What a sad blog. Hugh, what a terriable blog! This blog is no worse then what you assumed Huck was meaning with what he had said.
Shame on those who ran with what he has wrote.
Shouldn't Hugh be apoligizing now?
Truly dissapointing. |
|
|
How pathetic that in the 21st century, a once-great political party in a once-great nation is carping over the fine points of religious doctrine rather than focusing on how to pick up the pieces after eight years of a disastrous presidency. |
|
|
I only hope that someday all this electioneering stupidity will end. I'm really getting sick of it. Let's just annoint a king and go on with our lives. |
|
Great minds talk about solutions.
---
none writes:
Wednesday, December, 12, 2007 9:07 AM
Beliefs
---
What you believe is your business. A lot of what we all believe cannot be proven concretely, and yet we believe a lot of different things.
Do you understand this mystery?
12 Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light:
13 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:
14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:
15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist
(New Testament | Colossians 1:12 - 17)
The Father...the inheritance of the saints in light
The Father...translated us into the kingdom of
his dear Son:
The Son ... Who is the image of the invisible God
the Son ... the firstborn of every creature:
The Son ... all things were created by him, and for him:
The Son ... and by him all things consist
9 Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?
(New Testament | Hebrews 12:9)
… be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?
Your turn. Cheers and Merry Christmas
Better to be humble than to criticize
|
|
Hugh, I love you, man, but you've got to check your perspective on this one. If I were running for president, I identified myself as a Christian, and someone said, "Don't Christians believe that Jesus rose from the dead?," should I be offended? Would that constitute an attack on my faith?
Likewise, Huck shouldn't apologize because it wasn't an attack, but a rhetorical question about a statement of fact. So why should Romney be offended about a statement of fact about his religion. Has he no confidence in his beliefs or his church?
If the media were responsible, they would have pointed out by now that the LDS spokesperson was spinning so fast she was a blur when she said the Encyclopedia of Mormonism DIDN'T say that Jesus and Satan were brothers. I checked her source at the BYU virtual library (see page 1124, column 2, paragraph 2 at http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/u?/EoM,4071). In less than three minutes, I validated that her source says JUST THE OPPOSITE.
I respect someone who stands up for what he believes more than someone who tries to obfuscate the truth. Let's get back to good old honest reporting! |
|
Mr. Hewitt I just started listening to you and found you delightful; unfortunately, after reading your article, I was disappointed to find you no better than the drive by media. I find three flaws with you article. 1. Your support for Romney bleeds through which makes you seem attackatorie. 2. You are the only media outlet trying to make this a religious issue. Huckabee has already apologized. 3. As a talk show host, you should and do know that when you insinuate and candidate believes a certain way, you cause listeners to doubt the candidate. You are making Mr. Huckabee look bad on purpose. This disgusts me b/c these are tactics the the democrats use. I thought only drive by media did things like that. Thank God we still have RUSH LIMBAUGH; the beacon of truth.
Ray |
|
Christians show movies about Mormons on occasion for the same reason that the early church debated with gnostics. Two contradictory positions can't both be true. It was the Mormon writers who coined the term spirit brother of Lucifer not the anti-Momrons. I don't think any reputable writer ever suggested that Mormons secretly worship the devil in their secret temple rituals, kooky Jack Chick perhaps or some other fringe personality.
But if you have a SECRET ritual based on Freemasonry what do you expect? As a political matter Mormons oppose birth control, RC do also but in America many RC's lilke Guiilaini oppose the bad ideas of their religion, good for them.
Mormons tend to just shut up and reproduce. In a world horribly overpopulated and dying not being for birth control is as evil a thing as there ever was. The way I heard it Hugh definitly lied about the doctrine of sprit brother of Lucifer not being true. In most other churches Jesus being God is not the brother of Lucifer on any level. He would be among JW's and a few others but THEY do not use the Mormon terminology for it. |
|
All of you Evangelicals know that your pastor/minister/church show movies about Mormons and talk about them and pretend that they want to save them. Why don't you want to save the Jewish people, the Muslims, the Catholics etc?
I guess what I am trying to say, is that you all know the horrible things that are said about the Mormons. I hear it repeated constantly above. We don't show movies about your religion in our churches. I don't ever remember a Bishop etc., saying anything derogatory about your religion. If you want to call yourselves a Christian - go right ahead. I'm not your judge. My Bishop isn't your judge. But you all know that Huck is not telling the truth when he states he doesn't know much about the Mormons. He knows the trigger words that would get all the Evangelicals up in arms.
All are children of God. Unfortunately, some fail the test of being part of God's family by failing to be acceptable members of the human family. Isn't that what happened with Satan who was a son of the morning - and ended up getting kicked out of heaven? (Just what was he doing in Heaven in the first place?)
If one of your children goes very, very bad, does that make your other children less? Christ is our Savior, our Lord and the only way we will get into Heaven. And we are willing to let Christ decide who are the Christians. |
|
Something just hit me as I have reviewed the comments made by Huckabee and Romney supporters on the various internet sites..... When Huckabee is up, Romney and his supporters critique Huckabee on his RECORD. When Romney has had a blow-out week (and will continue to do so), Huckabee and his supporters spew out anti-Mormon digs and slander. Other than saying Mitt Romney flipped on abortion (as did Ronald Reagan --why don't Mitt opponents ever point that out too?), they just go after his religion. That alone tells me that Mitt Romney has political substance, an outstanding message, unbeatable track record and values. Huckabee and the extremist Christian zealots that are behind him, have religious put-downs, inflammatory statements (ads, magazine articles, mail outs, phone calls—---the list goes on and on…), and a house (message, track record, memory, aptitude) built on sand…..
Sing along with me…..“And the rains came a tumblin’ down…..”
|
|
"If you reject Giuliani because he thinks that Judith Nathan is his wife, then why shouldn't Huckabee reject Romney because he thinks Lucifer is Jesus' brother? I don't want bad living or bad theology if I can help it, but I will put up with either if I get good government in the bargain. I will put up with it more willingly if I get great leadership too.
I wish the social cons for Romney well in their Huckabee firefight. They asked for it, if they didn't foresee it," - Rick Brookhiser, NRO.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZDA0YjhhN2VhNWQ1ND A5MmMwMTkzZjE4MzJlNTQ1YmM=
|
|
It is enjoyable. Hugh does it all the time. Hugh is one of those guys who does not let truth get in the way of his goals...
But I have to agree with Hugh that Huckabee is a Huckleberry on this Mormon doctrine issue. It is religious baiting in the worse sort of sense and not something major candidates for POTUS should be doing. |
|
Your fixation on him is disturbing...
Also from what I heard on his show he was simply stating that the doctrine of Lucifer being a spirit son of god is misconstrued. The LDS church does believe that Lucifer was a son of God because he like the rest of us were created sprititually by God. Christ was the eldest son and the chosen redeemer of mankind from the beginning and thus became the only begotten son in the flesh to redeem and atone for sins of mankind.
This is misconstrued and twisted around by opponents of the church to say that we somehow believe that Lucifer and Christ were equal and that we somehow have some sort of secret worship of him (Lucifer). Complete bunk.
You guys need to go shoot some hoops or learn a new hobby or something. Maybe get some counseling.
|
|
Okay here are the quotes, are these true quotes or not? If they are true then Hugh needs to apologize to Huckabee for lying about him on national radio. Hugh said this was an old carnard, and a falshood, if I am quoting Hugh accurately from todays show.
The following was a discourse delivered by Mormon President Brigham Young in the new tabernacle at Salt Lake City, Utah, on October 30, 1870:
"'Who will redeem the earth, who will go forth and make the sacrifice for the earth and all things it contains?' The eldest son said: 'Here am I;' but he did not say 'send me.' But the second one, which was 'Lucifer, son of the morning,' said, 'Lord, here am I, send me, I will redeem every son and daughter of Adam and Eve that lives on the earth,..."
If you do not recognize the eldest son as Jesus, it is stated more clearly by Milton R. Hunter, member of the Mormon First Council of the Seventy. Written and published under the direction of the General Priesthood Committee of the L.D.S. Council of the Twelve, Milton explains: "The appointment of Jesus to be the savior of the world was contested by one of the other sons of God. He was called Lucifer, son of the morning. Haughty, ambitious, and covetous of power and glory, this spirit-brother of Jesus desperately tried to become the Savior of mankind."
|
|
|
Based on a quick look at the internet its seems like it is true that Mormons believe Jesus is the Spirit brother of Lucifer and this was stated by reliable Momron sources. So who is lying Hugh or all those websites? Google "spirit brother of Lucifer" and it turns up a number of sites that quote Mormon authorities. Could Hugh be that lousy a researcher that he didn't find this stuff when he wrote a book endorsing Romney? If Hugh is write then why not give some sources in his editorial instead of just political shilling and name calling. Hugh is an embaressment to Christianity if it turns out he really did lie about this on national radio. |
|
The faith of Mitt's fathers and the LDS church today has a rather questionable recent past on racial bigotry. Here are two links, in the first Matthew Yglesias' fine blog explores LDS and Civil rights:
http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/12/lds _and_civil_rights.php
And the second link, from the lds.org website on the topic:
http://www.lds-mormon.com/lds_race.shtml
Read the whole thing, but here are some intersting tidbits:
Like other denominations, Mormonism -- organized in 1830 -- once taught that blacks were descendants of Cain, Adam and Eve's son who was banished after murdering his brother Abel, and of Ham, Noah's son who broke a taboo when he looked at the nude body of his drunken father. In what became known as the "curse of Ham," Noah condemned to slavery the descendants of Ham's son Canaan. (My denomination never even *mentioned* this and neither have I read this in any version of the Bible...)
Here's anothe blockbuster (straight from lds.org):
Tensions increased last week after an unnamed source leaked documents to the Los Angeles Times, which reported that "key leaders" at the church's Salt Lake City headquarters were debating a proposal on whether to publicly disavow the church's earlier teachings on race. The office of President Gordon Hinckley, whom Mormons consider a prophet, released a statement denying that he and his counselors are considering such a proposal.
"Since the 1978 revelation granting the priesthood to all worthy males, millions of people of all races have embraced the restored gospel of Jesus Christ," the statement said. "[That] declaration continues to speak for itself."
But Armand L. Mauss, a sociologist from Pullman, Wash., who is president of the Mormon History Association, said in an interview that he has talked with dozens of black Mormons who believe that some Mormon leaders and laity still view blacks as inferior.
|
|
...not that Hugh cares.
HUCKABEE: Actually if you’ll talk to the reporter, because he was shocked that that was characterized out of an 8,100-word story, as we were, we thought, good heavens. We were having a conversation. It was over several hours, and the conversation was about religion, and he was trying to press me on my thoughts of Mitt Romney’s religion.
And I said I don’t want to go there. I don’t know that much about it. I barely know enough about being a Baptist. And I really didn’t know.
Well, he was telling me things about the Mormon faith, because he frankly is fairly well-schooled on comparative religions. And so as a part of that conversation, I asked the question, because I had heard that, and I asked it not to create something — I never thought it would make the story.
After the debate today I went to Mitt Romney and apologized to him, because I said, I would never try, ever, to try to somehow pick out some point of your faith and make it, you know, an issue, and I wouldn’t.
I’ve stayed away from talking about Mitt Romney’s faith. And I told him face to face, I said, “I don’t think your being a Mormon ought to make you more or less qualified for being a president.” That has been my position.
Wolf, everybody I’ve talked to just about wants me to come out and say something about Mitt Romney’s faith. I’ve not taken the bait, but if I don’t say something, they say that my avoiding it is really an underlying statement. If I do say anything, then I’m attacking him.
and also...
"If anything, I’m kind of delighted that it’s happening, because there’s no way that this wouldn’t be happening if I wasn’t scaring some people to death."
|
|
|
If you want a president that will be pro-life and stand up for you against the oppression of the militant homosexual agenda to force their sexuality in your face then you have three choices for President. It is either Huckabee, Tancredo, or Hunter. Thats it folks. There may be others that are somewhat conservative, but none of them other than the three I listed see the militant homosexual agenda as an important issue, and none of them support a marriage amendment. Because of the alliance of liberal democrats and liberal or moderate republicans, California starting in January will now have gender based off of feelings, rather than biology. This means your children are going to live in a world where boys will be on the girls basket ball them, be a cheerleader(in the girls uniform) and be homecoming queen. And that is not all. Starting at that same time, children will not longer be able to refer to their parents as mother and father. That is simply too offensive. And don't think that this is the end of the line. It will go futher and futher. There has already been gay marriage legalized in America in the Northeast. Which has grown and expanded to New Jersey and is still spreading. So if you continue to speak against Huckabee, just remember that you must be a very pro-homosexual person, as well as someone who doesn't care some much about the abortion issue. I am telling you that if you do not acknowledge that these issues are the most important issues we face today, then just give it some time. More and more you will begin to see. |
|
It's too bad so many "believers" in this post are not following this sound advice. I can't blame those who look at all religion as silly, but those of you who do claim to believe, I think it's pretty clear that Romney has not spent his time as Governor groping interns and cheating on his wife like other governers we've known.
The quote is "By their fruits" not "By their beliefs" or "by their doctrines". This conforms completely with the idea that their should not be a religious test. You can tell very little about a person by what they profess to believe or by what doctrine they adhere to. You can tell a lot about a person though by how they handle power and authority when it's given to them. By how they treat their wife and children, etc.
Look at the fruits people. |
|
"Imagine Huckabee wins the Republican nomination. In the general, he'll probably be interested in winning Utah, Idaho, Arizona, Nevada, Colorado, and New Mexico. I wish him luck with that when all those Republican Mormons in those states sit on their hands! Way to win the battle and loose the war, Mike."
When was the last time Utah didn't go to the Republicans?
I'm not worried that Huckabee will tick off swing votes with the Mormon stuff.
His big government crap might lose people. |
|
Taking a run through this thread, one observation:
W H E W !!
That's it. |
|
Hugh -- Please get some context before bashing Mike Huckabee at every turn. According to his campaign, he was illustrating the impossible task of talking religious doctrine in a presidential campaign. I don't doubt this, in fact, was the context. Surely he should not used such a divisive Mormon doctrine to make his point, but get some perspective. And prepare yourself, Hugh: Romney might lose the nomination (gasp) to Rudy or even a darkhorse like Mike Huckabee.
|
|
Once again, Hugh is such a brainiac about his politics that he just doesn't get it. Actually, it's the anti-Christian folks who are making religion an issue, not the anti-Mormons ones (although I haven't heard from any of the latter, and that includes Mike Huckaby).
As earlier respondents have said, to be fair we SHOULD looks at Huckabee's comments in context, and secondly, we SHOULD at least acknowledge that the answer to the question "Don't Mormons believe that Jesus and Satan were brothers?" is YES. That, along with a lot of other far-fetched doctrinal problems, including the church's (or so-called churh's) teachings were have been both racist and sexist. Clearly, the LDS religion didn't grow because or it's teaching, but because of its marketing.
If being for tolerance is so important, why doesn't Gov. Romney denounce the Mormon church's long-held racist, sexist teachings (watered down only recently for monetary and political reasons)?
That aside, I am not supporting Mitt Romney, not because of his Mormon faith, but because he's just another silver tongued, slick, slippery flip-flopping politician (just like another guy from Massechussetts). Of course, I could vote for such a guy in extreme circumstances -- like if the only alternative was a lightweight like Obama or a socialist elitist like Hillary. |
|
Beanie:
Yes, I do base, in part, my vote on a candidates religious beliefs. I would not vote for an atheist, a Wiccan, or a candidate espousing radical Islamic beliefs. I hope and pray that others (you included) would not find this "petty and silly" and vote in the same fashion.
What is fair game in this process is conducting a dialogue with a candidate that has made his faith a high-profile issue (whether baited by another candidate or not). I do want to know the core foundations of a candidate's faith. In my opinion (and I believe millions of other Americans, its neither petty nor silly. |
|
I mentioned that I was showing honesty because there have been several posts (not necessarily from you) that have been much less than honest.
I think we both agree that he should not have opened pandoras box. And your opinion that somehow the people of this country will tolerate religious bigotry from George Soros and company is pretty revealing about your belief in the american people. Religion bashing/bigotry is disgusting to me...I'm pretty sure that it'll be disgusting to most everyone else (trolls in this post excluded). |
|
So you really would, in part base your decision on who to vote for on whether or not the LDS church believes Lucifer was Jesus' brother in heaven? Or on how they perform baptisms? Or how they pray?
You have the right to do this. But I hope and pray that the rest of the electorate is (please forgive as these were the only words I could find) petty and silly. |
|
First I appreciate you showing some honesty, but I would hope that would not be needful to be stated. I assume all your posts are honest, as are mine.
Now, you wrote " I think Mitt was very offended and could not help himself." speaking of a TV ad.
Another Romney supporter said Romney was "forced" (his word) to give the speech.
If that analysis is true, then he is even less up for the fight with Hillary and the Dems than even I imagined. What will happen when he feels forced to explain the nitty gritty details of Mormonism when George Soros and the liberal lunatics with their special interest money are running such ads.
Talk about an 'October surprise' waiting to happen.
Now, I do not have a dog in this hunt. I will likely vote for Duncan Hunter and will vote for WHOEVER the GOP nominee is come next November.
So I can with unbiased eyes recognize the Romney pandering with that response about Jesus. Remember, he stated that as the one fundamental question he faces - in other words, people are asking "What do Mormons believe about Jesus"
He gave a partial answer, didn't he? Now the rest of the answer is being discussed.
Very stupid on Romney's part. |
|
|
I'll show some honesty here. I don't think he should have done that. He did not need to. However, it was coming off the heals of an add from our tolerant Huck claiming to be "the Christian candidate". It was an obvious jab at Romney as that is the biggest anti-mormon claim on the books (Mormons somehow are not Christians). I think Mitt was very offended and could not help himself. |
|
Beanie:
I respectfully disagree. Gov. Romney has publicly stated that he shares "the faith of his fathers." I believe with that kind of statement he has opened the door to questions about his faith, what it is and how that faith might affect his presidency. Obviously this shouldn't be the only issue that candidates are questioned about, but your terming it "not relevant" does not make it so for others. Ad hominem statements about how "the process" works also are very subjective and ultimately not constructive.
If you don't think this topic is relevant then focus on the issues that are important to you. But, other voters may have questions that are relevant to them when deciding who should be our next president. |
|
Brob...
So that's the real issue. You think the LDS church is weird.
I appreciate the honesty as damaging as it is to you and every other religious bigot on this post. You seem to be of the "all religion is weird" breed...but that's who you are. Fine. That's the response I was looking for and expecting when I wrote my original post. Good Job. |
|
do not expect Mitt Romney to explain his religion. It's not his job.
----------------------------------
Then please answer my earlier question about last week's remarks.
|
|
Jim... I can point to MANY beliefs and practices that I find odd about baptists. Guess why I think they're odd? Because I don't practice or believe that way myself! But I don't look at Huckabee and think "Hmmm, his Baptist beliefs are icky, so I won't vote for him". It's childish and contrary completely to the way this process is supposed to work. I won't vote for Huckabee because I think his record is aweful. His record is what is pertinant here. I voted for Bush who is an evangelical.
I am aware that people want to know about the LDS faith, but please do not expect Mitt Romney to explain his religion. It's not his job. He is running for president. There are official documents and representatives who's job it is to teach and explain.
To all of you who seem so upset that supposedly no one is letting you talk about this stuff...What do you think we're doing now? The point is that it should not be relevant. |
|
Isn't the real question to ask is why does it matter if Romney thinks Jesus is the Son of God and Savior of all mankind?
As he volunteered to us last week..
What does THAT have to do with the Presidency?
Other than pandering to enough Iowa evangelicals to vote for him of course... |
|
Beanie
I believe that the tenets that form a presidential candidate's religious faith is a very relevant issue of discussion (obviously along with several others). I want to know what makes up the President's moral and ethical foundations. Looking into his or her spiritual beliefs is a legitimate issue.
It may not be important to you and that's fine, but other voters absolutely have the right to ask that of the person who wants to lead this country.
The fact that people will not allow voters to inquire into this area, I find troubling. |
|
What I would like to know is this:
Even if the LDS church believes that Lucifer was Jesus' brother, why on earth does it matter? Could one of the anti-mormon trolls here please enlighten me on how this is relevant. Do you think it's weird? Is it blasphemous? Blasphemous according to who? Please let us know what is the right way to worship and the right way to believe because.
The fact that this discussion is even taking place in regards to a presidential race is disgusting. |
|
This blog. First TS, now synthezier, more Hucakbee plants. :)
Hey, if you wanna call us shills for Romney, we will call you shills for Huckabee.
I think we can all agree, at least they aren't Ron Paul supporters. :-p |
|
Religous intolerance is now defined as disagreeing with someone? Or trying to get them to come clean about their beliefs? I don't recall Huckabee calling for a holy war against Mormons.
Though I admit I don't always pay that close attention to this lousy field of candidates. |
|
And, not to mention that people don't want a man running for Pastor-in-Chief. I thought we crossed that bridge about 6 months ago?
---------------------------------
Which is why Romney made a huge mistake last week.
Hugh argued against such remarks until it was clear Romney was going to make them - then of course we got posts that it was all part of the 'grand plan' or some such tripe.
Romney had nothing to fear from a liberal like Huckabee. Huck was gaining because Thompson was such a dud - but Huck had no serious look or challenge in the earlier debates, which was ineveitable once his surge began.
Romney should not have feared Huck. Which is why I said earlier it was a 'panic' move to give the speech.
Call this the anti-Kerry. Kerry should have gone after the swiftboat vets instead of staying silent. Of course, he really couldn't since the truth was not on Kerry's side then.
Romney also did not have the truth on his side (in the sense that his beliefs equate to mainstream evangelicalism) yet he chose to speak out - and now he is off message and will be losing more support - and some of that support may even go to Huckabee.
Just like Hugh panicked with Huch's quick rise (as seen in the posts around here) - so did Romney. Romney should have stayed with the conviction that this was a two-man race between him and Rudy. Like Hugh once said all along. |
|
|
Your obvious role as an official Huckabee campaign representative has been duly noted. |
|
Think Clinton in 1992.
And Huckabee isn't coming close to having to deal with what Clinton dealt with in 1992.
Huckabee is speaking to the common American. That is why he is rising. The attacks do nothing but help. |
|
At this point, the Huckaboom is turning into the Huckaleadballoon - and fast. I don't see how Huck survives another week of his record being scrutinized, and his religious intolerance being exposed. Not to mention his lying about the DuMond parole.
And, not to mention that people don't want a man running for Pastor-in-Chief. I thought we crossed that bridge about 6 months ago? |
|
Fox is totally in it for Guiliani. But many, many influential people have endorsed Romney. I don't think he is disliked any more than the others, and is actualluy winning more support from respected conservatives.
|
|
[TS_Missouri on December 12, 2007 4:18 PM]"there is no way for Romney to get the nomination. He just has too many people in the Republican Party who see him as an elitist flip-flopper."
like Massachusetts's John Kerry, Massachusetts's Romney speaks French
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyP2M0DTch8
Romney hit hard on MSNBC -Taxes, Flip-flops, & Social Issues
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8bSyAihn18
ABC News on Romney's Flip-flops on Abortion
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzZC92IXHyw
Log Cabin Republicans TV Ad supporting the old Romney
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Elx3UWmyAY4
The Real Romney?-- 5:04 long, from debate with Ted Kennedy shortly before the 1994 tsunami that swept Republicans into control of Congress (Romney failed to beat Kennedy that year)
TOPICS:
abortion, homosexuals and the Boy Scouts, wasn't Republican during Reagan-Bush years, affirmative action
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9IJUkYUbvI
Sheriff of Floppingham, Friar Mike
Folger, Janet. 27 November 2007. "Sir Mike-A-Lot and the Queen of Slaughter"
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58879
Does anyone here know when Romney was last pro-choice? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ToQbeBC_fOI
|
|
|
Romney had nothing to do with healthcare coverage of abortions. Do you think he had a magic wand and could put the liberal legislature into a trance or something? |
|
that the references used by Sullivan all show one clear point.
Whenever a Bible verse is quoted in support of a doctrine, there is ALSO a Mormon verse quoted with it to offer us the interpretation.
Therein has always been the issue. Yes, Mormons believe the Bible - as long as it is interpreted within the context of their other writings. The Bible is NOT allowed to stand on its own - for these teachings do not come from the Bible.
This is of course exactly what the LDS spokesperson said today - quote us a verse, and then explain what it REALLY means - in a way that goes against the prior 1800+ years of Christianity before Joseph Smith. |
|
|
You are mis-representing the Fox news coverage of today's debate. None of the Fox news panel declared Romney the winner. The majority of Luntz's (spelling) group of Republican voters thought that Romney won. Brit Hume expressed surprise at that and said that he didn't think Romney did anything to stand out - that his performance was more or less on par with his performance in previous debates. |
|
[Steve_in_Corona on December 12, 2007 4:11 PM]"The LDS leadership is telling America that they believe what all Christians also accept - then saying something most all of us do NOT accept. That is an INCLUSIVE misrepresentation.
It also is a tremendous insult. And frankly, it is a deception."
[Romney]"it's the same as the other Christian tradition"
in
According to Romney, where will the New Jerusalem be?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5Xc-X8LckQ&feature=related
Romney on whether Missouri is a holy land-- 1:33 - 2:18
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MofWPexIabc&feature=related
|
|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldgjMOuqtnU
Great answer. |
|
[Steve_in_Corona on December 12, 2007 3:03 PM]"I had no problem voting for Romney until last week when I too am starting to see someone pandering while also trying to take some higher road of discourse."
Patashnik, Josh. 20 November 2007. "Latter-Day Skeptics" _The New Republic_
http://www.ocnus.net/artman2/publish/Dysfunctions_2/Latter- Day_Skeptics.shtml
And the bolder his [Romney's] courting of
evangelicals, the more pressure he will feel to
conflate his beliefs with theirs-- further unnerving his
fellow Mormons. "There's an inclination to give him
a free pass, because he's managed to achieve so
much in a difficult climate," says Kearney. "But I
think more and more people are starting to realize
that he's going to do whatever it takes to get
elected-- whether it's good for the church or not."
Romney an abortion chameleon on videotapes
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=54f3c9a0-e082-44f8-94d 6-21110c3c25c5%40s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com
|
|
It is very clear that Rudy, Huckabee, McCain, and Thompson want to bring Romney down. The only people supporting Romney the NR, Fox News, and HH wing of the Republican Party.
With that many people disliking Romney...there is no way for Romney to get the nomination. He just has too many people in the Republican Party who see him as an elitist flip-flopper.
|
|
Romney - $50 Abortions in Massachusetts
Romney claims to be pro-life. But under his health care plan, Massachusetts residents now have access to taxpayer-funded abortions for $50.
Can't wait to see Hugh's spin on this.
|
|
Romney - $50 Abortions in Massachusetts
Romney claims to be pro-life. But under his health care plan, Massachusetts residents now have access to taxpayer-funded abortions for $50.
Can't wait to Hugh's spin on this, if indeed he has the courage to address it.
|
|
"Panicked" is a real stretch. A leader must respond to circumstances as they unfold. Did Kennedy blockade Cuba because he panicked or because it was the appropriate response to a legitimate threat?
--------------------------------
If I agree that 'panic' may have been too strong a word can you at least admit that comparing last week's remarks to the Cuban missle crisis may also be "a real stretch."
You also wrote "Romney has been hammered about his religion since day one."
I am not sure when 'day one' would be - but I would assume it would be about the day the host of this website released his book. Did the Mormon faithful object to the book?
As to your final comment about the frustration about being told what you believe. I can understand that.
However, there is a BIG difference. The LDS leadership is telling America that they believe what all Christians also accept - then saying something most all of us do NOT accept. That is an INCLUSIVE misrepresentation.
It also is a tremendous insult. And frankly, it is a deception.
When someone (a non-Mormon) misrepresents your Mormon beliefs to another - then you simply have to clarify those beliefs. All faiths do that - it comes with the territory.
Do you see the difference between an opposing viewpoint misrepresenting your views - versus what the LDS leadership said today? |
|
Please explain why Huckabee is not tolerant.
This should be good. btw, give precise quotes from Huckabee showing him being intolerant.
Meanwhile, can I point to your comments calling people "backwards" and "bigots" as evidence that you are intolerant of people who disagree with you? |
|
The problem here is that CNN is being honest. They had undecided voters in their group. Fox News had essentially voters who were leaning towards Rudy and Romney. Those are not undecided voters.
That would be like Fox News coming to you and asking you to sit in their group. Of course you are going to say Romney performed well and Huckabee didn't. Just like I would say the opposite.
HOWEVER, CNN had people who were undecided, and even were saying afterwards they were undecided. And in that group, Huckabee performed well.
And about conservatives trusting Fox News...I am telling you right now...as a conservative who has trusted Fox News in the past...they are QUICKLY losing my trust along with a lot of other conservatives.
Romney's conservatives are not the ONLY conservatives in the Republican Party. You guys better realize this. |
|
|
Huck is Neanderthal based on his views, not his religion - he is backwards because he is not tolerant. |
|
|
Huck jumped the shark for me a couple weeks ago. First the Fair Tax silliness got me poking around his background and history. From the sorry Dumond affair to this foolish, FOOLISH, comment about Mormoms tells me this man is too stupid and/or shallow to be trusted behind the desk in the Oval Office. I've met Christians like him before and they embarrass the living hell out of me, so to speak. |
|
|
Sorry. There is no more important issue. If one is truly committed to a religion, it will affect every decision they make. For it not to be an overwhelming factor is illogical. |
|
I agree with you 100% about that. Making Huckabee a martyr makes him that more attractive to some people. Hugh's cheerleading has nauseated many conservatives, to the point that it's detrimental to Romney's cause, insofar as it can be.
Frankly, I think Huckabee may be the worst candidate in the field. But attacking him keeps attention off of his actual record, and on his status as a victim. A lot of people care about that personal side more than hard policy matters. Hugh does Huckabee a small favor with every over-the-top bashing he gives him. |
|
"I said earlier that after the debate, those in bed with Romney would declare him the winner."
Yeah, what a shocker TS. And I assume you thought Huckabee won? Of course you did!
And of course CNN liked Huckabee - he's the favorite GOP candidate of the DNC. Why would CNN *not* like Huckabee? He says all the liberal things they like to hear ("Taxation can make the poor rich! Woohoo!!!").
Apparently CNN has more credibility among conservative voters than Fox News, eh TS? Talk about spin. |
|
I honestly think the winner was Thompson, with Romney in second. I don't pay much attention to voter pools, especially CNN's voter pools, since CNN has already shown the ability to stack the deck when it comes to debates.
Yet can't we just say t hat since Huckabee is the current media darling, of course they are falling in line for Huck?
Of course not, since National Review and everyone else are just evil sellouts for backing Romney right? :-p |
|
Anyone see him jump it? He's all done, just a matter of whether the Republicans or Dems do it.
There's a reason why there's not supposed to be a religious test, and all these folks that think it's fair game are delusional. What is next, looking at national histories, deciding if the Irish can really be trusted to stay sober? Any lazy groups out there we want to eliminate from consideration? Huck, baby?
Shark and jump.
He's one step from picking up David Duke's endorsement, wonder if he'd pick him as a running mate.
|
|
What a funny post you give. First, you say that Romney supporters shouldn't attack Huckabee. They should just ignore him. Then you make these comments:
"Just ignore the little brat and he will eventually butt out. Huckabee will self-destruct on his own if we simply give him a few more weeks to continue to make a fool out of himself."
So Huckabee is like a "little brat" and is making a "fool" out of himself. You just engaged in attacks.
I find it funny that Romney supporters see Huckabee as a "brat", "fool" and a "bigot". All Huckabee is doing is gaining in the polls...getting support from regular Americans. I guess Romney supporters think most Americans are "brats", "fools", and "bigots" huh? |
|
I said earlier that after the debate, those in bed with Romney would declare him the winner. Well, Fox News is already doing that...watch NR and Hugh fall in line.
Funny though...CNN is saying Huckabee looked strong and that their group of voters like him. Completely opposite of what Fox News' voters are saying. |
|
CincyGuy is a good example.
I really doubt he's such a fool he takes Huckabee seriously.
I think he's just sympathetic to the guy who's being picked on.
(well, Romney is being picked on too, but Romney's a grown-up so it's hard to get too sympathetic) |
|
Agree with your statement:
"But the more conservative elitists like Hugh bash Huckabee, the more they drive people towards him."
It's like giving attention to a spoiled child. Just ignore the little brat and he will eventually butt out.
Huckabee will self-destruct on his own if we simply give him a few more weeks to continue to make a fool out of himself, and allow a little time for that to sink in with the public. |
|
|
Book it. Hugh talking about Huckbottom? How much further does Huck need to put his foot up Mitt's rear before the likes of Hugh gets it. Sorry, Hugh, you're boy's a flip flopping phony and Huck is the real deal. Keep watching. His rise is no longer meteoric, it's a gradual tide upward. Romney's also picked up some of Fred's support but he's still basically flat. Again, watch New Hampshire. |
|
"Romney PANICKED! That is not good for a leader."
"Panicked" is a real stretch. A leader must respond to circumstances as they unfold. Did Kennedy blockade Cuba because he panicked or because it was the appropriate response to a legitimate threat?
Staying cool under fire doesn't mean you never take action.
Romney has been hammered about his religion since day one. Huckabee's sudden, inexplicable rise in the polls after months of irrelevancy said one thing - Romney had to try to explain to voters that points of religions doctrine should not be primary to the selection of a candidate. It was Mike Huckabee who played the religion card (and apparently continues to do so, if the NYT story is legitimate). Romney could have ignored these pitiful tactics if the polls didn't show Huckabee's sleazy last-minute strategy was having the desired effect.
Do I think the speech was a mistake? No. Do I think it was unfortunate he felt he had to give it? Sure. The whole religious slant of this election cycle so far is extremely disconcerting to me, as it should be to any person of faith.
"What I do object to is a LDS spokesperson saying that they believe "as other Christians believe" then quoting half a verse out of context and THEN telling me what that interpretation means when I (and millions of evangelicals) do NOT accept such an interpretation!!"
Welcome to our world - I've been reading about what I *really* believe as a Mormon for months. Apparently I had *no* idea...
|
|
With all due respect to Romney and other mormons, I can't vote for him. Frankly, I don't care for any of the major candidates. I guess come February, I'll hold my nose and vote for Thompson.
Mormonism is a cult, to which I cannot cast legitimacy by giving my vote to him. In my mind, millions would be exposed to Mormon doctrine if one had the presidential pulpit. Nothing Hugh can say will change the evangelical Christian's mind about that. The very notion that someone's faith has nothing to do with fitness for the presidency is ridiculous. Were one of these guys a practicing Satanist would we even consider them? You say you wouldn't? BIGOT!
Were Romney to win the nomination, which seems unlikely at this point, he would have almost no shot in November. Southern, Christian Evangelicals won't vote for him. While Hugh proclaims the importance of the Jim Dobson endorsement, thousands of evangelical pastors will speak openly about Mormonism in the pulpit come next Fall. No endorsement will be able to counter that. Romney supporters, that's just the way it is. Whether you consider that bigoted or not.
Why should I depend on a Mormon to tell me about the Mormon faith? I can read it on the LDS website. Again, that's a ridiculous argument. I won't be voting for Guiliani, either. He seems like a swell guy and all, but my conscience won't allow me to vote for a pro-abortion candidate. That's a religious choice; it's a personal conviction, but one born out of my relationship with God. Does it make me bigoted for thinking so? I'm solidly on the Midnight Train to Bigotry in Hugh's eyes. A multiple-offender.
I'm no Huckabee fan. I won't vote for him in the primary, and probably won't vote for him in the Fall were he to be nominated. He's a policy disaster waiting to happen. But the more conservative elitists like Hugh bash Huckabee, the more they drive people towards him. |
|
JFK defused the religion issue in 1960 simply by reaffirming his belief in the separation of church and state. By entering into a theological debate, Romney did the opposite, i.e., inflamed the issue.
Again, I say, this should cause all thoughtful conservatives to reconsder their alliance with those seeking to break down the separation of church and state. You only invite the type of ugly religious bigotry and sect warfare we are now seeing. Let's not turn Iowa into Beirut, please. |
|
I want to know if I can *trust* the person I vote for. Yet some of the candidates presented couldn't be trusted by their own *wives and children.*
-----------------------------
And part of that trust is that the candidate will NOT lie to me about ANYTHING! Especially his faith.
I also want to know my candidate will not be (in your words) forced to give comments he really did not want to give, but had to because the unfair voters made him. Who knows what the mean old voters might require around October if the Democrat is surging a little in the polls.
Romney PANICKED! That is not good for a leader.
What you fail to grasp is that most of us evangelicals involved in politics KNOW there are differences in belief systems but also do not care when it comes to whether Romney gets our vote. Your remarks act like I care about these differences. I do not when it comes to the Presidency.
What I do object to is a LDS spokesperson saying that they believe "as other Christians believe" then quoting half a verse out of context and THEN telling me what that interpretation means when I (and millions of evangelicals) do NOT accept such an interpretation!!
Do you NOW see where the speech was a mistake? |
|
Alan Keyes is a good equalizer to Huckabee`s religiousity, at least Alan knows much more about the contents of the good book.
Honestly, we have too many on stage, but we need Alan to check mate Huck.
Thompson, coming too late. Winner of debate Romney, I like Rudy. |
|
Article6blog has a link which in turn links to the article in its entirety. I have read it. I am sorry, but Huckabee did something he shouldn't have. He has repeatedly said he doesn't want to talk about others faith. The reporter was writing down his answer of not knowing much about the Mormon faith, when Gov. Huckabee interjects with a question to the reporter about what Mormons believe. There is just no reason for it whatsoever if he really doesn't want to get into that as he has claimed.
To say that his question somehow proves he didn't want to talk about theology just insults my intelligence. He shouldn't have asked the question. Acknowledge it and move on. Everyone says stupid things. The justification his campaign is shilling out really does make me queasy.
Sorry Ts Missouri. You can't ask all these Americans to continue to just sit back and not express their distaste about this. |
|
Steve, your implication that adultery (i.e. the blatant betrayal of trust of one's own spouse, once upon a time considered the most important person in one's life) is somehow equivalent to theological disputes with points of LDS doctrine when it comes to evaluating a potential President is a preposterous position to take.
Even more ludicrous is the fact that no one really *is* talking about marital fidelity when it comes to their candidates, but they're more than happy to talk about Mitt Romney's Mormonism.
I want to know if I can *trust* the person I vote for. Yet some of the candidates presented couldn't be trusted by their own *wives and children.*
But that's not important - let's talk about whether Satan was a spiritual brother of Jesus who rebelled and was cast out or whether he was a fallen angel created by Jesus. Or how Romney symbolizes his commitment to Christ with a concealed undergarment rather than a crucifix around his neck. And so on and so forth. Because *those* are obviously the things that are important to GOP voters today.
And *I'm* supposed to step back and look at things objectively??? Wow. |
|
A spokeswoman for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints said Huckabee's question is usually raised by those who wish to smear the Mormon faith rather than clarify doctrine.
"We believe, as other Christians believe and as Paul wrote, that God is the father of all," said the spokeswoman, Kim Farah. "That means that all beings were created by God and are his spirit children. Christ, on the other hand, was the only begotten in the flesh and we worship him as the son of God and the savior of mankind. Satan is the exact opposite of who Christ is and what he stands for."
-----------------------------------
SATAN IS THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF WHO CHRIST IS!!!
Christ is a 'spirit child' of God!! (As opposed to Eternal God, 2nd Person of the Triune Godhead)
You think THIS answers the question well? All beings are God's "spirit children" - and this includes Christ?!..and Lucifer!
You see, as usual, the so-called anti-Mormon groups are actually accurate when they simply state that Mormons have a DRAMATICALLY different understanding of Jesus Christ - and that Mormonism in fact deny traditional, orthodox, Trinitarian doctrine.
Romney admitted to such differences in his remarks last week - refused to elaborate, but did in fact also make claims seeking to equate his views with those of orthodox Christianity.
This firestorm will not go away. All that is going to happen is more evangelicals who otherwise would vote for Romney are going to get mad at such Mormon apologists who keep insisting their faith is Christian, while at the same time stating they believe views that are not found anywhere except Mormon literature.
I had no problem voting for Romney until last week when I too am starting to see someone pandering while also trying to take some higher road of discourse.
|
|
TS Missouri,
Huckabee's campaign has already issued a statement about the context of his statement. I am sure you will find it reassuring.
I will simply point out that Huckabee said not 2 weeks ago that he would talk about his own faith but not that of others. He stated that he didn't know much about the Mormon church. If he is dedicated to not talking about the faith of others, shouldn't he have stopped there?
Matt Lauer asked Romney about it this morning on the Today show. Romney was very nice toward Huckabee and refused to talk about doctrine. Seriously here, which is the proper route?
I can understand your frustration with what may feel like a constant barrage of the word bigot. I would ask you though, when can people defend themselves, and when has Huckabee stepped over the line? He may be, as Romney said this morning, a nice guy, but this was over the line.
You will be happy to know that the Huckabee camp is demanding an apology from Hugh. |
|
Bye bye Huckabee!
Please, the Republican party is not a one minded bigoted issue party.
If any one is watching the Iowa debates right now, and the voters choice chart, conservative and moderates, neither care about Huckabee or Paul.
Romney is scoring the best. So is Thompson overall. I like Romey and Rudy. Of course, would like to see Alan Keyes as VP., or at a Cabinet level, he is a very good man. |
|
|
I should add Fred is actually showing some signs of life here, where was this Fred in the earlier debates. Too little, too late for Iowa? |
|
Huckabee wants to "let government create the marketplace...."""
HEEEEELLLLPPPPPPP!
And yes I agree about Alan Keyes. The mans a good speaker, an interesting thinker. But why on earth is he there for this debate? So far between listening to him and Paul, Paul actually sounds better, and I think Ron Paul is a lunatic.
So far I think the winner of the debate is Fred Thompson. he's coming out swinging. If only he had done this earlier!!!! |
|
Yikes, had to turn the debate off, Allen Keyes is just ruining it with his bombast and over the top rhetoric. I gave up when he got into an argument with the moderator over not being fair to him.
That, and the format is so far not allowing the candidates to mix it up with each other made at least the first half of this a real snoozer. |
|
"Romney shouldn't have had to tell Iowa evangelicals anything at all regarding religion. It was only after being constantly assaulted about his Christianity that was he forced to do so."
-------------------------------
Try to step back from these words and read them objectively.
THIS the backbone of the man we want leading the free world and fighting the Islamic terrorists?
Or as a Romney supporter, are you incapable of seeing that your guy was PANDERING for votes because the Iowa polls had turned so dramatically against him in November.
For the record - I am NOT a Huckabee supporter, and I think he made a mistake in bringing up the Lucifer issue. That is different of course from what Hugh and others have said about whether the VOTERS can ask such things about somebody's belief system.
NOTHING is off the table when it comes to the Presidency and one's judgment.
If a candidate was covered with tatoos, that also would be irrelevant in one sense, but quite relevant in another - when did he get the tatoos, why? Of what?
Did the fact that Bill Clinton cheated on his wife, as was known before the 1992 primary, have any effect on his judgment while in office?
Now as a Romney man, you probably will not like the comparison to adultery, since your candidate is a tremendous family man. But if your candidate was an adulterer, you would likely be speaking like all the Democrat Clinton supporters - that it was irrelevant to the issue of the Presidency.
|
|
The Church PR Department already answered the Devil and Jesus question and did it well.
However, as usual when questions are answered most of the people with misconceptions are not listening. It will take a massive Ad campaign to address even the most fundamental and basic misconceptions.
The Anti Mormon Spin machine has been running for decades and shown propaganda films into most Evangelical congregations.
That type of wide spread propaganda is hard to refute with a few comments in the papers or even Church sponsored ads.
Besides, since the anti Mormon Spin Machine is a for profit endeavor, that gets rich off of distorting Mormon positions, they will just create a new batch of lies and make more money off of the willing Evangelical ministries.
Many of the Evangelical Churches have outsourced their attacks on Mormons to the Anti Mormon Spin Machine for a fee in the form of access and free will offerings from their congregations.
It is a partnership. It is a profitable partnership that is perpetuated by both the spin machine and certain ministries. |
|
Look a t what Huckabee has let roll off his tongue:
-Regarding lack of foreign policy experience questions: “ I did sleep at a Holiday Inn”
- regarding women’s role in marriage “ give deference to their husbands”
Regarding AIDS Patients: “Quarentine them”
Regarding Mormon: He implied they “a religion” of the devil.
Regarding the Cub for Growth and fiscal policy: “Club For Greed”
Regarding his qualifications to be President: “I am a Christian Leader”
Wow. What will he come up with in the debates this week.
|
|
|
Anybody watching the debate? Allen Keyes is making Ron Paul look sane. |
|
"Anyone watching the debate? Huckabee states "The Fair Tax will make poor people rich.""
Sounds like Communism to me. A philosophy like this would normally be a death blow to a Conservative candidate, but Huckabee has the Huckafever going for him right now, so I doubt it will do him any damage.
The Fair Tax is a dead-end. The tax system needs to be reformed. The Fair Tax is not the answer.
Oh there I go again, talking about actual issues... |
|
"You know very well that your silly Adam bellybutton issue is a non-issue. Drop it please."
Yet the theology about the origin of Satan is somehow relevant to a presidential election? Silly indeed.
"Did you approve of Romney telling the Iowa evangelicals that Jesus is Son of God and Savior of the world?"
Romney shouldn't have had to tell Iowa evangelicals anything at all regarding religion. It was only after being constantly assaulted about his Christianity that was he forced to do so.
"If so - then how can you oppose someone asking just where Mormon teaching on Jesus differs with traditional orthodoxy."
I oppose it when it has *nothing* to do with the presidential office. Do you want to ask about the death penalty, caring for the poor, the use of force to defend freedom, or other political topics that might have some basis in the personal faith of the candidate? Fine, go for it. But these smears against Romney regarding specific theologies of the Mormon faith that have *nothing* to do with the office of President are ludicrous, unwarranted, and ultimately destructive to all people of faith. |
|
As someone who was told by baptists while I was in high school, I KNOW that baptist preachers take high school students to something called "Know your religion", where they teach them all about other religions, and why they are wrong. So as a junior and senior, you're told that you're going to hell, and that you worship the "demi-devil Mormo". I used to feel picked upon, until I heard these kids attacking Catholics and Dutch Reform as well...
I will not vote for Huck BECAUSE of this. A preacher in the White House is not what we need, especially one that teaches his "flock" to persecute other religions. |
|
Anyone watching the debate? Huckabee states "The Fair Tax will make poor people rich."
Now one can debate the merits of the Fair Tax (I think it's a plan that deserves to be heard, but am not yet sold on it) but this sounds a little too much like John Edwards saying if we had embryonic stem cell research Superman would get up and walk again.
|
|
went like this...
They would prefer it if I would simply distance myself from my religion, say that it is more a tradition than my personal conviction, or disavow one or another of its precepts. That I will not do. I believe in my Mormon faith and I endeavor to live by it. My faith is the faith of my fathers –- I will be true to them and to my beliefs.
"Some believe that such a confession of my faith will sink my candidacy. If they are right, so be it. But I think they underestimate the American people. Americans do not respect believers of convenience. Americans tire of those who would jettison their beliefs, even to gain the world.
"There is one fundamental question about which I often am asked. What do I believe about Jesus Christ? I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Savior of mankind. My church's beliefs about Christ may not all be the same as those of other faiths.
----------------------------------------
WHY OH WHY did Romney feel it appropriate to answer this 'one fundamental question about which I often am asked?'
In the next few months if he is still around - there will be ANOTHER 'fundamental question about which he often will be asked' - and that may very well be the relationship of Jesus to Lucifer, especially since now I hear that certain Mormon leaders are going public saying the church does not believe this relationship exists.
That will only lead to further research as to what Joseph Smith and Brigham Young actually wrote on the issue - and since Romney (note above) said he believes in the tenets of the faith and that of his Mormon fathers, he will be asked if he believes more and more about what Smith and Young specifically TAUGHT AS INSPIRED REVELATION FROM GOD. |
|
is showing. You know very well that your silly Adam bellybutton issue is a non-issue. Drop it please.
You also know that if a Muslim, Scientologist or for that matter a hardcore atheist were running for President (and Commander in Chief) their belief system would be an issue.
Maybe you can answer me. Did you approve of Romney telling the Iowa evangelicals that Jesus is Son of God and Savior of the world? Did you then approve of him saying that his church's beliefs in those areas differ with other churches?
If so - then how can you oppose someone asking just where Mormon teaching on Jesus differs with traditional orthodoxy.
|
|
"The voters have a right to know what type of theology their leaders will rely upon in their (and the country's) time of crisis."
Fantastic! Perhaps we should eliminate all current political parties and pare it down to this:
The Adam's Bellybutton Party
The Adam of the Absent Navel Coalition
The Alliance to Debunk the Preposterous Adam Myth
Since these are *obviously* the most important issues to informed voters today, I think these three parties cover all bases sufficiently.
Jim for President! Wait, which of the 3 parties above do you affiliate with again? |
|
i'm offended at Huckleberry's conduct. In no way do i agree with much of Mormon theology but it does not disqualify someone from becoming President. It appears that Mr. Romney is "the" most qualified, of any candidate in either party. When this primary season began, to be honest, Mr. Romney was probably my 3rd or 4th choice. Rudy Guiliani being my 1st but i must say that all of this Mormon bashing has really caused me to look at him more sympathetically . Rudy and Mitt are clearly our 2 strongest guys. Whoever is our guy, he has my vote. But come on, quit bashing this guys faith. I have no doubt that he would make a fine President.
Also, Neo, Hawk, Clarity, Col Bat, et al. Go to Drudge's article on Billy boy's worry about how her campaign is being run. It's the "Daily News" article. Look at the discussion. Someone with the moniker "ironcityfan" is taking one "liberal patriot" to the wood shed. Notice the 11:45am posting. "liberal patriot" is getting his backside tanned by this guy. Also note that "liberal patriot" is an Obamarama supporter. Didn't he say here at Townhall that he was a Huckleberry guy? |
|
|
I have no problem with the Baptists going door-to-door and inviting me to church. What I have a problem with is that the next day, the left nice pamphlets about their church on my neighbors' doors, and on my door was anti-mormon literature with pictures of Jesus on fire; all kinds of ridiculous imagery. How that could convert anyone to their cause is beyond me. |
|
"In two weeks, Romney's campaign will be in full meltdown position. And Huckabee will be surging still. Count on it."
I'll take that wager. Huckabee is only *now* being scrutinized for his positions on the *issues.* You know, things that are *actually important* to analyze when deciding on a presidency. His folksy-preacher-witty one-liner strategy will only get him so far, as will his subtle, calculated smears against Romney's faith that simply reek of desperation. There's only so much gas in that tank, and he'll be running on fumes before you know it.
Watch for him to be targeted as a frontrunner in the upcoming debate, rather than being allowed to lob cutesy Huckabeeisms from the sidelines, as he did in the last one.
Huckabee won't be nominated as the GOP's presidential candidate, but he *did* stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night... |
|
Frankly, I found none of those questions difficult to answer - even if sometimes (age of earth, Adam's bellybutton) the answer would be I don't know.
They are not in the least embarrassing to a Bible-believing Christian. Sure, others may mock - but they already mock the belief that Jesus is God incarnate who died and rose to be the Savior of the world (something Romney claimed)
If Mormon belief system includes embarrassments that are embarrassments to the Christian voters, then that is an issue. |
|
CDubber:
All the questions you pose in your response to my email can properly be asked of any candidate. Go ahead and ask those questions of Gov. Huckabee. Its my right as a voter to do exactly this. If you're afraid of what this inquiry will expose regarding your Mormon faith, then that's your problem. Not mine. The voters have a right to know what type of theology their leaders will rely upon in their (and the country's) time of crisis.
As for Gov. Romney being "my teammate," your gravely mistaken. He is a John Kerry flip-flopper and the Democrats will do to him what the Bush 2004 campaign did to Sen. Kerry. He can't win in November.
|
|
"you don't find it funny that Romney is all of a sudden get a bunch of endorsements from the elites in the Republican Party? You don't see the panic in that?"
With the primary season commencing in earnest in less than a month, I see nothing particularly inexplicable in the fact that some people are endorsing candidates.
The editors of National Review specifically explained that the forthcoming issue willbe their last before the primaries begin. If they wanted their endorsement to be relevant, they knew they had to speak up now.
We don't need to invoke "panic" to explain this. It's just common sense. |
|
|
Romney is a member of the LDS church. Not those others. Thus, simply go to the LDS website. It isn't that hard. |
|
|
I misunderstood what the article was about. A few news articles I read last night said that the Times article was an OpEd written by Huckabee. Apparently though it is an interview. I still am curious to see what the article said on Sunday and Huckabee's reaction though and am still supporting him for the time being. This could change though. |
|
and only Voice of Reason seemed to grasp a crucial point - certainly one avoided by Hugh.
Romney in his speach on what supposedly was going to be about religious liberty etc. made it a point to SPECIFICALLY state to the evangelical Iowa voters he needs so badly that "I believe Jesus is the Son of God and Savior of the world" - he then immediately qualified that comment by stating that his church's beliefs may differ with other churches as to what that means.
Folks - that is called opening the door, and if you think it is off limits for Huck to 'go there' and think it was perfectly fine for Romney to state what he said to pander to evangelical voters, then you are as biased as Hugh.
For the record - I do NOT think Huck made a wise comment here. But I also was on record last week after the speach with the question as to why Romney should get away with this double standard. |
|
Is an example of why people are supporting Mike Huckabee. This attitude that Huckabee is some backwards idiot who is a bigot is VERY offensive to most grassroot Republicans. I guess if you are from Arkansas...and if you are religious...the elites in the Republican Party think you are backwards.
Yeah, that is going to help the Republicans win in 2008! Real smart. |
|
Once again, questioning someone about what they believe is not an attack. Just like people questioning what the Southern Baptist Convention believes isn't an attack.
I will continue to say it...Huckabee is asked constantly about whether he agrees with what the SBC teaches. No one complains. Romney must be held to the same standard. |
|
|
CDubber, Oh, sorry, that's the RCP average, not the Newsweek poll. |
|
so why can't he be an expert on Mormons?
Huck is a backwards person from a backwards state - why do we expect him to be tolerant?
After this ugly week of learning what this guy thinks, I will stay away from the polls if the Republican party selects him. |
|
...sucks. He's another nincompoop. However, I'd much rather have a candidate that only fights against evolution instead of one that fights against practically everything. I don't like either of them, to tell you the truth.
If Fred pulls out, I'll vote for Rudy. If both are gone, we'll see.
And the effects of The Great Speech just keep rolling in. Go team! |
|
|
In two weeks, Romney's campaign will be in full meltdown position. And Huckabee will be surging still. Count on it. |
|
"Wow, Huck is up 32%-22% over Mitt in Iowa."
Wasn't it 39% - 17% in favor of Mike just a week ago? |
|
Please. You are going to tell me that NR and Hugh haven't been for Romney since day one? Please...what planet do you live on? I've been reading NR for the past year...they have been obsessed with Romney from day one. LOL
And btw...Huckabee is getting endorsed by conservatives to...ever heard of Jim Gilchrist. The only difference is this: Gilchrist represents the grassroots of the Republican Party...NR represents the old guard. Gilchrist is out in the country...he hears what people are saying. NR is stuck with a beltway mentality. |
|
|
In Two weeks. Care to make a wager that Huck's numbers will be down? I'd say a carton of cigarettes, but your a Huck supporter, so that bet probably won't wash. :-p |
|
"Because Romney and his side wants to keep on talking about the issue! Romney even gave a speech about it!"
Oh give me a break, the reason reporters are asking Huckabee about religion is because of Romney??? Are you serious?
His speech, if you missed it, clearly explained that religion should *not* be a litmus test for political office in the United States of America.
How anyone could spin that it's Romney and not Huckabee that has suddenly made the nomination all about religion and not about issues is laughable.
Huckabee has *nothing* going for him on the issues but a few feel-good sound bites with no realistic substance. His positions and history are utter losers to conservatives in a general election. Thus he's using the religious nuclear option. And while he may take out Romney (if the electorate is that gullible), he'll certainly take himself out in the process as well. |
|
You must understand that most people are not going to "Mormon" sources to get their info about "Mormons".
That said, I applaud you for doing that, in this instance. Huckabee could learn from your example. Most info about "mormons", from critics is not accurate and distorted. The issues have been dealt with ad nauseum.
The thing that is crazy is that Huckabee knows this, he has spoken at SBC conventions, particularly one in SLC where distorted info about "mormons" faith is bought and sold.
His comment, is like the anti mormon trash pushed at the SBC conference that he spoke at.
He wants to minimalize and demonize the LDS faith by saying that "Mormons" believe that Christ is just another regular "son of god", that Christ is just an ordinary spirit.
This is distortion and Huck knows it, he speaks at an SBC convention geared at preaching truth and love to "Mormons" and claims that he doesnt know what we believe?
|
|
Has Huckabee at 23% and climbing in their national tracking poll. That is 3% ahead of Rudy...and 9% ahead of Romney.
With all the attacks being thrown at Huckabee...he keeps going up. And up...and up! |
|
They may be a little worried about Huck, I'd be. The man is running on a platform that threatens to destroy the conservative coalition. He's also bringing the stereotype canard that Republicans are religious bigots to life. National Review has a history of going after those kinda people who give conservatives a bad name. (Rand, John Birchers, the list goes on.)
This is what the commentariat of the conservative movement does. National Review is most certainly not of the "Elites" of the Republican Party. More times than not they've fallen out of team Bush's favor on immigration, dubai, Harriet, etc.
Your own statement is why Huck has to be stopped. You are advocating class warfare. The left does that. We conservatives do not. |
|
Huh?
Do you see the logical contradiction in what you said?
If he was their candidate, why didn't they endorse him when he entered the race? Because he hasn't been their candidate. He had to earn it. And he did.
You don't endorse until you've had a chance to hear from everyone (if you're actually open to it, which all these people have been). They heard from everyone, and picked their guy.
And Romney got the endorsement of CONSERVATIVES. Many of the people at NR aren't even Republican (they're libertarians or independents). Conservatives are often a subset of Republicans, but they're not necessarily Republicans.
Zell Miller is a Conservative (on many, many issues). I think he'd chafe at you calling him a republican.
By the way. NR aren't the elites. The elites are the people running the country. |
|
You said:
"All the criticism thrown at Huck by Hugh, Drudge and now NRO does not seem to be hurting him, in fact he may look to voters like the underdog being piled on by the elites."
Exactly! You nailed it. And that is what amazes me about the Romney camp. They can't see it. They can't see that the more they attack Huckabee, the more it helps them.
What the Romney camp needs to be doing is simply talking about where Romney stands on the issues. They need to stop attacking Huckabee and stop looking like they are desperate.
|
|
Mark this down...regardless of what happens in the debate in Iowa today...people like National Review and Hugh will claim Romney won the debate.
Period. |
|
Wow, Huck is up 32%-22% over Mitt in Iowa. What's going on here? Frankly, I don't find Huck that impressive, yet he is close to snatching Iowa right out of Mitt's grasp.
All the criticism thrown at Huck by Hugh, Drudge and now NRO does not seem to be hurting him, in fact he may look to voters like the underdog being piled on by the elites.
Besides going negative himself and with ads, what is left for Mitt to do to stop the bleeding?
What does it say about the well oiled and financed Romney campaign if they did not foresee this Huck surge and have a counter strategy to it? Iowa is the key to Mitt's campaign.
|
|
Denounce this and ask for an end to it?
http://caucuscooler.blogspot.com/2007/12/why-speech-mattere d.html
|
|
Actually I would say the religious card will be laid to rest once Romney drops out of the race...and Huckabee shows he can win in another state besides Iowa, thus meaning his support is coming from more than just Christian conservatives.
Drex...you don't find it funny that Romney is all of a sudden get a bunch of endorsements from the elites in the Republican Party? You don't see the panic in that? The powers that be in a certain part of the Republican Party are scared right now...because their candidate, Romney...is going down in flames. |
|
First of all, you assume you know the context...when you don't. Keep that in mind. We have yet to see the context of what Huckabee said. All we know is what some reporter from the NYT is saying.
Second, Huckabee tries to say he doesn't want to comment on religious topics. In fact, that is usually his main issue. But when the press keeps on and on and on asking...it can grow old. And the reason the press is asking? Because Romney and his side wants to keep on talking about the issue! Romney even gave a speech about it!
Third, once again...if Huckabee can be asked if he agrees with positions advocated by the Southern Baptist Convention...then there is nothing wrong with Romney being asked if he agrees with positions that the LDS church has taken. |
|
"Wow, I'm out for a little while and a religious war has broken out! Is this what we are going to have to listen to for the next 10 months?"
Probably just for the next 3 weeks until Huck (hopefully) gets his head handed to him and crawls back to the dark ages and takes his attack dogs with him. |
|
Get over it, anyone who claims to be a mormon can and does so. The LDS church doesnt speak for them and none of those churches speaks for the LDS Church. Does any church that breaks off from the original church speak for it? Peak Oil, can any of those mentioned on your list be Christians if they profess belief n Christ?
|
|
|
Like I said before, Huckabee opened the door by playing the religion card. AS I said before, out of principle I'd avoid that line of questioning with him. Yet he is running as the "Christian leader" candidate. He makes an issue out of his opponents religion. He says his success is God's direct work. Huck makes it fair game. |
|
Until today.
"The NR has endorsed Romney. What do you expect them to be doing?"
If you read or listened to the interview with Lowry about the NR endorsement, the individuals at NR have endorsed many different people and Novak wasn't part of the decision for the MAGAZINE'S endorsement.
(Just like not every member of the Massachussets Teachers Union endorses Huck, though the Union does endorse him - not an endorsement I'd want, by the way, if I was runing as a conservative).
Lowry and Company are both Defending Romney and Attacking Huckabee. |
|
|
Wow, I'm out for a little while and a religious war has broken out! Is this what we are going to have to listen to for the next 10 months? |
|
I'm not telling you how you believe...I am reading what you believe. Once again...here is a link:
http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7 db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=4a10ef96041 7b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1
Now, you want to argue with that? I mean, just admit what you church is teaching and move on.
This is not an attack on the Mormon faith. This is simply pointing out what you believe. Just like you would say to me...you are a Christian, thus you believe that Jesus Christ rose from the dead, right? That isn't an attack. That is a fact.
So get over your self-righteousness. If Huckabee can be questioned OVER and OVER again about his religion, so can Romney. And I don't see Huckabee calling anyone a bigot who questions his faith.! |
|
"That is exactly what they have been doing to Huckabee for the past two weeks...asking him questions like you just gave."
So the answer should be "I don't comment on religious points of doctrine." Period. End of story. Huckabee, however, wants to use religion as either a sword or shield, depending on which is convenient at the moment.
As an ordained Baptist minister, Huckabee's claim that he doesn't know much about the Mormon faith is, in my opinion, likely a blatant lie. And his devious response says volumes - "I don't know much about Mormonism." "I won't evaluate others' faith." "Oh, don't Mormons believe Satan is Jesus' brother?"
So he won't use religion as a weapon, but by the way...
Anyone who doesn't see cold calculation there is blind.
That said, I'll wait for the actual article to be published before coming to a final personal conclusion.
|
|
Doesnt know a thing about American Policy and is wrong on the issues.
TS, it's beyond offensive to me that you and others like you continue to recoil at the word bigot while at the same time telling "Mormons" what and how we believe, and what is Doctrine.
Guess what, Huck doesnt know about American policies and issues.
His claim as the Lord's candidate and the only candidate with a theology degree hasn't changed the fact that he is ignorant of issues pertaining to America.
Dont tell me how and what I believe and you wont need to risk being called a bigot.
When Huck starts showing knowledge about America and stops touting his faith as his qualifications for candidacy I'll get off his back.
The more you attack "Mormons" the more you are a bigot.
|
|
Will you answer this for me:
Is it ok for Huckabee to be asked about his faith? Because he has and continues to be. Is that ok? And if so, then why is it not ok for Romney to be asked?
|
|
The NR has endorsed Romney. What do you expect them to be doing?
LOL |
|
Scott says, "have a feeling that Huckabee might have just pulled off the political move of the season."
Very good political thinking. Indeed, very good. I have a feeling Huckabee has something prepared to say today in the debate about all of this.
Stay tuned.... |
|
I would demand proof be given, and I would look at the overall context of Romney's actions. If his overall actions were consistent with the alleged statement, and Romney had no way of proving them false.....
I WOULD DROP MY SUPPORT FOR ROMNEY IN A SECOND. |
|
|
|
Once again, you are choosing to believe what a reporter who works for the NYT is saying. If this had happened to Romney...and Romney was saying it was out of context...what would you being saying? Would you be siding with the NYT or Romney? Think about it.
And yes, I will admit...I am siding with Huckabee because I support him. But at least I am consistent. I NEVER trust the NYT...period. Romney supporters seem to really like the NYT when it favors their candidate but really dislike them when they don't.
I would rather stand with men like Huckabee then stand with people at the NYT. Huckabee represents the common man, and that is why he is surging in the polls. Romney represents the elite in this country.... |
|
|
You don't know what exactly this article says or is about. I have a feeling that Huckabee might have just pulled off the political move of the season. This article could be harmless and Huckabee knew people like you would jump all over it giving him free publicity and showing the absurdity of Romney supporters jumping to the conclusion that Huckabee and his supporters are bigots. If his comments are satirical or worse yet he's asking this question in hopes to backtrack and show just how absurd it and other Mormon hate speech are Huckabee just had you for lunch. |
|
"Romney supporters should get out of the bigot business."
Well, we weren't the ones playing the religion card! |
|
|
If Huckabee was to drop out (which he isn't going to), my support would go to McCain. He is my second choice. My third choice would be Rudy, with hopes that he would pick Huckabee to be his running mate. I like Thompson's position on the issues, I just don't like him as a candidate. So I would say he is fourth behind Rudy for me. |
|
|
Huckabee, who is leading in the Ioaw polls, is depsparate. He knows that once he is out of Iowa, he will be in trouble. He shot his whole wad in Iowa and now needs something to keep Romney down. It will backfire. The American people are too smart for this. |
|
Although I really think it’s too late for Romney, even if he and his attack dogs did start easing up. It’s extraordinary how much bad blood his candidacy has engendered. They’ve gone after everybody in turn, with the result that you simply can’t find a McCain backer who hasn’t vowed to support Fred or Rudy or anybody once McCain is out, if that’s what it will take to stop Romney. Similarly, Fred’s supporters have long enough memories not to forget Thompson’s time in the Romney cross-hairs.
And now it’s Huck’s turn. 23% of the GOP apparently backs Huck, currently. Many of us believe that Huck is still not very likely to win the nomination and he will likely fade. So where will his current supporters go? Hint: not to Romney. |
|
I just quoted the context. This is a regular occurrence that Huck does. Huckabee admits he has NO proof that he was misquoted. I consider the context of the overall campaign, and Huckabee has done this on several occasions.
You accuse everyone of shilling for Romney. Now you are shilling for Huckabee. You no longer seem to be saying "He didn't say that!" now it's "don't make an issue out of it, you'll alienate Evangelical Christians."
I don't think Evangelicals are really that thin-skinned. |
|
I suppose we should rejoice at the diversity of comments re Huck's statement. And in the course of this wild campaign, anything goes. Mitt can give his speech on Faith in America and Huck can suggest with questions that Mitt's faith is sinister, logically inferring that Mitt is sinister.
Earlier on this thread, someone labeled NONE wrote a diatribe on what he claims are LDS beliefs. I just want to say as an older LDS person, that "none" of what he wrote is correct! And the tone of his comments was nasty.
Go to the source: http://www.lds.org for your questions and use the search feature to look up specific LDS information.
Now, back to the race. The media is eager to stir up controversy between candidates, and I wonder if Huck's comment was taken out of context. It is also possible that he said it on purpose, knowing it would plant doubt in people's minds as to the logical mind of Romney as a president.
And the rest of us have to suffer through the consequences of his having placed that doubt - with the charges and clarifications that endlessly result.
I believe Huck has every right to run and say what he will. I also believe Mitt has the same right.
For me, Mitt is the man I want in the White House.
He's smart, prepared, and seasoned for the job. He won't wilt under pressure and he'll work, work, work to make Washington a better place for all.
|
|
Where have you been? That is exactly what they have been doing to Huckabee for the past two weeks...asking him questions like you just gave.
Huckabee has had to answer thousands of theological questions...and he has done so with a smile. Let ONE question get asked about Mormons...and Romney and his supporters freak out. Double standard!!
|
|
Even a broken clock is right twice a day. Not our Hugh:
A new Gallup Poll finds that better than one in six Americans, including similar numbers of Republicans and Democrats, indicate they would not support their party's nominee for president if that person were a Mormon.
The poll was conducted from Dec. 6 to 9, immediately following the major speech by Republican presidential candidate Gov. Mitt Romney, in which he addressed voter concern about his Mormon religion. The percentage of Republicans who now rule out voting for a Mormon, 18%, is just one point lower than it was in March.
This stand against voting for a candidate based on one such factor is unusually high. Gallup observes: "Four percent of Americans (including 3% of Republicans) say they would not vote for a Catholic, 5% would not vote for a black, 12% would not vote for a woman, and 12% would not vote for a Hispanic." |
|
I am warning you guys to be careful. You are risking alienating a vast majority of the Republican Party the more you imply that Huckabee and his supporters are bigots. It is offensive to me to see what you guys are doing.
Romney will not win in November without the support of the Christian right. The more you guys attack Huckabee and the Christian right...the more you bury any chances of Romney winning either the nomination or the general election. |
|
"I urge all voters to examine the LDS faith. Its your right."
Fine, Jim, if you want to go down that dangerous road, let's apply the same standard to ALL candidates, particular Mr. Huckabee, who has injected religion into this election cycle like I've not seen before.
Some questions for Mr. Huckabee:
Did Adam have a bellybutton?
Did Noah really get all those animals on one boat?
Why did God condone polygamy in the Old Testament?
Where are the archaeological remnants of the Tower of Babel? Given its enormous described size, surely the remains can be easily located and identified without argument or ambiguity?
Did God really intentionally kill a vast number of babies in one of the Egyptian plagues, and if so, why? Why would God punish children for the crimes of their parents? Note: please reconcile your answer with your recent comments on children of illegal immigrants.
How old is the Earth?
The list, of course, could go on and on.
Some of you want to have your cake and eat it too. You assert the "right" to attack Mormons on points of theological doctrine, yet you fail to acknowledge that *any* person of faith can be made to look stupid by those who don't believe. You think you're on solid ground with Catholicism or Evangelical or (insert religion here) thinking? Visit any atheist website and see what they're saying about *your* religion. Some of you have a very warped perspective on truth, equality, fairness, and tolerance. And, well, Christian love.
You're fighting against your own teammate and you don't even realize it. The DNC thanks you for your support. |
|
So you are now trusting the word of a NYT reporter over a Republican? You are now saying that you believe the NYT is being completely honest here and that Huckabee, a Republican, is not telling the truth?
Look at what your support of Romney is doing? Look at who is becoming your partner...the NYT! That should tell you something.
Once again, I ask...is it ok to ask Huckabee questions about his faith? Where is the outrage when Huckabee is asked about his faith? |
|
|
For the gander. If Huckabee wants to play the religion game, people have free reign to go after him. I wouldn't out of a matter of principle, but that's what happens. |
|
According to the encyclopedia:
"Latter-day Saints (Mormons) hold to the belief, confirmed by the teachings of their modern prophets, that Lucifer (Helel in Hebrew) was a particularly brilliant and powerful archangel, a son of Elohim (God the Father) and brother to Yahweh (God the Son, Jehovah or Jesus) and to all of the children of Elohim including all of the souls of humanity."
Is there any proof that Lucifer was Jesus's brother? No. Is there any proof he wasn't? No. Is there are proof that Lucifer, or Jesus for that matter, even exist? No, not really. So why are we parsing these issues, when the questions are unanswerable?
Huck is playing a dangerous game here. He is not, despite his protestations, innocent or ignorant. On the other hand, Mitt also has his share of blame in this game. He wants to get "credit" for the parts of Mormonism that line up with evangelicals, but not take heat or be questioned about differences. In short, he wants to set the ground rules, and set them to his convenience. So it is fair to attack Huck for his positions from his time as governor, but Mitt gets to say, "I evolved, just like Reagan" when asked about his more radical and recent shifts.
A pox on both their houses... |
|
Here's the context TS:
Chapter 3 also contains the admonition to ‘‘keep sound wisdom and discretion.’’ Huckabee is, indeed, a discreet fellow, but he has no trouble making his feelings known. He mentioned how much he respected his fellow candidates John McCain and Rudolph W. Giuliani. The name of his principal rival in Iowa, Mitt Romney, went unmentioned. Romney, a Mormon, had promised that he would be addressing the subject of his religion a few days later. I asked Huckabee, who describes himself as the only Republican candidate with a degree in theology, if he considered Mormonism a cult or a religion. ‘‘I think it’s a religion,’’ he said. ‘‘I really don’t know much about it.’’
I was about to jot down this piece of boilerplate when Huckabee surprised me with a question of his own: ‘‘Don’t Mormons,’’ he asked in an innocent voice, ‘‘believe that Jesus and the devil are brothers?’’
This doesn't let him off the hook in any way shape or form. |
|
Then why does Huckabee get asked questions about his faith? Why does he get asked if he agrees with positions that the Southern Baptist Convention hold?
I don't hear ANY Romney supporters complaining about that. Why? |
|
...you are quickly losing credibility as an objective journalist with all of these Huckabee attacks. If indeed Huckabee asked the question as posed in the NYT mag, why does it follow that he is therefore an anti-Semite and an anti-Catholic bigot?
I ask again, are those of us who hold to the historic orthodox Christian faith in contradistinction from its Mormon distortions ALL bigots because we believe what we believe? Is Mitt Romney an anti-Christian bigot because his view of Jesus, as taught by the LDS Church, is in complete contradiction to the view of Jesus in Scripture and the historic Christian faith.
Hugh, you have crossed the line. |
|
Had a discussion about this with a friend last night. The issue is not necessarily if Mormons believe this. Rather, this has nothing to do with the Presidential race. It would be akin to JFK's opponent in the Democratic primary back then stating:
"I don't want to bring religion into this debate, because then everyone will start asking if Catholics worship Mary."
Its one of those disgusting rhetorical ploys where one tries to be "above the fray" while at the same time taking a cheap shot. The implication is clearly that Mormons are spooky. |
|
My bad. I meant Mulsim.
I also concur on all your points. Well said. |
|
I continue to me amazed at how the Romney side is using his religion to "try" to paint Huckabee as a bigot. That is exactly what is going on here. And there are receiving help from within the media to do it.
A few observations:
1) Mormons do believe that Jesus and Satan are spiritual brothers. Here is the link to prove it (Scroll down to the second question):
http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7 db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=4a10ef96041 7b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1
2) Huckabee's comments have been taken out of context...as they usually are when you are dealing with anything coming from the NYT
3) Don't you find it funny that Hugh is now agreeing with the NYT? What does Hugh usually say about the NYT? Now, all of a sudden, the NYT is to be trusted? Republicans...wake up!
4) Lastly, why is it ok for Huckabee to be asked questions such as these: Do you believe in evolution? Do you believe that Adam and Eve really existed? Do you believe that women shouldn't be Pastors since most Southern Baptists do?
It is ok to ask Huckabee questions about his faith...but no one can ask Romney about his? Double standard here, wouldn't you say? |
|
"Let us not forget that the only people who raised a religous test when Keith Ellison, a Mormon, got elected where Republicans (i.e. Dennis Prager)."
Keith Ellison was not a Mormon, he was a Muslim. I think you probably meant to type that. But wanted to clear up that Keith was a Muslim.
I don't have a problem with a Muslim. Or a sikh, or a hindu, or a Buddhist, etc.
Muslims are part of the brotherhood of God's children. And a lot of good Muslims have gotten a bad rap b/c of Militants among them.
If Ellison doesn't see American as "The Great Satan" as do some Muslims, and he doesn't want to strip women of their equality under the law (which is illegal here in the US, and abhorrent to book), as do some Muslims, then what's the problem?
Muslims who embrace the principles established in the American Constitution can be both good Muslims and good Americans. |
|
By "God-hating Left" I wasn't implying that everyone on the Left hates God. I was referring to the well-known segment of the Left who clearly do.
Sorry for the lack of clarity. |
|
|
No, I do not believe that Hugh's double-standard in anyway justifies Huckabee's remarks about Mormon belief. Huckabee was clearly out of bounds in his remarks. I am not a Huckabee supporter. I have been leaning toward Romney for some time, but my concerns about his candidacy have a lot more to do with his past statements and record than his religion. I have even deeper reservations about Huckabee, but as an evangelical, I really detest Hugh's double standard. Hugh is so intent on pulling Huckabee down that he is throwing at him every critical remark made about him on the blogosphere. He read George Will's derisive remarks about Huckabee's belief in creationism on the air with absolutely no rejoinder. I'm afraid that I lost my sense of humor about Hugh's shilling for Romney at that point. |
|
"Anyone want to try and find archaeological evidence of the historical events in the Book of Mormon? How about the botany? Shall we look for chariots? Horses? Metallurgy?
These are legitimate questions."
They're legitimate questions in a RELIGIOUS discussion. Just as questions about papal infallibility, justification by faith, the historicity of Genesis, Mary's perpetual virginity, the resurrection of Jesus, and other such topics are legitimate in a religious discussion.
Such questions can be (and are) debated. But they are inappropriate topics for discussion in the context of a presidential campaign.
This shouldn't be a difficult concept to grasp. |
|
|
Whatever happened to Hugh's thesis that it was the Democrats who were religiously intolerant? There was no such clamor or intercine warfare when Joe Lieberman, a Jew, was nominated for Vice-President. Similarly, the Democrats did not bat an eye when Harry Reid, a Mormon, was elevated to Senate Majority Leader. Let us not forget that the only people who raised a religous test when Keith Ellison, a Mormon, got elected where Republicans (i.e. Dennis Prager). Hopefully this disgraceful episode over faith in the Republican party will finally put to rest which party is more "intolerant." It would be refreshing to see a Republican leader or nationally respected pundit, admonish the Republicans for their shameful behavior and hypocrisy. |
|
Huck asks a rhetorical question in an interview, the answer to which apparently seems to be "yes", and for that he's denounced as a religious bigot and proclaimed by Hewitt to have reached the bottom of the barrel?
I agree that Huck is a poor choice for President, but the reaction to his quote tells me that with Romney, we get a permanent drip drip drip of questions about his religion - voiced by people to whom religion is a big deal (not me, BTW) - followed by shrieking hysterical chants of "Bigot! Bigot! Bigot! yada yada yada Bigot! Bigot!" and so on.
I was already tired of that schtick back when Hugh Hewitt first published his Romney hagiography, "Mormon in the White House" (which, of course, specifically drew attention to Romney's religion) after which Hugh labeled as a "bigot" every other person who happened to notice that Romney is a Mormon.
Cry me a river, guys'n gals!
Most Americans are so over this new cult of religious victimology being peddled by Romney and his groupies. That dog don't hunt. Romney is history, Presidentially speaking, that is. He's getting killed by Huck, in part because of the Mormon thing that seems to matter so much to Iowans (but not most Americans). He's made his Mormon bed, and now he gets to sleep in it.
Please, let's move on to important stuff like war, taxes, health care, etc. |
|
Whose campaign is in trouble, Hugh? Your boy's campaign is taking on so much water that they are now saying that if they are in the top 3 in Iowa it will be a victory. What?!? This guy has spent the most time and money in IA than any other GOP candidate. If he doesn't win in IA, he's done. Winning by 10 points in NH will mean nothing for him.
BTW, a presidential candidates' faith does matter to voters. Voters have every right to examine the faith of all candidates. If they find the theology of a candidate lacking, then they have every right to reject him because of that faith. That doesn't make that person/voter a bigot. I urge all voters to examine the LDS faith. Its your right. |
|
didn't expect to be sickened and angered by NR's article endorsing Mitt Romney, but I was. I don't hate Mitt Romney. I really don't. But if NR is going to endorse a candidate, it has a certain responsibility that it failed to live up to.
Look at that last paragraph of the article, where it lists Bush's deficiencies that Romney would remedy. Notice what's missing? Any reference to the past two-plus years of catastrophically failed national security and foreign policy.
All Bush's other flaws put together - all the flaws NR found worthy to mention in the article and others besides - are mere fleabites in importance compared to this one. If we continue to get this one thing as wrong as we've been getting it for two years, lots of people are going to die and we're going to lose our freedom.
But NR buries the whole issue of national security in one line that says all the candidates have the same foreign policy principles. The same principles, yes - but Bush has the right principles, too, in theory. Fat lot of good it's doing us.
I'm a social conservative and I don't want to vote for a pro-abortion candidate if I don't have to. I would switch my vote to Mitt Romney in a heartbeat if he would show me that he's determined to kill America's enemies. All he has to do is make a point of saying it, go out of his way to say it, and do so consistently. "Elect me and I will kill America's enemies." I would take that. It would be enough.
But of course he won't say it, because as far as foreign policy is concerned, he's just another George W. Bush - a man with all the right principles.
That's why I'm with Rudy, in spite of everything. He's the only one I trust to kill America's enemies.
Thanks for letting me blow off steam. http://frum.nationalreview.com/post/?q=Nzc0NzM3YmE0OGQ2NTU 2MjAxMWI1MmI4MmRmNTg2ZWY=
|
|
I thought I was ready for the attacks that would be leveled at my faith. I expected to hear everthing that we have heard and I expect to hear worse.
I guess I wasn't ready for two things. First I expected that the doctrine hawks would be obscure religious figures not mainstream jornalists (Maureen Dowd and L.O'Donnell-however crazy they are mainstream) and certainly not candidates themselves.
The second thing that surprised me was the eagerness and enthusiasm people had to attack. Dowd seemed genuinely excited to make fun of our temples and Lawrence OD sounded like he wanted to eat Mormon babies, or that he already did and liked it.
So I thought I was ready but I was not. |
|
Hugh, I listen to you each evening on my commute home and I've listened to you discuss how you believe only a bigot would bring someone's religious beliefs into the equation.
What I have not heard you raise is whether the lack of religion is also fair game. According to opinion polls, most Americans would rather have a man or woman of faith in the White House. Isn't that just as bigoted as picking by faith?
To follow your line of reasoning, it should not matter if we have an atheist or agnostic is in the White House. Your line of reasoning should mean that only a bigot would care if someone is a Scientologist. Or a Muslim.
What one believes is not something that is born in you. It is chosen. And Americans have every right to view the sum total of a person's beliefs that may inform the way they govern, period. |
|
Gentlemanscholar,
Surely you don't believe that Hugh's double standard justifies Huckabee's actions? Two wrongs don't make one of them right I believe is the principle here. |
|
I was thinking that, too. Her post almost had to be a troll, didn’t it?
I also liked the guy who patronizingly explained that one should only heed a practicing Mormon when it comes to points of Mormon theology (genuinely good advice, BTW). It’s just that I find it hard to square with the Mormon missionaries I have encountered who are far from shy about distorting other Christian denominations’ beliefs. |
|
"The Republican party has turned the United States into the Middle East where pandering to religious bigotry is widely practiced."
Ah, Peak Oil. Just wait until the general election if you want to see the DNC perfect the art of pandering to religious bigotry (if either Romney or Huckabee get the nomination, that is).
That said, the GOP has certainly been shameful on this issue. Hillary looms on the horizon, and all we can do is rage and fume about points of gospel doctrine? We're burning our own at the stake for heresy, and the God-hating Left are dancing around the flames in undulating rapture. |
|
The line that Jesus is the spirit brother of Lucifer is an inflammatory formulation that I've never heard from any believing Latter-day Saint, and that is, so far as I can tell (from extensive reading, over roughly thirty years) exclusive to evangelical anti-Mormonism. That's why I find it difficult to believe that Mike Huckabee's use of that formula is merely innocent.
Latter-day Saints do, it is true, believe that Jesus is the only-begotten, divine Son of God. And we do, it is true, believe that we and all the angels are also children of God. That makes us and all the angels -- and Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee -- akin to God and to Christ. You can do the math.
However, the formulation "Jesus is the spirit brother of Lucifer" is designed to suggest blasphemy without providing doctrinal context.
The problem of evil and its origin is a very difficult one for theists. But who would we hold most culpable -- a good parent whose child became a serial killer, or a clever inventor who knowingly created a serial-killing robot? How, even if one disagrees with the doctrine, is it blasphemous to think that Lucifer is a child of God gone wrong, but preferable to believe that the all-knowing and all-powerful Deity deliberately and freely created the author of Auschwitz, child rape, and the killing fields of Cambodia?
One can disagree about these matters, but the demagoguery should end.
|
|
|
I find it hard to believe that, as a Mormon, you are complaining about Southern Baptists sending evangelistic teams going door-to-door. We have Mormon missionaries going door-door all the time in our community. |
|
|
That was a stupid question of the sort typically asked by meatheads that don't have a clue as to what they are talking about. Either Huck's campaign staff needs to be fired or he does. That is so incredibly dumb!! I thought the Huck was just a populist crackpot after reading his plank about the IRS and the "Fair Tax" blah, blah, blah, but I thought there was at least some grey matter between those ears. Apparently not. |
|
"... but if science is to be used, I think Huck is the wrong guy to debunk Mormonism. He doesn't believe in evolution..."
Nice try, but didn't you get the memo? Secular, scientific theory can only be used to attack Mormonism. Other religions are off-limits. |
|
|
... but if science is to be used, I think Huck is the wrong guy to debunk Mormonism. He doesn't believe in evolution... |
|
... is no big deal.
McCain endorsed Romney, he campaigned for him. Little question there is no love lost there now. Good party guys say nice things about each other, until they are going head-to-head. I think it is a stretch to call this a Mitt-Flop.
Especially when there are so many others, of real significance... |
|
|
Mike Huckabee has turned the United States into the Middle East where pandering to religious bigotry is widely practiced. |
|
You really ought to read the comments, instead of just making these drive-by postings Hugh. I predicted last week that the likely result of Romney's speech was to focus people's attention on Mormon doctrine. It should be no surprise that by giving a speech on religion, that Romney put a huge target on his own back and that of his faith.
This is what you get when you cynically exploit your religion both offensively and defensively. Romney spoke Mormonism and about Jesus as the savior and, by so doing, opened up the door to a further examination of his faith. So while you were so enveloped in your man crush on the Mittster, breathlessly contending this was the greatest speech since the Gettysburgh Address, you failed to recognize the real impact of Romney's hail mary speech. Instead of spending all your time drinking the Romney Kool-Aid, you might want to stop in every once in a while and read the comments on your own blog. You wouldn't have been caught so unprepared. |
|
A big, vague term, "religion".
If we look for differences among Judeo-Christian religious sects - Baptists and Catholics, for example - we will find them. If we look for similarities, we will find those also. Once into specific church doctrine and dogma, though, expect the differences to be exaggerated. These are, after all, what separated the various groups in the first place.
Better to look at the fundamentals of belief and especially how the various groups lead their lives. And here, I think you will find that Mormons on the whole are exemplary.
For the record I am not, nor have I ever been a Mormon. And I do not consider Islam a Judeo-Christian religious sect. |
|
That is why the National Right to Life Committee was unable to seriously consider Romney or McCain for their endorsement.
Romney’s stance has confused many people, and understandably so. He claims to have become anti-abortion five years ago as the result of a realization he had during a conversation about embryonic stem cell research. Yet he still favors ESCR itself. |
|
Interesting that in this day where America worships the god of Tolerance, you will have 250 news stories referring to Mike's question, and bemoaning how DARE he ask such a question, but not one of these major media stories will dare ask, or be interested in, what the TRUTH is in answer to the question.
Mormons themselves definitively at their website say Jesus and Satan not only were brothers, but are brothers. This is from the official LDS website, (scroll to 2nd question of "I Have a Question" at,
http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7 db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=4a10ef96041 7b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1
where Mormon authority
Jess L. Christensen, Institute of Religion director at Utah State University, Logan, Utah, answers "On first hearing, the doctrine that Lucifer and our Lord, Jesus Christ, are brothers may seem surprising to some—especially to those unacquainted with latter-day revelations. But both the scriptures and the prophets affirm that Jesus Christ and Lucifer are indeed offspring of our Heavenly Father and, therefore, spirit brothers." and goes on to give authoritative Mormon citations for the belief.
Unfortunately, truth will not matter, we are not allowed to look into questions of a person's religious beliefs who is going to lead the free world and is trying to claim to all of us "I'm one of you and ideal to represent you". I don't believe being LDS is a major factor... but its a legitimate minor factor to consider among all other factors of a candidates character, policies, and guiding beliefs and values.
The media are playing Huckabee as "ignorant" right now, and are spinning this as an unfounded slander; hopefully someone is brave enough to put out the truth, perhaps even from the campaign itself, that while it may have been imPRUDENT to make this off the cuff remark, it is the truth of what the LDS religion teaches. |
|
The Romnoids are trapped in their own echo chamber. Huckabee's comments are just the tip of the iceberg.
Anyone want to try and find archaeological evidence of the historical events in the Book of Mormon? How about the botany? Shall we look for chariots? Horses? Metallurgy?
These are legitimate questions. Sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming, "Bigots!" over and over again won't work.
Scientific inquiry is not bigotry. If that's the position you're going to use to defend yourselves, you'll get crushed worse than McGovern did and you'll have earned every bit of it. |
|
Yes, the article you posted was from 1998. Brilliant.
Just another illustration of the lack of intelligence behind your incessant anti-Romney rants. |
|
|
What are you talking about? |
|
Unfortunately I think most Southern Baptists are anti-Mormon. They came in droves to SLC in 1998 to urge members of the LDS faith to repent. They came to our door (in Arizona) to invite us to their church a few months ago, and after I kindly told them we're LDS and already have a church, they left anti-mormon pamphlets on our door the next day. It appears that Huckabee is no better. He knows what he's doing; he knows plenty about what Mormons believe and I don't for one second buy his line about "I don't know much about them." This is calculating and frankly, quite unChristian, not to mention unAmerican.
The more I find out about Huckabee, the more I realize he's actually one of the very worst Republican candidates running; I would prefer almost anyone else to him. This "boom" of his had better end soon... |
|
NYT and HH distortion notwithstanding, it's certainly fascinating that the two leading candidates today are a Mormon, and a Southern Baptist who right now is speaking at the SBC convention... in Salt Lake City!
Here's a good article with some direct quotes from Huckabee.
-----
SALT LAKE CITY — Government may have dropped the ball in modern American society, but religion dropped it first, Gov. Mike Huckabee told Southern Baptist pastors Sunday night.
"The reason we have so much government is because we have so much broken humanity," he said. "And the reason we have so much broken humanity is because sin reigns in the hearts and lives of human beings instead of the Savior."
http://www2.arkansasonline.com/news/1998/jun/08/huckabee-us -gave-religion/
-----
To the doth-protest-too-much hystericals accusing Huckabee of "Mormon-bashing": you really don't want to go there. Criticizing a set of beliefs is not bashing. Leave the identity politics to the Left.
+ + + |
|
|
I really don't care what religion someone is when it comes to a political office, unless they make it an issue and try to use religion to get elected. That being said, the sooner the Republican Party comes to the logical conclusion that only Ron Paul stands a chance against Hillary/Obama in the general election the better. Face it- the chances of a pro-war candidate winning is down there with the chances of Tancredo getting the GOP nomination. Please research Ron Paul's positions and make an informed choice. He stands for what a lot of Americans believe in - they just don't know it yet. |
|
The more you pile on...the more the grassroots like Huckabee.
You, the MSM, and the ROMNUTS are making him a martyr.
And unfortunately Hugh, people do have the right to vote against a Mormon if that's how they feel.
But that's not your guy's problem and you know it... |
|
|
Imagine Huckabee wins the Republican nomination. In the general, he'll probably be interested in winning Utah, Idaho, Arizona, Nevada, Colorado, and New Mexico. I wish him luck with that when all those Republican Mormons in those states sit on their hands! Way to win the battle and loose the war, Mike. |
|
|
|
|
Hugh didn't mind citing George Will's snarky remarks about Huckabee's belief in creationism -- that was fine, because Will was bashing Huck. But don't let anyone say ask any questions about Mormon beliefs. |
|
|
Don, bottom line is that in the minds of most people that hear "mormons believe Christ was Satan's brother" there is something that doesn't align with real LDS doctrines. When you're an active anti-Mormon (as the Huckster is) and when you go about talking about the religion you oppose, that's hardly an endorsement of mormon theology. Better to keep his lips shut or say only the positive things that are actually correct (like we share a belief in the divinity of Christ) than to put false ideas in people's minds with misrepresentations of truth. Better yet, why not let our church speak for itself? |
|
|
|