Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Thursday, February 15, 2007
Alan Reynolds :: Townhall.com Columnist
Politics and Religion
by Alan Reynolds
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


Why not just ask more general questions such as, "Are you such a narrow-minded, intolerant religious bigot that for that reason alone you'd gladly reject the best candidate and let the other party win?"

When polling voters about a narrow list of religious affiliations, the questions become more and more about actual rather than hypothetical candidates as elections approach. In the polls of 1960, for example, respondents inclined to vote Republican might have shown far more tolerance toward Catholics in general if the particular Catholic in question did not happen to be a Democrat.

A Fox News poll last December asked registered voters whether or not a candidate's particular religious affiliation would make them more or less likely to vote for that candidate. On the Mormon question, 54 percent said it didn't matter and 9 percent said it would make them more likely to vote for the candidate (there are 6 million LDS members in this country). What is really fascinating, however, is that 38 percent of Democrats said they would be less likely to vote for a Mormon, compared with just 32 percent of Republicans and 25 percent of independents.

In that same poll, 41 percent of Democrats also said they would be less likely to vote for a Muslim candidate, which (with a 3 percent margin of error) is statistically no different from the percentage disinclined to vote for a Mormon. Has anti-Mormon bigotry suddenly become politically correct among Democrats, or do Democrats being polled know the LDS candidate is a Republican?

In any case, they surely know, as Bruce Wilson put it in the Salt Lake City Tribune, that "the state of Utah, with its overwhelming Mormon majority, is the reddest state of all. Most Americans also recognize that nationally known Mormon politicians are almost universally conservative Republicans, like Sens. Orrin Hatch and Bob Bennett. And, if they have Mormon friends and acquaintances, they have found most of them to be right of center on the political spectrum."

Suppose the Mormon presidential candidate in 2008 was Harry Reid of Nevada, the Senate majority leader, rather than Mitt Romney. Would pollsters still be telling us that 38 percent of Democrats are less likely to vote for a Mormon? And who, except the pollsters and press, could possibly be surprised if the answer changed? This is mostly about politics, not religion.

1 2
| Full Article & Comments | < Previous
Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

Be the first to read Alan Reynolds' column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

©Creators Syndicate
Lestat - Mormonism and Christianity
I pasted your message and included responses throughout. I indicated who's talking on each section so that will help.

Lestat-
So God sent Lehi to America around 600 BC and later gave him revelations that he withheld from his chosen people in Israel?

robm-
None of the revelations from God to any prophet in Acient America (Book of Mormon) contradicted what he revealed to prophets in Israel. Also, Lehi and his family were of the house of Israel; part of the chosen people.

Lestat-
God knew (He foresees all, but does not pre-determine everything because we have free will) that this Hebrew settlement in North America would be completely eradicated around 400 AD with no trace, so there would be no evidence of its existence.

robm-
There may not be evidence that you know about or that is "generally accepted" but that does not mean there is no evidence.

Lestat-
But that's OK, because 14 centuries later, God would send an angel to reveal those teachings to Joseph Smith alone, with none of the usual signs of authority (public miracles, teachings that are consistent with previously established doctrines, accurate and specific prophesies that later came true) that accompanied previous authentic prophets. He did this so people would be understandably confused by the sudden appearance of a new message that contradicts other teachings from the Bible that Mormons claim to believe, and yet the Bible was not lost for 14 centuries.

robm-
There are some documented public miracles.
I see the teachings as consistent with Christ's previously established doctrines.
There are documented specific prophesies that later came true.
I don't believe there are any Book of Mormon teachings that contradict the Bible.

Lestat-
We're just supposed to trust Smith that he was telling the truth when he recorded what was told to him by an angel that no one else witnessed. (Reminds me of a certain Prophet Mohammed.)

robm-
There were other witnesses to the Angel Moroni, and the Metal plates from which the Book of Mormon was translated. Their accounts are found in the front of the Book of Mormon.

Lestat-
There were other false prophets in Israel, before and after Jesus, who claimed to be the Messiah, but after brief periods of being fooled, no one believed them because there was no evidence for their authority. Why did God ensure that many people would witness and testify to the miracles and resurrection of Jesus (so that those who were willing to accept the evidence could believe but those who didn't want to would not be forced to believe) and then completely obscure the Book of Mormon by only teaching it to people he sent to America where all traces of them and their new scriptures would be wiped off the earth then revealed later to someone who could not demonstrate any kind of prophetic authority? Again I ask, should we just believe anyone who claims to be a messenger of God simply because he asserts that an angel told him so, no matter how outlandish and contrary to established truths his writings may be?

robm-
You should not just believe anyone who claims to be a messenger of God simply because he tells some incredible story. What a person should do, if they have an interest, is find out from accurate sources what the story really is, and decide for themselves. In other words, read the Book of Mormon, with an honest heart not having already decided that it is bunk from a charlatan, and ask God in prayer to let the Holy Spirit witness to them if it is true.

Lestat-
Jesus did not scold Thomas for doubting and then insist that he believe by blind faith. Instead, Jesus allowed Thomas to examine Jesus' crucifixion wounds with his own hands. Jesus then said that blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe. But we have eyewitness accounts, including that of Thomas, to believe. Jesus performed miracles among many witnesses to demonstrate his authority from God the Father. He knew that people would have these accounts on which to base their faith, even though they themselves could not touch Jesus wounds. Mormons seem to scold doubters and tell them they should have blind faith in Smith's honesty.

robm-
I think it's wrong if some Mormons seem to scold doubters and tell them they should have blind faith in Joseph Smith's story. His story is hard to believe. He himself once said "I make no demands of anyone who does not believe my history. If I hadn't experienced myself what I have experienced, I wouldn't believe it myself." However, many people have come to believe that he indeed was a prophet of God and that he was in fact given revelations and authority to restore the church of Jesus Christ on the earth. The way I came to that belief was mainly through reading the Book of Mormon, along with the Bible and stidying and praying much. I think the Holy Ghost has witnessed the truth of it to me, both to my heart and to my mind.

Lestat-
LDS teaches that Jesus sacrifice was only part of our salvation. Their own web site says that a believer must also follow Biblical law in order to achieve salvation. So Jesus did some of the work, but we can work the rest of our way into heaven. This is clearly unfaithful to the doctrine of sola fide, clearly expressed in Ephesians 2:8-9: "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith-and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God- not by works, so that no one can boast." It doesn't get any clearer than that. The gift of God's grace, not our own works, saves us. If Mormons were correct, then they could boast that they had achieved salvation through their works while other Christians could not or did not. The Bible clearly disagrees with Mormon teaching about the method of our salvation.

robm-
If there is any point of doctrine that has surprised me more that it should be such a source of contention between those who say they follow Christ - meaning, between Mormons and others - I don't know what it is. I'm not sure how to state it any more clearly than has been done in the past, and that has not seemed to settle it. But I'll try. Mormon doctrine is that without the atonement of Christ all mankind would be lost, and none could be justified in returning to Heavenly Father's presence. We believe that a person could labor all their days, and even through eternity, trying to rectify their sins, and do good and become a better person, and they would still come infinitely short of qualifying for Heaven. Such a person would still, in the end, be subject to Satan.

As soon as Mormon doctrine explains any further than that, it seems some people are ready to jump up and denounce, that Mormons are denying the grace of Christ and claiming they can earn their way to heaven. I wish this were not so. You say the Bible doesn't get any clearer than that belief that you have, which apparently is that a person's works has no bearing on their salvation. However, there are many scriptures that teach that works are indeed necessary and that repentance is an essential part of the Gospel. While Mormon's do not believe at all that their efforts qualify them for heaven, they do believe that through repentance Christ's atonement can be made effective in our lives so that His efforts - His infinte grace will cover us so that joint with Christ we qualify to return to the presence of the Father.

In all my years I have never known a Mormon who would think to boast that he or she is earning salvation. Maybe there are some who mistakenly believe such things, but I have not met any, and it certainly is not taught in our religion.

After reading your final comments perhaps I am coming to an understanding of where our beliefs differ.

Are you saying that all a person needs to do is believe in Christ or have Faith in Christ and they have a place in heaven? This brings up some questions in my mind. Can a man do this once, say in his 20's, and then receive salvation no matter what kind of life he leads after that? What if this person later denies the faith? What if he does something truly horrible like... well just image something truly horrible. Are you saying that the only result would be that THIS life would be hard on him as he would suffer loss of the spirit and consequences that society might place on him, etc, but that eternally he'd be fine because his place in heaven was secured as a young man that accepted Christ?

If that's what you believe then in fact there is a difference in our doctrine, but not so great that I would deny you the label Christian. However, I can certianly understand your wanting to deny Mormons and separate yourselves from them in some way. Perhaps denying them the label Christian is the best way you can think of doing it. But honestly, I have a hard time thinking that this one doctrine is universally understood and held by all the vast people who claim to be Christians just in the way that your group does, and that the only ones who believe like the Mormons do on this one doctrine are the Mormons themselves.

One thing I don't really understand very well is the claim by some that this free gift from Christ comes to all regardless of their works, regardless of what they do. But it seems to me that even under this way of thinking, a person still has to "do" something; they have to come to Christ and accept him as their Savior. Whatever a person thinks that means, it is still an act, a work, something a person necessarily does in order to receive the grace of Christ and salvation. So, in one way of thinking, it is a "works" doctrine, and those who do not that one important "work" will not receive salvation.

Lestat-
I've already pointed out direct contradictions between the Bible and the Book of Mormon (or whatever other LDS scriptures on which they base their beliefs) on two key doctrines: man becoming a god; and the method of our salvation. I really only needed to point out one to prove my point, but now you have two examples, one of which I know comes straight from the keyboards of the LDS leadership.

robm-
The direct contradiction between the Bible and Book of Mormon on the method of salvation I honestly don't think is so clear cut. I really believe that there are enough teachings in the Bible that explain the process of repentance and how both faith and works are required to at least make it debatable, if not convincing, to an impartial judge that Mormon doctrine on salvation is correct.

If you want, I will take some time to respond on the topic of "man becoming a god" because that really seems to bother a lot of people. But I have to go for now. Please reply and let me know if you want to discuss it further, or if you'd like more details on some of the things I made reference to above. In fact, I wouldn't mind corresponding directly if you want (robsotherstop@yahoo.com), rather than continuing on in comments at the bottom of a previously published story about "politics and religion." Especially, because although there are significant differences in doctrine, I don't see where they have much to do with Mitt Romney's candidacy for President.

Koresh for President
Only in America.

Kill one cultist, elect another.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.