact, my own politics more closely mirrors the European Right than either the American Left, the European Left, or the American Right.
I was just saying that the American media gets France wrong. And the American Right definitely gets France wrong. That's just how it is.
I am a Eurocentric American Democrat. I think most of the great things human beings have acgueved came from Western Civ. And France is an integral part of Western Civilization (the eldest daughter of the Church, as we say in Catholic circles). I know the American Right loves to agitate against Europe generally and France more specifically, but it is stupid talk that has no genuine respect for our country's moral and cultural heritage. |
|
You may not want to waste your time--or your intellect--on "Guy Arthur Thomas."
He describes--with evident pride--his own writings as "vulgar."
Here is the biography he wrote for himself:
"Guy Arthur Thomas is a pen name for a most excellent social, political and religious commentator. A man who isn't interested in displaying his pretty face but instead wants you to read his ugly words. Warning: If expletives offend you then you are in no position to discuss the truth."
Bruce Sherman
Oakland, Oregon |
|
Liberal Patriot,
I don't believe Drudge was forecasting anything, rather, I believe he was merely providing a LINK to a forecast.
But more importantly, there is usually a 3-5% margin of error in a poll.
And since the forecasts were predicated by polling data, a "forecast" of a ten point margin of victory which actually ends up being a six point margin of victory thus falls within the standard margin of error.
However, Liberal Patriot, I DO think you're right that we in America "get France wrong."
After all, during the 20th century, we continued to have faith that the French would finally do the right thing---yet, everytime they proved us incorrrect by doing the wrong thing---even while German Nazi officers were sipping coffee in Paris cafes.
But all is not lost, as I do like some of the French New Wave films of the late 50s and 60s.
|
|
I, being a LDS member, do understand the need for the general population know what our values are in order to know how it would affect our "inner core", and I do encourage them to pursue this understanding. This, I have no problem.
The problem, rather, is how people would try to describe our beliefs in despite of those of us who actually believe them. I mean, for instance, how many of the reporters did their homework, by checking out the official church website or talk with missionaries, who are our official representatives (yes, all of them are)? Just a little walk would get them to our core beliefs, but no, they must seek the most shocking parts of our beliefs from both sides of this church, which are more speculative than official. And to do it again, and again, and again, after so many of these have been disproved or explained in the appropriate context. That, I am quite disappointed with many of the media and people like Anna.
Yes, there are too much of that, rather than the honest quest to understand. |
|
"After all, during the 20th century, we continued to have faith that the French would finally do the right thing---yet, everytime they proved us incorrrect by doing the wrong thing---even while German Nazi officers were sipping coffee in Paris cafes."
French collaboration with the Nazis is well documented--with the number of collaborators far outnumbering the relatively small number of "resistance." And, of course, Vichy France--where the populace needed absolutely no encouragement to help the SS round up Jews -- was a particularly proud development in French history.
Of course, French appeasement of the Soviets, their withdrawal from NATO, their long history of cozying up to the Arabs--and of being more than willing to throw Israel to the dogs are also worth noting.
Did I mention their creaking socialist economy, or their stultifying, Orwellian uber-political correctness, or their corroding welfare state, or their immigration policies which has resulted in radical Islamic slums surrounding their cities like a necklace of death?
Bruce Sherman
Oakland, Oregon
|
|
There are a few posts here that seemingly imply that he should give a "JFK" religion speech. The impression that I have from reading a few of his interviews when his Mormonism was questioned by the reporters was that he, after meeting countless people through this wonderful country, never was once asked about his beliefs.
If you have not been asked about your certain position by the people who could give you a vote, do you need to go around trying to emphasize this position?
As such, he, nor his team, has yet to see the needs for his "JFK" speech. Up to this point, all of this Mormonism question has came from the liberal side, from the MSM.
I personally think he will address this topic at some point in the future -- mostly like, during the general election, if he does win it. Until you generate enough noise about wanting to know whether the church leaders could dictate to Mitt on how to run this country, we members do have a solid history of over 175 years of being active in the politics at all levels. In fact, we used to, and now, have quite a few numbers of LDS members in a quite influential positions. Not once have Church tells any of those what they should do. Best yet, how can you display more patriotic toward USA than to being willing to serve in its army mere months after you have been kicked out of the same country, leaving your wives and children to complete their journey to place of safety alone? There are ample of examples like this throughout our history.
What else can we do to convince you that we do not have any of the hidden agenda, and that we are all firm to our innermost core that we will fight to protect your rights to believe howsoever you want? This is one of our 13 most fundamental beliefs. What more can we say?
|
|
If Mitt the Meal Ticket waits until the general, he'll be waiting forever. Candidates with 9% of the primary vote don't make the general election, and candidates the GOoPer establishment haven't supported don't make the general election. Period.
The only venom toward the LDS Church that matters to Romney is on the right, and while it's widespread enough to foreclose any chance of his winning, there are enough other reasons Mitt the Meal Ticket is floundering to prevent him from ever being taken seriously. |
|
The Mormon religion is not ubiquitous among Americans as Christianity and Judaism are.
As a result, it's fair for people to ask questions so they can inform themselves about the religion.
By definition, 'faith' is belief, and all religions have aspects of the 'supernatural' which, by definition, CANNOT be deemed 'rational' in the classical sense.
However, in America, we simply don't ask people to defend the 'supernatural' questions of their religion, and it is unfair to make a special exception for Mitt Romney.
Doing so may open the floodgates down a slippery slope of holding the "supernatural" to "rational" investigation---and I don't think that's fair to future candidates, regardless of their particular faith.
The Evangelical Christians need to be careful of the ice they're treading on with their attacks on Romney's religion, because if this line of "inquiry" becomes accepted practice by the mainstream for future candidates, they too, one day, will be solicited to do some explaining about some of the things THEY have faith in.
And that's something the largely secular MSM will be HAPPY to indulge Evangelicals in !(especially the Evangelicals who are Republicans, as Democrats will surely get a free pass)
While a person's personal theology certainly informs their morality and worldview, it affects different outcomes in different people.
For instance, Rick Santorum & Teddy Kennedy are both practicing Catholics, yet are polar opposites in the political arena. Orrin Hatch & Harry Reid are both practicing Mormons, but are polar opposites in the poltical arena. George W. Bush & John Edwards are both practicing Protestant Christians, yet are very far apart in the political arena. And Dennis Prager & Chuck Schumer are practicing Jews, yet are very far apart in the political arena.
Therefore, on Election Day, rather than obsessing about a person's theology, we examine their voting record and political philosophy.
In the pluralist arena of American politics, the bottom line is how a politician governs or votes---it's not what breakfast cereal he eats, not what kind of novels he reads, and not which church service he attends.
|
|
My response to your last post is--if you'll pardon the expression--"AMEN!"
Bruce Sherman
Oakland, Oregon |
|
Bruce,
Good job documenting the long history of French malfeasance.
President Bush or Bibi Netanyahu could make a seemingly innocuous pronouncement that "the sky is blue," and the French would surely find a reason to oppose it.
|
|
Wow! With America trying to sort out who we should have lead our nation, when President Bush has finished his term and we no longer have Tony Blair as a strong and dependable leader for our ally, along comes this guy-Sarkozy. No guarantees or anything, knowing the tendency for the French to defy all odds at being pro-anything American, but--
What if this guy does like American style democracy, and would like to pull France out of the dark ages of socialistic thinking.
We are definitely going to need Europe's help in the on going war against the west's religions and way of life.
Who possibly could America choose to help forge a relationship with France, that would strengthen Europe and America's interests? Of course it would help if he understood the French
psyche. Maybe even have spent some time living there and speaks their language. Someone who understands the business of inspiring people to stand up and do for themselves, instead of waiting for government to do for them.
|
|
|
I realize some of my beliefs are different from yours, but that does not make them wrong or mean I'm any less a Christian than you are. I think you'll also find many of our beliefs our similar. I have a very strong belief in Jesus Christ as my Savior. I don't see how you can object to that. |
|
Gabby will object because in her mind she already knows everything. She thinks she knows what Mormons believe better than Mormons do themselves, better than you. Gabby is the classic bigot.
Thankfully, though, what Gabby and her ilk believe doesn't matter. We Latter-day Saints know who we are, what we believe, and we also know God knows who we are and what we believe. Ultimately, that's all that is really important.
Anti-Mormons can yap all they want. They can gnash their teeth and foam at the mouth all they want. They will never stop the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints because it is the work of God. And I thank God every day of my life that I'm privileged to be part of it.
|
|
|
I enjoy reading your comments. You manage to express MY thoughts about our shared religion much better than I can! Thanks and keep up the good work! |
|
|
Ted Kennedy is no practicing Catholic. He and his ancestors found it to their advantage to claim Catholicism as part of their Democrat religion in Boston, but as Jesus said by their fruits you shall known them, and the Kennedys' fruits are rotten and not Catholic in any way, shape or form. |
|
|
Reading some of these comments is mind bogling. Mormons are constantly asserting that their critics are wrong when they say Mormons are not Christians. Then you have a Morman admit that they do not believe in the Trinity because their interpretation of the Bible does not substantiate that belief. Hello! Without going into a long disertation of why the Bible does support the Trinity, it is enough to say that all Christians accept the doctrine of the Trinity, and if you don't you are just not a Christian.You can call yourself a Christian (and maybe even think that you are one) but the very essence of Christianity requires belief in the Trinity. |
|
All Christians believe in the trinity, except Mormons, who still happen to be very much Christian, too.
|
|
Perhaps you missed this nuance Raj, but the 'Morman' you speak of was referring to the belief that God the Father Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost are of one singular essence.
We believe that they are distinct individuals as seen at the baptism of the Savior when God the Father spoke from the heavens while the Holy Ghost descended like a dove and Christ was in the water.
We believe that they are 'One' in the sense of acting in perfect concert and perfect unity.
We believe that God the Father was the Architect of the universe and that creation was carried out by Jesus.
We believe that Jesus is the Great I AM of the Old Testament, that He is our Redeemer and Savior, that He is the only means of Salvation for a sinful mankind and that he is the only one among us to pass through this life free of sin.
We understand the passages referring to the oneness and singularity of God to describe their singularity of purpose.
When I look at the New Testament I wonder how a believer in the trinity explains some of Christ's conversations and references to God the Father as something that is not Schizophrenic. However I respect your right to do so and understand that you have almost 1700 years of Dogma pressing down on you to believe in that fashion. Further, I know of no serious biblical scholars that would argue the Trinity concept os taught explicitly in the Bible. Rather, it is widely believed to be an implicit doctrine, that's why the Council of Nicae sought to create a definition.
DISCLAIMER: When I say 'We' I techinically mean me as I can speak for no other, however I believe I have accurately represented the beliefs of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. |
|
I thought perhaps my previous post could move us in a new direction. Maybe we could look at real issues that will face our incoming President. Maybe a former missionary, who spent a couple of years serving among the French people could be valuable to us.
Oh well! Let's get back to the real danger facing us. Will we all go to hell for electing the, by far, best qualified candidate to the office of President of the United States? Will his belief in a Godhead of 3 seperate and distinct personages of one singular purpose, as is clearly taught in the Bible, doom the world of Christianity.
Listen folks! You can scream and shout and rant and rave all you want but it is to no avail. There are plenty of good Latter Day Saints that are more than willing to have an open and SERIOUS diolouge with you NOW! |
|
I intentionally did not attempt to draw any conclusions or cast aspersions in my comment. I think what this all really illustrates is just how silly the argument is.
Of course Baptists are Baptists and they aren't Catholics and neither are Latter Day Saints. Who cares?? I voted for Bush 2, Bob Dole, Bush 1, and Reagan (None LDS) and if there was a better candidate then Romney I would happily vote for that guy when(if) Thompson throws his hat in the ring I'll be looking at him closely.
Case in point, I actually lived in Las Vegas and I never once even considered voting for Harry Reid. For that matter almost nobody I knew who was LDS did either. He sure as hell wasn't sent to congress by people of his shared faith, and he probably couldn't get elected dogcatcher in Utah.
I think most of us trying to engage in dialogue with those who vilify Romney for his brand of Christianity are doing so to prevent people of common values regardless of common denomination from shooting us all in the foot and assuring a Hillary Clinton presidency. Does anyone who rejects Romney because of his religion think Hillary will more closely match their beliefs simply because she professes to be baptist??? |
|
Unfortunately for you, the Bible does not support the Trinity doctrine. There is much more solid evidence that Jesus and the Father are separate beings. Jesus constantly referred to his Father as separate from himself ("...not my will, but thine be done..." "...my doctrine is not mine but his that sent me...", the baptism of Jesus where the Father spoke from heaven and the Holy Ghost descended as a dove, the stoning of Stephen where he saw Jesus standing on the right hand of God in vision, Jesus prayed to his Father, and many others. Of the few passages, like John 5:7, that talk about the oneness of God, they are all open to the LDS interpretation, namely that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are one in purpose, but separate in body.
Jesus also said to Mary Magdalene that she should not touch him because he had not yet ascended to his Father. Also, the great intercessory prayer offered by Jesus that is recorded in John 17 contains the desire of Jesus that his disciples should be one as he and the Father are one. That clearly did not mean everybody fusing into one incomprehensible essence. The LDS view of God is firmly rooted in Biblical doctrine.
|
|
Please don't take this the wrong way, but that last post is not the right approach here. Speaking as one Latter Day Saint to another, we should be helping to build our commonality not try to prove our positions. Obviously you and I agree, however you won't convince someone who reads the same scriptures differently in this type of forum.
Thats exactly the point, if baptists refuse to vote for or respect non-baptists and catholics refuse to vote for or respect non-catholics and on and on ad nauseum, we will only fragment ourselves and diminish our political potency. On the other side of the aisle they have no problems distinguishing who the adversary is, and its everyone who shares the common values I share with you and we share with Raj and he shares with Gabby, regardless of which building we do or do not visit on Friday or Saturday or Sunday or any other day of the week.
Once we regain a nation with strong families, solid conservative values, and nearly uniform reverence of a creator that guides our political and private principles, we can then go after each other safely without risking the loss of the very values we are fighting for.
The ongoing fractious debate is like a college football team in Ohio losing a football game because they can't stop arguing on the sidelines over who is or isn't a 'true hawkeye' because some of the team came from other states. If we all want to win the game we had better figure out a way to work together regardless of our differences. |
|
Is a perfect example of why I follow NO religion.
Everyone telling everyone else that their "beliefs" (by definition, non factual and illogical) are better than someone else's "beliefs" (by definition, non factual and illogical)
Oh, and my favorite line in one post was... "...as long as you believe in something." Like that matters? So you're saying as long as you believe in some higher authority (like John Travolta or something) that is the supercomputer of the universe, then you are ok. It's just laughable.
All religion is a catch all explanation for things that can not currently be explained. "Must be the hand of god". Look back at the things people worshipped and attributed to "gods" 2000 yrs ago, 500 yrs ago, and now. Look at the evolution of these things being answered and no longer attributed to the great Santa Claus in the sky.
Personally, I would rather have a president who makes his decisions based in FACTS, not BELIEFS.
And regarding all the anti-mormonism. That comes from the pious hypocritical right wing Christian Taliban. The left couldn't care less. You fundies have made religion an issues so deal with it. You're eating your own and making it a cakewalk for Hillary. |
|
Do you see Gabby?
Do you see Raj?
Do you see Anne?
Do you see Ron? |
|
Do you see?
Do you see Gabby?
Do you see Raj?
Do you see Anne?
Do you see Ron?
I don't care if you are a hawkeye from Ohio or one from California or Massachusetts, I care about our shared values and I want to win and I don't care if I have to work with people who don't like me to get it done. |
|
|
A buckeye from Ohio maybe? |
|
There is something ridiculous about the Right's assault on France. I'm not a big fan of the chickenhawk argument, but it seems to me the critique of France is conducted by the sons and grandsons of the guys who actually fought in WWII. If you look at the cultural material of the time--newspapers, films, books--there wasn't nearly the widespread contempt of things French, and that was at the time, when France had supposedly capitulated to the Nazis. On the contrary, the French were referred to as gallant, brave, and perhaps a little silly. But cowardly? Non! Besides, what heroic acts have the sons and grandsons of our WWII veterans performed to entitle them to such feelings of contempt?!
Today, we have a bunch of chest-thumping, strutting right-wingers with a very real animus towards the French. Why is that? We are talking about a nation that lost an entire generation of men to the Great War (before we knew to number them). An entire generation! It is a nation that has been our friend since the beginning. French troops are in Afghanistan to this day. They were also an integral part of Desert Storm. They have freely shared intelligence. And their outpouring of affection in the aftermath of 9/11 was genuine and heartfelt.
Yes, they opted not to participate in GW's Iraq adventure. And you know what? They were right. It turns out that if we followed Chirac's tack instead of Bush's, the Middle East would be more stable and we would be further along in the War on Terror. They were right and the dopes who bellowed about "freedom fries" were wrong.
Today's American conservatives bag on France ad nauseum. They are not perfect allies. Guess what? Countries have different interests. Otherwise they would be the same country. The antipathy towards France in our nation is as reflexive and distasteful as anti-semitism. It comes from our Germanic roots, no doubt, but it is ahistorical, a peculiar indulgence of this generation of American conservatives. |
|
I wonder if spending time in a country as a Missionary, where you are trying to show the natives a "better way," has a lot of value. Still, Romney probably has a head start, regarding the French, on other Republicans, and that is something. I imagine that living there for two years helped refine his soul. How could it not?!
My guy Barry Obama grew up on the streets of Indonesia. In my mind, that is an experience that could really be helpful in the Oval Office--the capacity to see things from the other fellow's point of view. At this time, after two terms of Bush, we could use a little such wisdom.
I don't imagine you'd agree with these points, and that's fine. I agree with you that there are plenty of Mormons who are ready and willing to discuss religious doctrine, and that is a very good point. For while I think a man's faith is a telling indicator of his judgement, I also think that LDS folks are earnestly willing to engagethat doctrine with non-Mormons. We have seen it here on this site, and frankly, there has been more pig-headedness on the Evangelical side--at least in tone.
So, in other words, you make some good points for Romney. I would never vote for him (well, maybe if the Democrats nominated Al Sharpton), but I must say that your arguments resonated to a certain extent. |
|
|
For helping to llustrate my point. I had hoped someone would. Hawkeye, Buckeye doesn't matter. |
|
Liberal Patriot,
France looks a lot better today than it did about 8 days ago. There's always hope for improvement. They can't all be elitist self-righteous socialist jackasses. Those are just the ones that tend to get on American television because they're so "interesting and charming."
|
|
|
bickers about who actually believes what, in terms of religion, our country sinks deeper and deeper into socialism. When the U.S. is completely under socialism, I will turn and congratulate all of you for turning your eyes to the faith of our leaders, while we got buried under the Nanny State. Congrats. Give me an atheist who thinks the Dept. of Education is a waste of time and money and taker of freedom. Give me a Wiccan who thinks that anyone taxed over 10 percent is taxed too high. The GOP needs a priority check, big time. |
|
|
You must be referring to the Shrub Administration? |
|
Liberal Patriot,
My friend, I'm sorry if Bruce's brief summary of the facts of France's actions during the 20th century does not coincide with your love affair with all things Franco.
And if it makes you feel better to call me a "dope" because I wrote "Freedom fries," that's ok with me---I'll indulge you, big fella.
Incidentally, a world-traveller by the name of Mark Twain had the following remarks to say about the French.
(And by the way, he died in 1912.)
"France has neither winter nor summer nor morals. Apart from these drawbacks it is a fine country. France has usually been governed by prostitutes."
|
|
France also helped fight for this country's independence.
The anti-France crusade is being driven by O'Reilly (pompous blowhard (and adulterer) Falafle boy
The Shrub followers just can't handle the fact that France was RIGHT about this fiasco of a war. The fact that they were smart enough NOT to ally themselves with this debaucle does not reflect badly on them.
Most of the population of THIS country doesn't support sending our boys and girls to be cannon fodder to try to save Shrub's legacy either.
Apparently this board is where the 30% who have yet to clue in hang out. |
|
|
My comment was in response to the comment of Eichendodrf of 5/12 at 7:16 PM in which he said that Mormons reject the Trinity. Now I didn't say that Mormons have to accept the Trinity - their belief is their belief. I said, and I stand by my previous comment, that if you don't accept the Trinity then you are not a Christian even though you call yourself one and think that you are one. All Christians accept the doctrine of the Trinity. Those who don't accept it(and they have the right to do so) are just not Christians, they are something else since the essence of Christianity is the Trinity. All Christians accept the doctrine of the Trinity - those who don't, and apparently the Mormons along with the Jews and Mussulmen do not, are not Christians. This has nothing to do with whether or not Mormons are good people - I think they are excellent people by and large, they just are not Christians. |
|
One Hot Minute and I wrote:
""After all, during the 20th century, we continued to have faith that the French would finally do the right thing---yet, everytime they proved us incorrrect by doing the wrong thing---even while German Nazi officers were sipping coffee in Paris cafes."
French collaboration with the Nazis is well documented--with the number of collaborators far outnumbering the relatively small number of "resistance." And, of course, Vichy France--where the populace needed absolutely no encouragement to help the SS round up Jews -- was a particularly proud development in French history. In fact, the people of Vichy France were so pro-Nazi that Hitler did not feel the need to make a significant deployment of German troops there.
Of course, French appeasement of the Soviets, their withdrawal from NATO, their long history of cozying up to the Arabs--and of being more than willing to throw Israel to the dogs-- are also worth noting.
Did I mention their creaking socialist economy, or their stultifying, Orwellian uber-political correctness, or their corroding welfare state, or their immigration policies which have resulted in radical Islamic slums surrounding their cities like a necklace of death?"
Liberal Patriot,
You claim to dislike the "Chickenhawk" argument (which is not an argument but merely an appelation and is anti-democratic) but then you use a version of it to defend the French. Why not instead address the specifics set forth above?
By the way, don't cite the tiny French presence in Afghanistan to support your argument; they just announced that they are pulling out.
Bruce Sherman
Oakland, Oregon |
|
Is that if you want to define Christianity by that single doctrine then you may freely do so. I worry only who Christ will define as his sheep. I will not worry even a little about who you are willing to accept as Christian. I hate to do this but I am going to quote myself from above, "Thats exactly the point, if baptists refuse to vote for or respect non-baptists and catholics refuse to vote for or respect non-catholics and on and on ad nauseum, we will only fragment ourselves and diminish our political potency. On the other side of the aisle they have no problems distinguishing who the adversary is, and its everyone who shares the common values I share with you and we share with Raj and he shares with Gabby, regardless of which building we do or do not visit on Friday or Saturday or Sunday or any other day of the week.
Once we regain a nation with strong families, solid conservative values, and nearly uniform reverence of a creator that guides our political and private principles, we can then go after each other safely without risking the loss of the very values we are fighting for.
The ongoing fractious debate is like a college football team in Ohio losing a football game because they can't stop arguing on the sidelines over who is or isn't a 'true hawkeye' because some of the team came from other states. If we all want to win the game we had better figure out a way to work together regardless of our differences."
To make my point for me, someone who appears to be both leftist and athiest posted almost immediately after. You should go back and look for Strategery's post on Sunday, May, 13, 2007 11:49 AM. |
|
Liberal Patriot wrote:
"My guy Barry Obama grew up on the streets of Indonesia. In my mind, that is an experience that could really be helpful in the Oval Office--the capacity to see things from the other fellow's point of view."
Liberal Patriot,
I DO NOT want a president who sees things from the Islamofacists' point of view. I do not want that at all.
To argue that Obama may be more sympathetic to our enemies "point of view" is the strongest case one can make AGAINST Obama's candidacy.
I do, however, sincerely thank you for your willingness to be completely candid about Obama and what he may well represent.
By the way, in your mind, just what is the Islamofacists' "point of view?"
Bruce Sherman
Oakland, Oregon |
|
Should be "Islamofascist".
Bruce |
|
The sentence should read: "To argue that Obama may be more sympathetic to our enemy's "point of view" is the strongest case one can make AGAINST Obama's candidacy."
I really need to start proofreading BEFORE hitting the "send" button! :)
Bruce |
|
Ok, if the definition of Christian is "believing the trinity doctrine that was created by councils of men debating about scriptural meaning rather than any direct revelation by God" then maybe you are right, we aren't Christian.
If, as we say, the definition of Christian is "One who believes in Jesus Christ of the New Testament as savior and accepts Him as such," then perhaps we qualify.
I prefer the second definition regardless of whether or not others prefer the first. |
|
|
You stated that in order to be Christian, you have to accept the doctrine of the Trinity. According to the dictionary, a Christian is someone who believes and follows the teachings of Jesus Christ. Nowhere in the definition does it say that a person has to believe in the Trinity to be a Christian. So, since members of the LDS Church believe and follow the teachings of Jesus Christ, that would make us Christians, regardless of whether or not we believe in the Trinity. |
|
|
Denying the Trinity and claiming to be Christian? That is no different than the Jews or Muslins decididng to claim to be Christian. I am not anti-Morman and will vote for Mr. Romney if he is the Republican nominee. The Mormans and Islamsists both deny the Trinity. But the Islamists are out to destroy us and to take our freedom - the Mormons are not and that is what we should remember. Let's make that our goal and stop harping on Mr. Romney. |
|
|
It's getting seriously tiresome hearing about Mitt the Mormon. He's not a good candidate, trying to buy his way into office, lying about every political position he ever took, desperate for publicity.. He stays at 10% among Republicans, where he belongs. At least you can respect Rudy, McCain. |
|
Because you will spend all your energy worrying about who's god the other is praying to. A complete waste of energy but it is what will keep you divided. The dems could care less about what someone else's religion or lack thereof is.
But the Repub candidiates have to pander to prove who is more of a Jesus freak than the next.
The more religious a person is, I find the more bigoted and ignorant they are. Some of you people ought to get your noses out of your bibles and get out in the world a bit.
Atheists deal with FACTS
Christians deal with FICTION "beliefs"
I want my president to deal with facts not be basing his decisions on some astrologer (reagan) or whatever phoney deity they pray to.
Good grief. |
|
It is useless to argue with mormons about religion. Their faith is built on sand. Its shifts constantly.
One day God wants them to pratice polygamy. The next day its wrong. One day its o.k to discrimante against blacks, the next day they receive the revelation that its not so good.
This country has a history of discrimination in churches. The Mormon will defend his church's discrimination as God's will. The Christian will call it what it is, sin of man.
The Mormon will declare that polygamy praticed by Smith and Young and others was sanctioned by God. The Christian will call it what it is, adultry.
Dudley, you must be a bigot! No one can oppose Mitt on political grounds! You are just hiding your bigotry. :) |
|
|
Or like the Catholic (Christian) church suddenly deciding that Limbo was really all a bunch of bunk. So what was taught as fact, that un-baptized babies that die spend eternity in Limbo, isn't FACT after all. Catholic church has a Loooooooonnnnng history of "evolving" positions. As do all other Christian cults. |
|
|
I have to say I agree with your conclusion, if not the premise that got you there. If only more Christians shared your viewpoint... |
|
The Trinity doctrine was not completely developed nor accepted until the 4th century A.D. Jesus never taught it. Neither did his disciples. Many thousands of Jesus's followers during the first three centuries didn't believe in the Trinity because doctrine didn't exist yet, but they were still Christians.
|
|
Wait a sec. Who said anything about seeing things from the terrorists point of view? Growing up in Indonesia gave Obama insight in the way the majority of human beings on this brown earth live. It is an economic and even cultural insight that would serve our nation well. I'm sure you will agree, Bruce, that there is no virtue in ignorance.
As for my friend OHM, since when does my defense of France to the Francophobes in this neck of the woods classify as "a love affair with all things French"? You do have a tendency to push the man of the golden mean (i.e., ahem, me) to fringe positions not held at all. The mere fact I am not contemptuous of France does not mean I am swooning over Her. One can drive a truck between those two points. |
|
Republicans are about black and white.
Listen to Faux News. No nuanced reporting there.
Got to "label" everyone and then demonize them. |
|
First of all, our faith is built upon a belief in the divinity of Jesus Christ, the truths he lived and taught, and the promise of eternal life for those who follow him and endure, until the end of their mortal lives, the scorns and ridicule of a disobedient world.
At times in the history of the world, God has asked men, who were worthy and were priesthood holders, to take more than one wife in order that his spirit children could come to earth and dwell in families that had and lived the truth and could receive the ordinances necessary to their salvation. This was obviously a way to ensure that more of the peoples of the earth could at sometime receive and come under the protective tent of the eternal gospel. This was the case in the times of the early church here in America. Plural marriage was put in place, by the Lord, in order to establish a generation of his children who could receive the true gospel. The church didn't abandon the practice because it was wrong, but because the United States government passed laws against it and threatened to confiscate church properties and imprison church leaders and those who were involved in plural marriage.
Blacks have NEVER been discriminated against by the church. There have been blacks in the church from its earliest days. The Lord withheld the gospel from the gentiles while he lived and preached on earth and we know that it was for the reason that his purposes may be fullfilled. We don't question his right to do this. We state that the Lord withheld the Priesthood from a segment of his children for his purposes and nothing but sincere yearning and pleading by his children for this blessing effected this change. Not political pressure or political correctness brought about this change.--- Study about the beginnings and growth of the church in Africa.
|
|
Liberal Patriot wrote:
" Growing up in Indonesia gave Obama insight in the way the majority of human beings on this brown earth live. It is an economic and even cultural insight that would serve our nation well. I'm sure you will agree, Bruce, that there is no virtue in ignorance."
LP,
Of course there is no virtue in ignorance--as some of the "contributors" here prove daily (e.g., "Clarity Seeker," "Guy Arthur Thomas," etc.).
Having said that, I fail to see how growing up in Indonesia is a selling point for Obama. In fact, I fear that that experience may have left him with some undeserved sympathy for our self-proclaimed enemies. I don't want a president who has a falsely benign view of today's Islamic world.
Interestingly, when the Democrat candidates debated and they were asked what they would do if American cities were nuked by Islamofascists, Obama gave a long-winded response about disaster preparedness and FEMA. Clinton, to her credit, gave the correct answer. She said, "Retaliate!"
I want a Commander-in-Chief, not a First-Responder-in-Chief.
Also, does it not strike you as the height of hubris and arrogance (dare I say, "audacity?"), for a guy who was only in the Senate for 2 years to decide to run for president? What does that say about who he really is and what really motivates him?
Finally, Obama is dangerous because he is an unknown. For better or worse, with the other Democrat candidates, we know what we are getting. They have been around. They have been on the stage. We know them; their strengths and weaknesses. But Obama is an unknown. To elect him is to make a gamble, to take a chance, to roll the dice. Such risk-taking is not prudent in today's very dangerous world.
For all these reasons, Obama is, in my view, the very worst--and potentially most dangerous--of the Democrat candidates.
Bruce Sherman
Oakland, Oregon
|
|
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury,
The reason that Mitt Romney's religion is important to your consideration of him as a future President is because it affected his service as Governor in the following ways:
(1)__________________(2)_________________________(3)_______________. Had it not been for his religion, his service to Massachusetts would have been visibly different and better. The same is true for the way he ran the Winter Olympics.
|
|
Your points on Obama are interesting. Unfortunately, I cannot do them justice in the short time I have available right now. Besides, this thread seems to be winding down. Perhaps we can take it up again when Barack becomes the topic of some post.
I do think the "experience" argument is overstated. The job is unique. And the paths to it are multifaceted. What makes the darling of this webpage, Mitt Romney, so terribly qualified for the job? What made GW so qualified back in 2000, when all the Republican muckity-mucks lined-up behind him? Or Clinton too, for that matter. What qualified Abraham Lincoln to be President? Or Harry Truman?
And as for the CIC vs. First Responder in Chief distinction, we have seen the problem when the CIC relies on proactivity at the expense of reality. I want a President with some judgement, with some insight into the ways of nations and people, not just a guy who thinks human life is reducible to bullying and being bullied. As Barack himself said, there is more to being tough than thinking that you're tough. GW is living proof of that.
|
|
|
|