Casting Stones

Casting Stones


Richard Land: A Hope List for Romney’s Speech

posted by dgilgoff

Romney3.jpgFormer Massachusetts Governor and current Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney is going to give a speech on “Religion in America” tomorrow in Texas.
I have been encouraging Governor Romney to give such a speech for over a year now, since I first met with him at his home in Massachusetts. He had invited approximately a dozen evangelical leaders to meet with him to have a free-wheeling discussion about his presidential candidacy and to allow us to ask him questions–and to allow him to ask us questions as well.
I took that opportunity to tell him that while I, as a matter of long standing policy, do not endorse candidates, I felt that if he desired to have the kind of appeal he would want to have among evangelical voters he needed to give a speech similar to the one then- Senator John F. Kennedy gave to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association in September 1960. I even gave him an advance copy of my latest book, The Divided States of America?, which has the complete text of JFK’s speech printed as an appendix. As I handed him the book, I told Governor Romney that President Kennedy’s speech was included in the manuscript and was a tone-perfect speech and a great example of what he should try to achieve in a similar speech.
I believed then (October, 2006), as I believe now, that such a speech by Governor Romney is even more important for our nation than it is for Governor Romney. Why? Because our nation needs to be reminded in such a high profile speech that we are a country that believes so deeply in religious freedom that we enshrined the prohibition for any religious test for office in our Constitution (Article VI).
We have been a nation that cherishes religious freedom and protects every citizen’s right to believe and worship as he or she pleases, or not to believe or worship at all, with no governmental preference or prohibition for any particular faith.
What kind of speech should Romney give? Should he seek to describe and define his Mormon faith? I would hope he does not do that. John F. Kennedy did not spend one sentence of his 1960 speech describing or defending the doctrines of Catholicism. He defended the right of a Catholic to run for president.
I would hope that Governor Romney would first talk about the positive and crucially significant role religion has played in our society from the earliest settlements through the era of the founding of the nation, continuing through the Civil War era down to the present day. We Americans have been, are, and give every indication of continuing to be, a very religious people with a multitude of differing religious allegiances with a common commitment of defending every person’s right to worship according to the dictates of their own consciences.
I would hope that Governor Romney would summarize the pivotal role that religious conviction has played in eradicating great evils such as slavery and racial segregation in our nation. Both the Abolitionist and Civil Rights Movements are inexplicable apart from the religious convictions that inspired them and the religious leaders who led them.
Then, I would hope that Governor Romney would turn his attention to the matter at hand, namely the question of his Mormon faith and whether it should impact the viability of his presidential candidacy.
I would hope that Governor Romney, invoking the spirit of JFK’s speech, would point out that when Democratic candidate John F. Kennedy came to Texas 47 years ago to address the issue of religion in a presidential campaign, he did not defend his Catholic faith nor should he have been expected or required to do so.
Then, I hope Governor Romney would say something like this:
“Just as then Senator and presidential candidate John F. Kennedy defended the right of someone of his religious faith to run for president, so I now seek to defend the right of someone of my religious faith to run for that high office.
“To paraphrase President Kennedy, I am not the Mormon candidate for president. I hope to be the Republican Party’s candidate for president. I do not speak for my church on religious matters and they do not speak for me on public policy matters. In other words, if you want to know what my church believes, call Salt Lake City. If you want to know the public policy positions and platform of the Romney campaign, call my campaign headquarters.
“As President Kennedy said those many years ago: ‘whatever issue may come before me as president … I will make my decisions … in accordance with what my conscience tells me to be the national interest and without regard to outside religious pressures or dictates. And no power or threat of punishment could cause me to do otherwise.’
“Let me be clear however, that as John F. Kennedy said in 1960, ‘I do not intend to disavow my views or my church in order to win this election.’ And, I might add, it would be both un-American and unconstitutional to ask me to do so.
“I do not intend to discuss my religious beliefs today or in this campaign. My relationship with God is personal and private. I ask that you respect that personal, private, and constitutionally protected space. I do not believe that questions about religious and theological beliefs belong in a presidential campaign and I don’t think the vast majority of Americans do either.
“Now, my faith does inform my conscience, shape my character, and guides me as I formulate the policy positions which I believe are best for our nation and our people.
“I ask that you, the American people, judge me based on my character and my record as a public servant and Governor of a great state, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. While serving as Governor, followers of my faith tradition received no special favor or consideration from me. I evaluated people on their record and their performance, not their religious faith, and that is how I ask you to judge me.
“Evaluate me on my character as a husband, father, businessman, citizen, and public servant. Judge me on my public positions on the issues that face our great nation–not on my personal religious faith.
“As President Kennedy said in 1960, ‘What kind of church I believe in … should be important only to me’ – it is ‘what kind of America I believe in’ that should be important.
“I believe in an America that understands its great religious heritage and cherishes both its religious freedom and its religious diversity. I believe in an America that is committed to continuing its quest to live out the ideals espoused in its founding documents.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
“May God bless you and may God bless America.”
For more on Romney’s “religion speech” and his Mormonism, check out New Testament scholar Ben Witherington III’s essay on how Mitt Romney’s ‘Mormon speech’ could connect with evangelicals, our What Do Mormons Believe? Guide, and Political Editor Dan Gilgoff’s Casting Stones post on whether Romney has blurred the lines between Mormonism and traditional Christianity.



Advertisement
Comments read comments(50)
post a comment
Slick-Willy

posted December 5, 2007 at 4:35 pm


This is the way it should be said. Well done Richard Land.



report abuse
 

Rev Graham Jones

posted December 5, 2007 at 4:47 pm


Interesting article but the writer forgets one part of JFK’s speech. Kennedy allowed those present to question him intensively about his beliefs and how they would apply to the role he was seeking. Romney has ALWAYS changed the subject whenever anyone got specific about what he believes.
What someone believes says something about their judgement. If Romney believes that America was colonized by Jews 200 yrs ago then you as americans have a right to question his judgement.



report abuse
 

Brent

posted December 5, 2007 at 5:06 pm


I think it’s so funny how Christians criticize the Mormon faith by bringing up some of the faith’s unique doctrines and questionable history. Isn’t that just the pot calling the kettle black. Christianity (or just about any religion)is based on logically ridiculous things. Jesus walking on water. Moses parting the red sea. The earth being created in 6 days. Noah building a boat and putting all the animals in the world on it to avoid a flood that covered the entire earth. Jesus being killed and then coming back to life. Why is it okay for Romney’s judgment be questioned for believing in the Book of Mormon or belonging to a church that practiced polygamy over a hundred years, when none of the other candidates’ judgment is questioned for their equally “ridiculous” beliefs? It’s so hypocritical and self-righteous.



report abuse
 

Nate

posted December 5, 2007 at 5:24 pm


Thank you Brent.
I’m tired of listening to slanted and hypocritical religious arguments. Such comments imply the one thinks their readers are unintelligent and can’t think logically.



report abuse
 

Todd

posted December 5, 2007 at 5:50 pm


Brent,
Well said. I’m an ex-mormon because of the illogical historical claims of the LDS faith. However, they are no more illogical than the concept of a six day creation or a global flood 4000 years ago. For Mormons to believe what they believe requires faith and some sort of suspension of reason. For most Christians to believe what they believe requires the same (particularly evangelicals). It’s nothing but ignorance and bigotry to require that Romney back up his “illogical” beliefs when giving every other believer a free pass.



report abuse
 

T Butler

posted December 5, 2007 at 5:57 pm


“If Romney believes that America was colonized by Jews 200 yrs ago then you as americans have a right to question his judgement.”
Mormons (members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) believe that people of Jewish descent, along with people English, German, Irish, etc, descent, were in the process of colonizing America 200 years ago, in 1807. But is that really controversial? Isn’t that standard history?
Mormons also believe that members of tribe of Manessah (not Judah) settled in the America’s around 600 B.C.. Other groups almost certainly lived in the area, as well.
Mormon.org has more information.



report abuse
 

Lynne

posted December 5, 2007 at 6:00 pm


I think the speech misses the point. Romney was socially liberal when he wanted to run for office in Mass. and he is now socially conservative in the Republican primary. It makes no difference to me what his faith is as far as his ability to run for office. (Everyone has the right to run.) He just doesn’t believe enough to stick to his “beliefs”.



report abuse
 

Robert Morrow

posted December 5, 2007 at 6:56 pm


THE BOTTOM LINE: HILLARY IS IRRESPONSIBLE WITH POWER
Dear American Friend, http://www.1984ArkansasMotherOfTheYear.com
I have attached my “Hillary file” which is culled from the 205+ books and other media that I have on Hillary and Bill. The Clintons are thugs. On the campaign trail in 2007 Hillary and Bill are play acting as the loving, respectful couple – singing each other’s praises on stage and engaging in public affection as they troll for votes.
In order to understand Hillary and Bill, one must first understand the wildly dysfunctional Jerry Springer lifestyle they have lived for 36 years. Hillary has covered for Bill who not only has had HUNDREDS of women, but also perpetrated several rapes and vicious sexual assaults, often involving biting the lips of the women victims. In order to cover up this Jerry Springer chaos, Hillary has often used Sopranos tactics: a secret police and criminal intimidation tactics to harass, intimidate and terrify Bill’s sex victims and girlfriends.
WE’VE HAD ENOUGH “EXPERIENCE” WITH HILLARY;
CLINTON BLACK OPERATIONS MUST STOP
These tactics include the savage beating/almost murder of Gennifer Flower’s neighbor (Gary Johnson – 6/26/92), criminal harassment campaigns on Kathleen Willey (1997-98 car vandalism, stole or killed her cat Bullseye, witness tampering), Liz Ward Gracen (who Bill probably raped [1983] while she was Miss America – harassed/threats, 1997), Gennifer Flowers (break-ins, threats, 1992), Sally Perdue (car vandalism, threats, 1992), Bobbie Ann Williams (break-in), Christy Zercher (a flight attendant, groped 1992, break-in, 1994), Patrick Knowlton (extreme harassment campaign Oct. 1995; witness tampering), Suzi Parker (a journalist harassed off Arkansas tainted prison blood scandal 1999, fearing for her life), Connie Hamzy (lying campaign, 1991) and Juanita Broaddrick (raped by Bill 1978, break-in and IRS audit when she went public in 1998). It is not a stretch to say that Hillary, Bill and Buddy Young may have organized the murder of their former contract employee Jerry Parks on 9/26/93 because he knew too much about the Clintons.
Hillary and Bill were well on the way to crucifying Monica Lewinsky as an unstable stalker, liar and fantasist – – and would have done so if Bill’s semen had not been found on Monica’s blue dress. Hillary’s private eyes were already digging into Monica’s past, when the real story was the Clintons’ criminal track record.
Additionally, biographer Roger Morris describes a vicious sexual assault by Bill on a woman (around 1980) on p.238 in his book Parters in Power. Journalist Michael Isikoff details a extremely crude sexual advance by President Bill in 1996 on a lady married to a Democratic VIP on p.162 of his book Uncovering Clinton. Additionally, pervert Bill exposed himself to Paula Jones in May, 1991 and also to Carolyn Moffet in 1979.
Other Clinton dysfunctions include Bill’s cocaine addiction as governor, Hillary’s lesbianism and the fact that Chelsea is probably the seed of Webb Hubbell, NOT Bill Clinton. Bill’s only offspring is probably Danny Williams, the product of deadbeat dad Bill’s cocaine-fueled sex orgies with (no condoms) drug-addicted street hooker Bobbie Ann Williams and her girlfriends back in 1983-84. Bill paid $200 to Gennifer Flowers so she could have an abortion in Jan., 1978, just 3 months before Bill’s double rape of Juanita Broaddrick on 4-25-78. Bill severely bit Juanita’s lip to disable her during the rapes. Also, wild Bill, brother “Roger the Dodger” and best friend Dan Lasater were partying with high school girls and providing them cocaine when Bill was governor in the early 1980’s.
And, of course, there is Hillary’s long and intense affair with Vince Foster who was her emotional husband while Bill was screwing everything in sight. Hillary has a long record of fomenting domestic violence with Bill. The Secret Service, fed up with this insanity, leaked to the press Hillary smashing a lamp during an argument with Bill. Hillary has often thrown objects at victim Bill.
Hillary has used criminal tactics such as a secret police and illegal IRS audits to go after both political enemies and Bill’s sex victims and girlfriends. It was probably Clintons’ FBI who put a rotating harassment team of 25 people on Patrick Knowlton, a witness in the Vince Foster investigation, on October 26, 1995, and continuing for a week. What the Clintons did to Patrick Knowlton was Clinton street fascism as well as witness tampering.
This was a prelude to the intimidation campaign waged on Kathleen Willey in 1997-98 before her deposition in the Paula Jones case. Paula Jones who Bill exposed himself to, rape victim Juanita Broaddrick, probable rape victim Liz Ward Gracen, and mistress Gennifer Flowers all got audited by Clintons’ IRS in the late 1990’s.
Floyd Brown’s offices were burglarized in 1992 and only his Clinton files were stolen. Brown’s private phone conversations were illegally wiretapped by Hillary’s goon Jack Palladino. Another one of Hillary’s thugs, Anthony Pellicano is in jail in LA for the same kind goon tactics he did for the Clintons in 1992.
Clinton biographer Emmett Tyrrell also had his offices twice broken into and his NY apartment invaded once. The manuscript of Tyrrell’s book Boy Clinton was stolen when he couriered it to Robert Novak for a blurb. Clintons thugs tried to intimidate 2 of Tyrrell’s researchers in Little Rock.
Also, at least one independent counsel in the 1990’s took to carrying a gun after being harassed by Clinton goons in yet another intimidation event.
HILLARY TREATS PEOPLE LIKE DIRT
LIKE THEY ARE “INVISIBLE”
Many people close to the Clintons describe Hillary as rude, vulgar and abusive, not just with staff and co-workers, but especially with Bill who she made a sport of ridiculing, according to L.D. Brown, Bill’s favorite state trooper. Hillary is well known for making mean, vicious and personally degrading comments often towards people who work for and with her. She probably got that from her dad Hugh Rodham, a deeply disturbed man.
Hillary and Bill are sociopaths, not unlike serial killers such as Ted Bundy. Seemingly personable and normal while brown nosing wealthy contributors or opinion makers, Hillary and Bill have no regard for the integrity and well being of others. They disregard rules and lie with practiced ease, not feeling guilt or empathy for others.
Bill is the kind of guy who can rape your sister upstairs and then come down to the living room and tell you what a great book he has read about women’s rights. Hillary is the kind of person who can be in the kitchen calling up a secret police to terrify your rape victim sister into silence, and then come out to the living room and ask what do you think about her latest speech on women’s and children’s rights.
Some of the goons that Hillary has used to cover up her and Bill’s Jerry Springer lifestyle and criminal activity include Ivan Duda (1982), Jerry Parks (1980’s), Jack Palladino (1992) and Anthony Pellicano (1990’s). Pellicano is now in JAIL in Los Angeles for the same kind of thug intimidation tactics that Hillary hired him for. Also, Buddy Young, the head of Bill’s trooper detail and who Bill made #2 at FEMA, is additionally a dangerous criminal that Hillary and Bill has employed in their black operations. Terry Lenzer is also someone Hillary has used extensively.
Please forward this information to your Democratic friends and co-workers and ask that they (and you) vote for and support John Edwards, Barack OBAMA, Bill Richardson or any other Democratic candidate, and NOT Hillary. The difference is Hillary will break your kneecap to get to the White House; the others will not.
Thank-you and have a great day!
Robert Morrow Clinton expert Austin, TX 512-306-1510



report abuse
 

Mad Jayhawk

posted December 5, 2007 at 6:58 pm


I change my mind everyday. Instead of going to Safeway I decide to go to Wal-Mart. Romney changes his mind, his positions, so what? Changing one’s mind or positions is indicative of someone who is thinking, examining options, opinions, and situations that they happen across everyday of their lives. Do you really want a President who crawled out of the delivery room and never changed one belief or principal? I don’t.
What Romney thought or believed in 1994 doesn’t matter to thinking people. What matters in a candidate to me as a voter is intelligence, experience (real, successful experience), honesty, and ability to get things done. Romney appears to possess all of these qualities.



report abuse
 

Ryan Hawkins

posted December 5, 2007 at 7:10 pm


Well Said.
I am quite certain everything you have hoped for in Romney’s speech will be there. I am also quite certain Romney will not turn the discussion into some theological setting to dicuss nuances of LDS doctrine.
I think Romney is the best candidate in the race, and this higly anticipated speech will give him a chance to connect with more voters than any other candidate could possible hope for.



report abuse
 

John in FL

posted December 5, 2007 at 7:11 pm


WOW!
This is probably the single most moving commentary I’ve read – EVER. I am not Mormon, but am optimistic that many of the hope items on this list come true tomorrow. America really, really needs a President like Governor Romney, and soon. I’m so sick and tired of being the laughing stock around the world. Look at the pathetic state of our government in Washington. Romney will tackle these challenges and those of a global economy hands down with his business savvy and persuasiveness.
Thanks again for a really great article! They are few and far between in today’s media.



report abuse
 

Ellie

posted December 5, 2007 at 7:36 pm


I think I’ve read that Romney was the head of a stake/Church. He’s more than an elder, as all males in good standing are. So he does speak for, witness for and teach for his Church. Whenever he is asked about his faith, he get defensive and angry. We are just supposed to accept Mormons as another denomination of Christianity.
When Romney became a leader in the R race (and because I am a life-long student of Philosophy) and I realized I actually knew very little about Mormonism, I ordered a B of M, Pearl of Great Price, Doctrines & Convenants and Mormons History, Culture, Beliefs — all “official” pubs of the LDS Church. I also read books by Evangelicals who send missionaries to the Mormons. And I searched the web for pro and anti- Mormon sites.
I wish all those who say a religious test is “un-American” would do the same. I would not vote for a Communist or a Muslim because their religion calls for the overthrow of America. I would not vote for an “earth firster” because I think that people are more important than the earth. And I will not vote for a man who believes that American Indians are the lost tribes of Isreal, that God lives on another planet or that his underwear will protect him from harm.
And for that, I am a bigot. Maybe I should join the KKK.



report abuse
 

K Dub

posted December 5, 2007 at 7:44 pm


Great piece. I think Romney will probably follow most of your sound advice. It will be a moving speech, inspirational even, if the delivery is good, and Romney’s delivery is usually very good.
And I still won’t vote for him. And it has NOTHING to do with his religion.
Mr. Romney seems quite plastic. Many of his positions and statements seem to the result of focus groups, or blatant pandering attempts. His sudden embrace of immigration as an issue seems at best insincere, given all his well-publicized problems w/ illegals at his estate. His convictions on abortion are suspect, given their radical change in a short time. And I’m not talking about 1994, but 2002, when he ran as staunchly pro-choice. He said he would do more for gay rights than Teddy Kennedy, until he got Potomac fever, and ran to the opposite position. Joined the NRA and discovered that he had been a lifelong hunter, just in the past year. He has NO foreign policy experience, no military experience, and never needed to hustle to put food on his table. His statements to date on waterboarding/torture and “double Gitmo,” suggest he will do little to improve America’s poor standing in the world. He does, of course, have a very photogenic family. And great hair. But that is not enough.
I wish Mr. Romney luck on his speech. I agree with Mr. Land that it is an important topic, and one Americans need to discuss. I look forward to one day voting for a qualified Mormon candidate, but Mr. Romney is unfortunately not that candidate.



report abuse
 

David Alvord

posted December 5, 2007 at 8:39 pm


It is America who will be tested this election cycle. Is she willing to elect the best candidate? Even if that candidate belongs to a religion that is currently in the minority? Or, would she rather choose the candidate who shares a popular relgion, but who is wrong on so many issues and is less qualified?
Romney will deliver a fine speech tomorrow. But it will be America who will be asked to pass the test this winter.



report abuse
 

fred pearce

posted December 5, 2007 at 8:57 pm


To campaign as a man of faith and then to clam up regarding the specifics of that faith is opportunism and hypocrisy at its worst.Even worse, I as an evangelical do not need and shall not countenance so-called evangelical leaders’ telling me for whom and on what basis I should vote. I’m an individual with God-given free will, capable of making independent decisions without any help or unsolicited advice from Dr. Land or anybody else. Thank you very much.
Finally, if Romney intends to lecture me on religious tolerance and all things un-American, it would be better for him to: stay off the air, stay home, and stay mute. Because I’m not listening.



report abuse
 

Grace

posted December 5, 2007 at 9:03 pm


While it is instructive for Baptist Richard Land to outline for Romney a speech roadmap and while I agree that anyone of any faith has the right to run,tomorrow’s speech could put the discussion of( theologically little known) Mormonism on the National table.
This will be politically problematic especially regarding the Mormon teaching on the black race. The GOP would do well to consider quotes such as these: “As a result of his rebellion, Cain was cursed with a dark skin;he became the father of the negroes…”(Mormon Doctrine 1958,p 102),”Cain slew his brother and… the Lord put a mark upon him, which is a flat nose and black skin”( Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses,Vol.7,p290 ),”Not only was Cain called upon to suffer,but because of his wickedness he became the father of an inferior race”( Joseph Fielding Smith,10th Church President,The Way to Perfection,p101)and you tubes such as: “Blacks are Satan’s Folks”and
“Mormon Racism.”



report abuse
 

ranchman

posted December 5, 2007 at 9:22 pm


Nahh Ellie, you’d vote for someone who is just like you, that’s really all your schoolbook learning has taught you. Did you think to read the constitution or the bill of rights? there are some thoughts in those documents on people like you. But, hey – let’s get practical here. let’s see, uhh….Lutherans encouraged pleural marriage and holocaust like practices against Jews. And how bout those Jews – pleural marriage again. And they wear silly skullcaps, and all hose Christians who don vestments or believe that a cross shaped chunk of metal protects them from evil? Then there’s the Southern Baptist Democrats who presided over the oppression of Blacks from reconstruction into the late 60′s. And don’t get me started on those Catholics. So no protestants, no catholics, no jews, no Mormons, no Episcopalians. No Muslims, hey maybe the Dali Lama might work for you. if not, it looks like all we have left is Queen Ellie, long may she live. Write yourself in, ding a ling. You’ll get one vote. Or maybe two if previous poster Fred is listening – he who feels that some kind of religious test is a prerequisite for running for public office.



report abuse
 

TrueHawk

posted December 5, 2007 at 9:29 pm


Land has become pragmatic instead of principled like he once was. Polls show conservative voters are not worried very much about Romney’s religion. They are worried about his flip flopping. He changed his viewpoints to be elected in Massachusetts and now changes them back to get the GOP nomination.



report abuse
 

dr scott

posted December 5, 2007 at 9:41 pm


I hope that all can respect others beliefs as fellow Americans. I am LDS and am disturbed to hear fellow Saints belittle their Evangelical counterparts. I am even more disturbed by the raw, naked bigotry that I see Evangelicals heap on LDS. LDS people are fellow Americans. I do not agree with your theology, but am happy to be governed by a moral, wise Evangelical who swears to govern according to the Constitution. Yet many Evangelicals refuse to do the same. How would you Evangelicals react if Utah refused to elect non Mormons? Yet Utah has elected Catholics, Evangelicals, and Jews to govern them. Are you Evangelicals unable to grasp the concept of Article 6 as well as your Mormon brothers?



report abuse
 

Rich from Ohio

posted December 5, 2007 at 9:44 pm


Hear! Hear! I wish Mike Huckabee would read this article. The creation by Huckabee’s supporters of a new, unconstitutional religious test for public office (for his use against Mitt Romney) can only come back to haunt them when their candidate’s own beliefs come under scrutiny and attack by secularists. Huckabee’s pretended ignorance as to whether members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are Christians is especially offensive because it panders to the most intolerant of religious bigots among us and divides the Republican Party along secular lines. Webster’s Dictionary simply defines Christian “as a person who believes in Jesus Christ and follows his teachings”. That commonly accepted definition focuses on the individual’s faith and is entirely consistent with Governor Romney’s public statements and, indeed, with his record as a son, husband, father, person of faith, businessman and public leader. ALL Christian churches differ in theology to a greater or lesser extent, but that is no basis for disqualifying (or voting for) a candidate. Let God judge what’s in our heart, not man. And please, let’s judge candidates for office by their character, experience and competence, not by their private religious beliefs. Is Mitt Romney a good man and qualified to serve as president? If yes, isn’t that what matters?
One more thing. Huckabee actively campaigns/preaches in churches in order to play to his selected “Christian” base. (That appears to be a good strategy in Ohio at least in light of Huckabee’s less-than-conservative record on taxes, spending, crime, ethics and illegal immigration. But, will a “Christian candidacy get him elected over Hillary?) Democrat candidates also commonly appear in churches to drum up support or to put on a pius facade. You will never find Mitt Romney campaigning in an LDS church because I understand that the LDS Church has strict prohibitions on the use of its facilities for any partisan purpose. The LDS Church stays out of politics and would no more endorse Romney or try to tell Romney how to govern than it would try to control Harry Reed (a liberal Democrat Mormon).
May God bless America to choose the right man for our time. I happen to believe that man is Mitt Romney.



report abuse
 

fred pearce

posted December 5, 2007 at 10:04 pm


Simply put, if you don’t want to be evaluated on your faith, don’t exploit it for political convenience.
And, as far as I can tell, most evangelicals do not want and are not calling for Romney to give a speech concerning his faith. We’re perfectly willing to judge him on the issues.



report abuse
 

thatcher

posted December 5, 2007 at 10:20 pm


Romney’s Mormonism is not his problem. Yes, some will not vote for him because of his religion. I think the greater problem is that he is not a very good Mormon.
I’ve known many Mormons because of the region I live in and they work with Evangelicals to get things done in the schools, ect. Their values, if not their religion, track well with Christianity. Trouble is, Romney’s values have not tracked well over the years with Mormonism. Mormon’s are not liberals…ever. They are not pro-choice or pro-homosexual or reflect any of the values of Romney up to the point he decided to run for the presidency.



report abuse
 

Mavis J

posted December 5, 2007 at 10:51 pm


With all due respect, thanks for yet another “white version” of why Romney’s Mormonism shouldn’t matter. The media doesn’t seem to pick up on the fact there’s overt RACISM in the Book of Mormon itself—and how that makes people of color feel watching this being swept aside as “no big deal.” Perhaps these pundits are ignorant to that fact or perhaps because they are white it doesn’t bother them. A very large portion of the Evangelical Christians are black and people of color. Christians don’t only denounce Mormonism because it is a cult, more specifically it’s because the Book of Mormon, which Mormons consider their “bible,” STILL contains overt racist “scriptures” against people with “dark skin.”
The Book of Mormon that Romney believes and supports, states that God curses certain individuals with dark skin; the races are determined by how worthy individuals were prior to this mortal life; and blacks were not as faithful in their first estate; that God cursed people with dark skin to keep them from interbreeding with their white brethren; and that God blessed some who repented with white skin. Nothing concerning the revelation in 1978 to give “all worthy males members” the priesthood invalidates or denounces those racist beliefs.
SOURCES: (Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation 1:61-7; McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 527-8; Alma 3:6-9; 2 Ne. 5:21-4; and 3 Ne. 2:14-6).
http://www.mormoninfo.org/ MORMON RACIST DOCTRINE: http://www.realmormonhistory.com/god&skin.htm
Now, if Romney were to denounce the Book of Mormon, that would be a different story.
So next time you report on why Evangelical Christians don’t accept Romney due to his Mormonism, be sure to include one of the biggest reasons: RACISM in the Book of Mormon. Otherwise, you’re just not reporting the whole truth.



report abuse
 

reagan

posted December 5, 2007 at 11:01 pm


Thatcher doesn’t know much about Mormons. You can’t get more Morman than me and Mitt Romney is a world class Mormon. My Mormon family does not place high priority in government views on abortion or homosexuality. Thatcher is just wrong about that.
Mormons like me do place high value on personal integrity, although it is not necessarily an article of faith. Mitt Romney has a problem there because of his obvious flip-flops to play to whatever electorate he happens to be asking for votes from.
My hunch is that a JFK speech won’t work for Romney like it did for JFK. Mormons aren’t as well known as Catholics generally. And the more some people look into Mormon dictrine and history, the stranger it can appear. Things have also changed within the GOP since JFK’s days. The GOP is now closely tied to religion in ways that often blur fundamentals about religious liberty, church and state.
Romney does need to stay away from Mormon doctrine, because it will probably turn off more people in a political setting than it will attract. People of my faith suffer from preaching that the Mormon way is the only way to salvation. That’s fine in Utah, but problematic on a national or world stage.
I wish Mitt well. But I’d prefer to be left alone with my family’s faith and keep it out of the spotlight. Mitt shouldn’t just be thinking of his personal ambitions to be President of the US, but about the impact on his Church. Sad to say, it appears that this is all about Mitt.



report abuse
 

Dennis M

posted December 5, 2007 at 11:07 pm


Dr. Land writes:

Both the Abolitionist and Civil Rights Movements are inexplicable apart from the religious convictions that inspired them and the religious leaders who led them.

Are we to assume that the defenders of slavery and segregation were secularists? Far from it. The defenders of slavery included many Christian ministers who quoted numerous Bible passages which acknowledged slavery, encouraged slaves to obey their masters, and enumerated rules for the proper treatment of slaves. There’s no hint in Old or New Testaments that slavery is something to be frowned on (except when the Jews were enslaved in Egypt).
During the Sixties, Rev. Falwell on his radio show praised George Wallace and Lester Maddox, while denouncing Dr. King — whose “Letter from Birmingham Jail” should be required reading for the likes of Dr. Land, who apparently has little understanding of those days. In this piece, King rebuts the white Christian ministers of the South who had uniformly denounced him for his campaign against segregation.
Yes, Dr. King and his close associates were Christian ministers. But the civil rights movement enjoyed enormous support from the very secular, liberal, even Marxist intellectual crowd that today’s religious conservatives love to demonize.
I believe in credit where credit is due. Religious conservatives should not attempt to claim credit for the anti-slavery or civil rights movements. Religious leftists and secular leftists fought those battles.



report abuse
 

JB

posted December 6, 2007 at 1:14 am


I wonder if Huckabigot will be watching…



report abuse
 

Ken Wilson

posted December 6, 2007 at 1:15 am


Dennis M should become a bit more current on Southern Baptists like Mike Huckabee, Richard Land and myself. Richard led an effort over a decade ago to gain near unanimous support for an apology to all of those harmed by our prior shortcomings in the area of race relations. Not a superficial “white-wash” but a sincere introspective acknowledging past failures. My wife and I and others joined Dr. Land on a bus tour from the King Memorial in Atlanta to the church he pastored in Montgomery to the Civil Rights museum in Birmingham. As we spent the day reliving history we were not proud of I was proud to consider him a dear brother and leader of my convention. He is a serious, Oxford-educated man that treats such matters as they should be. Please don’t assume that all Southern Baptists fit sterotypes. We are a much more diverse group than you appear to assume. Many conservative Baptists were on the ‘right side.’ I am truly sorry all weren’t.



report abuse
 

Chip

posted December 6, 2007 at 1:17 am


I want to agree with the above writer that passing morality legislation is not a high priority for Mormons. A Mormon’s first priority is to live right personally and then with his or her family. Way, way down on the list is pushing to enact laws that force people to live a moral code.
I view Mormons – and I read Mitt’s former public stances this way – as ambivalent about whether and when to expend efforts in the public arena or whether to stick to our knitting and change the world one person and heart at a time outside of the public arena.
Other issues that are related are: the high value placed on free will in Mormon theology which makes Mormons (most of us, anyway) generally hesitant to be telling people through criticism or condemnation, how they should live. (Hopefully, but not always, we do it by example or convey our thoughts when asked.)
Also you have to remember that Mormons have been on the receiving end of the US government enforcing morality during the polygamy period in the late 1800s, during which the US congress disenfranchised the LDS church, took its land, took the vote from Utah citizens (including women who had it even back then), and arrested, tried, and jailed the leaders.
This history gives Mormons a rather live and let live mindset.



report abuse
 

Anonymous

posted December 6, 2007 at 1:18 am


Thatcher brings up a point for Romney that I’d like to expound upon. He mentioned that Romney’s campaign views to get elected in Massachusetts didn’t conincide with his Mormon faith which is correct; however, what he did do and what more politicians should do, is represent the people in his jurisdiction. He was running for the state of Massachusetts, and his campaign views reflected those of the people that lived there. While his personal views have always remained at difference with those of the people he governed, he at least had the professionalism to respect the views of those that didn’t agree with his personal views. Last time I checked, our democracy is a Representative Democracy, and Romney has done gracefully exactly that.
Now, as President, he has an opportunity to campaign on views that share more of his personal views because the country as a whole is more conservative as a nation. He’s always been conservative on the issues, and it should be known has always respected the people he represents who disagree with him. He should be respected, admired, and should serve as a model for other politicians. You have to remember politicians work for and represent the people, so it makes sense that politicians will change the way they campaign. Sometimes we vote for politicians like George Bush (I did twice) who are so straightforward and stubborn, that trying to convince them that they are wrong on an issue (like illegal immigration) is futile because they are right and everyone else (like the rest of America) are wrong. So nothing gets done even when the people want change. At least with Mitt, you have the opportunity that change is possible.



report abuse
 

Ginyer

posted December 6, 2007 at 1:18 am


Since Mitt has been successful in navigating the maze of Mormanisn he may well be the only one who can make sense of our country’s present condition and lead us safely out of danger. I would however not wish to take that risk….prefering to throw myself and mine into the hands Mike Huckabee………………



report abuse
 

WesUnderwood

posted December 6, 2007 at 1:20 am


I have been converted and elevated to the teachings and doctrines of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day-Saints! It is a life style of word and deed! My gift is crystal clear TESTIMONY – I know these gospel teachings about Jesus Christ are very much the same in most Christendom!
1) Jesus is way, the truth and the life, and no man cometh unto the Father in Heaven but by Jesus!
2) Jesus is Lord / Master / Author / Finisher of our faith and salvation – ONLY BY FAITHFUL REPENTANCE & OBEDIANCE to Him as revealed through his Prophets & Apostles and written down as scriptures – “make it so.”
3) Jesus teaches about a pure love (CHARITY) in our hearts to SEE GOD FACE TO FACE that must be focused on continually and practiced in our relationships with family and friends.
4) Jesus teaches about cleanliness and morality (CHASTITY) in our relationships with others as a way to become like the Godhead and acceptable in their presence without rejection or condemnation. “CLEAN AND PURE HEARTS”
5) “CHILDREN ARE A HERITAGE OF THE LORD” – ABORTION IS MURDER AND IS WRONG – THE DEATH OF AN INNOCENT LIVING SOUL!
6) Jesus teaches that we must DECIDE “whom we will serve,” that we can “CHOOSE ye this day who you will serve,” that we are AGENTS UNTO OURSELVES FIRST. “FREE AGENCY” is a well taught principle and nobody can FORCE anyone to believe and live any set of laws, teachings, values and doctrines for personal gain.
7) I could never be a liberal (democrat) approving:
a. Baby killing in abortions
b. Homosexuality (same sex marriage)
c. Socialism – Tax the rich (without fair representation) and give to the lazy and the favored (promotes dependency on the powerful government and opposes empowerment of society)
d. Promiscuous Hollywood desensitizing our innocent children by teaching all the wrong values that destroy the new generation of kids.
e. The demise and destruction of Christianity (which is what this nation is built on)
f. Gun control and no war. Passiveness in allowing harm that destroys us without our defense. Sometimes we must fight evil and kill.



report abuse
 

Robert Thomas

posted December 6, 2007 at 2:33 am


1. Christians believe in the Doctrine of the Trinity, and the Diety of Jesus Christ. Unfortuntely Mormons do not.
2. Christians believe that there is only “one” God. Unfortunately Mormons do not.
3. Christians believe that the Bible is the “only” true Word of God. Unfortunately Mormons do not.
Because of the above and much much more, the Mormon faith disqualifies itself from being part of the Christian religion. People of the Mormon faith serve a different “Jesus” than that of the Christian faith. They may call him Jesus, but he is not the same Jesus of the Bible and the Christian faith.



report abuse
 

Dave2

posted December 6, 2007 at 2:42 am


There’s nothing bigoted about taking into account the absurdity of a candidate’s religious views. I hope everyone here would hesitate to vote for a Scientologist or a Satanist. Well, look into Mormonism and its history. As John Stuart Mill put it, Mormonism is “the product of palpable imposture”, and it’s obvious to anyone who looks into it.



report abuse
 

Ryan Hawkins

posted December 6, 2007 at 4:20 am


All “christian” churches have their dark moments in history. (ie: the crusades, the witch trials, the endorsement of slavery in the U.S., etc.) John Stuart Mill’s quote could be applied to any church’s founders/history.
Regardless of what people think about Mormon beliefs and history – the LDS church today and its members are deeply committed, faithful, patriotic law-abiding citizens who strive to follow the Jesus of the Bible. The LDS church (according to the 2005 yearbook of American and Canadian churches) is now the 4th largest Christian denomination in America.
Mormon theology may be different from traditional christians, but in terms of practicing the “every-day teachings” of christianity, I could not tell the difference between my mormon neighbors and my protestant neighbors. Both possess every christian element of love, charity, humility, patience, and virtue…all the fruits I would expect to see of someone who accepts Jesus as their Savior.
Attempts to label the LDS church as a “cult” (thereby conjuring up images of KKK gatherings and burning effigies) could not be further from the truth.



report abuse
 

Speedzzter

posted December 6, 2007 at 11:12 am


It’s sad that Richard Land is allowing himself to be used as a prop for Romney rope-a-dope on religion.
The “no religious test” provision of Article VI, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution clearly does not prohibit individual voters evaluating a candidate’s intellect, personal moral values and even religious beliefs in the private calculus on whom to vote for. Nor does it prevent any candidate from responding in candor and honesty as to questions on matters of faith or personal belief. It simply prohibits the government from establishing a formal “religious test.” Romney, not being a lawyer or particularly versed in the Constitution, undoubtedly does not understand this material distinction.
However, the apparent fact that Romney is a proud, active member of a aggressive, secretive cult which, inter alia, proclaims all other biblical faiths as apostate and which requires its adherents to adopt a host of heretical beliefs on virtually every essential doctrine of Christianity IS NOT ROMNEY’S CRITICAL DEFECT! Instead, Romney’s flip-flopping and lack of candor ought to give conservative Christian voters (such as Richard Land) strong pause.
Romney’s speech is calculated to evade and mislead. Romney’s evasive non-answers speak more loudly than his carefully-crafted, focus-grouped photo-op speech ever could. How Richard Land can defend an opportunistic abortion and same-sex marriage/homosexual rights flip-flopper like Romney is beyond comprehension.



report abuse
 

Speedzzter

posted December 6, 2007 at 11:29 am


“Attempts to label the LDS church as a “cult” . . . could not be further from the truth.”
That is just total “bull!”
City of Boerne V. Flores Wrecks RFRA: Searching for Nuggets among the Rubble, 23 Am. Ind. L. Rev. 285 (1998-1999), sheds some much needed light on this subject:
“The Mormons are formally known as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Doctrinally, the Mormon religion’s official name is somewhat misleading, in that Mormon theology diverges significantly from orthodox denominational forms of Christianity.”
“Mormon apologists and some secular or secularized religion scholars operating at a higher level of abstraction may argue against the implicit assumption that Mormonism is not merely a divergent denomination within Christianity. Notwithstanding semanticist S.I. Hayakawa’s sagacious observation that definitions are only descriptive about how people use language, see S.I. HAYAKAWA, LANGUAGE IN THOUGHT AND ACTION 155-63 (3d ed. 1972) . . . ., any definition of the Christian faith reasonably based on generally held, orthodox theological doctrines must exclude the LDS cult. Some scholars argue that terms such as cult, sect, and denomination should be used interchangeably. See Cult, in THE ENCYCLOPEDIC DICTIONARY OF THE WESTERN CHURCHES 246-47 (T.C. O’Brien ed., 1970) . . . . ”
“Other scholars argue that analytical precision is fostered by meaningful, exclusive definitions based on the relative level of theological orthodoxy. See e.g., Ronald M. Enroth, What Is a Cult, in A GUIDE TO CULTS AND NEW RELIGIONS 11-24 (Ronald M. Enroth ed., 1983) . . . ; EIDSMOE, supra note 32, at 326-27; Irving Hexham, Cults, in EVANGELICAL DICTIONARY OF THEOLOGY 289 (Walter A. Elwell ed., 1984) . . . . ”
“Systematic Theologian Anthony A. Hoekema suggests nine factors which differentiate cults from churches or denominations:
(1) Cults abruptly break from historic Christian structures and confessions;
(2) Cults build major doctrines around insignificant points from the Bible;
(3) Cults tend to view their members as having superior holiness or advocate perfectionism;
(4) Cults attach significant importance to extrascriptural authority sources;
(5) Cults elevate a person or persons to equal or similar importance to Jesus Christ;
(6) Cults reject traditional Trinitarian formulations of the Godhead;
(7) Cults deny orthodox views on justification by grace, substituting works or combination forms of salvation;
(8) Cults tend to claim that their group is the exclusive community of saved or redeemed persons;
(9) Cults believe that their group will have a central role in eschatology.
EIDSMOE, supra note 32, at 326 (citing ANTHONY A. HOEKEMA, THE FOUR MAJOR CULTS 373-88 (1965)).
Essential Mormon doctrines place the religion squarely within Hoekema’s factors.”
23 Am. Ind. L. Rev. at 290, note 34.
The “problem” with Romney isn’t that he proudly believes in the heretical doctrines of the LDS cult. That just sadly makes him a dupe who has “exchanged the truth for a lie.” The real problems are that he’s an opportunistic flip-flopper and lacks candor.



report abuse
 

WHo do you evangelical are?

posted December 6, 2007 at 11:58 am


Let’s see’ evangelicals believe in trinity! Do you mean that Jesus is at the same time his Father and the Holy Spirit in one Body? Isn’t that confusing? If that’s the case then why would Jesus Christ praying himself. Why is he saying He does’s his father’s will. Why another voice(HIS HATHER) was heard to testify of him at the time of his baptism. Why is the BIBLE say that the spirit Came down in the form of a dove. If evangelicals say that God is spirit isn’t Jesus God? and if you believe that Jesus is God like the Mormon do and you claim that God is spirit Did Jesus Shed His body before He went to Heaven. You evangelicals You think you know everything about the bible why are you confusing yourselves multiply churches, and condemn others thinking you are right Don’t you know that Mormons may consider you a cult also? But they won’t because they respect everyone’s religion. Who Give you the right to judge when the Bible was put together by the Catholic Church. And Who ordained the first Pastor of your religion? Who gave your pastor the authority to act on behalf of God when even the first Pope Who claimed to have the priesthood authority did not exist until all the apostle died. Jesus ordained His apostle and in turn they ordained their followers ie. Paul and others, with the same authority given to them by Jesus Christ.
Now where did you and your pastor get the right to judge which religion is cult and who is not? Where are the other books mentioned in the Bible? What do you think the Catholic Church did whith them if those books were not in their agenda? You Think you know your Bible Soo much from what conduit the Bible came to you from.
I BELIEVE in th BIBLE AS LONG AS IT IS TRANSLATED CORRECTLY AND I ALSO BELIEVE IN THE BOOK OF MORMON WHICH IS ANOTHER TESTAMENT OF JESUS CHRIST. IT IS THE MOST CORRECT BOOK OF ALL BECAUSE IT DID NOT PASS THRU THE HAND OF ANY BODY OTHER THAN THE PROPHETS OF GOD. CAN YOU SAY THE SAME THING FOR THE BIBLE ? Did it come to you directly from the prophets and the Apostle?
You have the right to worship what you may, and I have the right to worship what I may. If you are running for president I could as well say that you are an evangilical therefore you are a cult and I won’t vote for you because you will force your trinity on me.
Jesus is a Separate being from his Father and the Holy Gost, they are three beings but have one purpose, neither one will contredict the other. He told us to be one, as He is with His Father Just Like He told His Disciple to be one. His disciple were separate beings Unless in YOUR Bible it stated otherwise, but he told them to be one in truth and purpose no division among them unlike so many church denominations these days where church is a business profession where people go to college earn a degree to teach the philosophy of men in a so call CHURCH!!!



report abuse
 

Myles Christensen

posted December 6, 2007 at 12:25 pm


There was a very informative sermon given on this issue a few months ago for anyone who is interested:
http://lds.org/conference/talk/display/0,5232,23-1-775-15,00.html
Myles



report abuse
 

Speedzzter

posted December 6, 2007 at 12:29 pm


Of course, there are many well-written and erudite volumes written over the course of the past 20 centuries on the doctrine of the Trinity. Perhaps Mr. Romney and his LDS defenders ought to read a few of them.
But the criticism of the Trinity above strikes me as grounded in the proposition that because some finite creatures cannot intellectually fathom how an infinite God can exist in Trinitarian form that the doctrine of the Trinity categorically cannot be true.
To which, the words of Huck (albeit a very flawed vessel and presidential candidate) may be appropriately quoted as a salient response: “[T]he Bible is a revelation of an infinite God, and no finite person is ever going to fully understand it. If they do, their god is too small.”
Perhaps in the case of the heretical LDS cult, we ought to revise Huck’s quote to read “their gods are too small.”



report abuse
 

Raidy8

posted December 6, 2007 at 12:38 pm


I am sureglad to see we can practice religion how we see fit for ourselves and our families
As the reasoning of cults and the defintion I would have to say that by ways of some of the ideals for cultist that the jew would say Jesus Christ had the same qualities if you look at that list
1) Cults abruptly break from historic Christian structures and confessions;
(2) Cults build major doctrines around insignificant points from the Bible;
(3) Cults tend to view their members as having superior holiness or advocate perfectionism;
(4) Cults attach significant importance to extrascriptural authority sources;
(5) Cults elevate a person or persons to equal or similar importance to Jesus Christ;
(6) Cults reject traditional Trinitarian formulations of the Godhead;
(7) Cults deny orthodox views on justification by grace, substituting works or combination forms of salvation;
(8) Cults tend to claim that their group is the exclusive community of saved or redeemed persons;
(9) Cults believe that their group will have a central role in eschatology
If I look at this list the Jews would say that Jesus was a creating a cult if you substitute God or Jehova for Jesus and judeism for Christian so wow just an observation there.
I also question the authority of this author who is he and what give him the say to thelogy I applaude him for his studies and education however everyone with an education does not make him or her an expert just a an educated person with an ideal?
Thank you for listening or should I say reading just observation and my ideals.



report abuse
 

WHo do you evangelical are?

posted December 6, 2007 at 1:14 pm


Everytime evangelicals cannot answer questions they always try to find comfort under the umbrella that God is infinite an cannot be comprehend an refer themselves to the comfort of a men-made book. Jesus was on earth those who chose to follow Him did not think he his incomprehensible. He is God Go read the Bible!!
1 Jn. 2: 3-5, 18, 20-21, 29
3 And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.
4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his acommandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.
5 But whoso akeepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him.
• • •
18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.
• • •
20 But ye have an aunction from the Holy One, and ye know all things.
21 I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth.
• • •
29 If ye know that he is righteous, ye know that every one that doeth arighteousness is born of him.
Rom. 10: 2
2 For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.
Rom. 11: 33
33 O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!
1 Cor. 15: 34
34 Awake to righteousness, and sin not; for some have not the knowledge of God: I speak this to your ashame.
2 Cor. 2: 14
14 Now thanks be unto God, which always causeth us to triumph in Christ, and maketh manifest the savour of his knowledge by us in every place.
2 Cor. 4: 6
6 For God, who acommanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.
2 Cor. 10: 5
5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;
Eph. 1: 17
17 That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him:
Eph. 3: 19
19 And to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fulness of God.
Eph. 4: 13
13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:
Col. 1: 10
10 That ye might walk worthy of the Lord unto all pleasing, being fruitful in every good work, and increasing in the knowledge of God;
2 Pet. 1: 2
2 Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord,
If we read the scriptures with the goal to learn for ourselves with no ulterior motive, to seek knowledge and not to judge. The Spirit of God will Give us tools we need to know him.
Somr time we are too busy accusing each other we lost the focus.



report abuse
 

TRUTHSEAKER

posted December 6, 2007 at 1:38 pm


WAS THE BIBLE WRITTEN BY GOD?
NO!
WAS THE BIBLE WRITTEN BY JESUS?
NO!
WHO ARE YOU DEPENDING ON TO GIVE YOU CORRECT INFO ON GOD, CHRIST AND THE HOLY GHOST?
DID GOD TALK TO PROPHETS?
THE BIBLE TESTIFIES TO THIS …
IS GOD THE SAME TODAY, TOMORROW AND YESTERDAY?
THE SCRIPTURES TESTIFY TO THIS
HAVE OTHER ANCIENT RECORDS BEEN FOUND THAT DECLARE JESUS IS THE CHRIST?
YES … DEAD SEA SCROLLS … THE BOOK OF MORMON …
COULD OTHER ANCIENT RECORDS DECLARING JESUS IS THE CHRIST BE FOUND IN THE FUTURE?
YES
JESUS IS THE CHRIST, THE SON OF GOD. WE HAVE UNITED STATES MEN AND WOMEN FIGHTING A WAR IN IRAQU, A COUNTRY THAT DOESN’T EVEN RECOGNIZE CHRISTIAITY AND THEN WE HAVE IDIOTS IN THE UNITED STATES THAT ARE FIGHTING OVER THE DEFINITION OF A CHRISTIAN! SHOULD THIS BE THE ACTION OF A CHRISTIAN? I THINK NOT.



report abuse
 

ThorN

posted December 6, 2007 at 1:40 pm


I’m both amazed and appalled at the ignorance and bigotry that still run rampant in the minds of some of this nations so called “Christians”. I had to laugh at the posting of Speedzzter and his obvious disdain for “Mormons”. His views represent all that is undesirable and un-Christian in American “Christianity” today.
He attempts to label Mormons as a cult because in his mind Tony Hoekema is the “authority” on such subjects, but again his ignorance is only surpassed by his shallow thinking.
Let’s examine his Nine point litmus test of a cult…
1. Cults abruptly break from historic Christian structures and confessions.
A. If that is a fact, then the Catholic church is the first on the list of cults, since under Constantine the Nicaean creed broke from the “traditional” view of God and “voted” in favor of the Trinity, which is describbed as being among other things “incomprehensable”. Therefore, even if you accept it, you can’t understand it.
2. Cults build major doctrines around insignificant points from the Bible.
A. Who is it exactly who determines which of the doctrines in the “Word of God” are insignificant? It seems to me that only God or a Prophet could judge that. Is Hoekema or Speedzzter the authority on relevant or important doctrine?
3. Cults tend to view their members as having superior holiness or advocate perfectionism.
A. Excuse me, but I believe it was Jesus Christ himself who said “…Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.” (Matt. 5:48) Does that mean Christ was the leader of a cult? If perfection were not the goal, then I suppose we can surmise that have all arrived and have no reason to try to improve ourselves.
4. Cults attach significant importance to extrascriptural authority sources.
A. In the Old Testament, a prophet by the name of Amos understood that revelation was an ongoing principle, as have ALL Prophets. He also understood that more scripture would come with time, especially during that time when Christ would come to earth to fulfill his destiny. That’s why he told the people that… “Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his sectret unto his servants the prophets.” (Amos 3:7) Does God not have an interest in his children today?
5. Cults elevate a person or persons to equal or similar importance to Jesus Christ.
A. This is nonsense. No serious Christian would ever dare compare themselves in importance to Jesus Christ, the creator and savior of the world. However, Christ himself on many occasions declared that HIS Father was the same being as “Our Father”, and that if we kept His commandments, that we would be rewarded by the Father, becoming “Joint heirs” with Jesus Christ. John himself wrote…”Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.”
Is that just insignificant, or perhaps it’s a “minor” doctrine.
6. Cults reject traditional Trinitarian formulations of the Godhead.
A. And with good reason. The “traditional Trinitarian formulations” were NOT the accepted beliefs of the Christian Church for the first three centuries. Not until the council of Nicaea in 325 A.D. did the church under Constantine change the doctrine of the Godhead.
7. Cults deny orthodox views on justification by grace, substituting works or combination forms of salvation.
A. This is another of the major doctrines, relegated to the status of minor doctrine by uninspired men. James understood correctly the importance of works AND faith, not just lip-service in true Christianity. This great man was personally tutored by the Savior himself, and was taught that “Faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.” He continued…
“Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.”
“Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe and tremble.” (The point being, belief is NOT enough)
“But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?” (Read all of James, chapter 2) It’s obvious that works are an important part of personal salvation, and the obvious reason the Lord gave us the analogy of the “strait gate and narrow path leading to everlasting life, and few there be who find it.”
8. Cults tend to claim that their group is the exclusive community of saved or redeemed persons.
A. Heaven forbid! A group that actually believes they have the truth! This is outrageous! How can we allow such a thing? Grab your torches and pitchforks and lets burn these heritics!
But wait a minute. If I’m not mistaken, Christ taught that he was the way, the truth and the light, and that “No man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” In other words, Jesus Christ taught that HIS way was the ONLY way to salvation. Could we then assume that Christ is the ultimate Cultist by Hoekema’s definition? If that’s the case, let me be the first to proudly admit that I belong to the Jesus Cult.
9. Cults believe that their group will have a central role in eschatology.
A. eschatology: the branch of theology, or doctrines, dealing with death, resurrection, judgment, immortality, etc.
I know of NO serious Christian denomination that honestly believes it will have any “dealings” with any of these subjects other than being affected by the outcome of the same. Christ is the great judge, He alone died for our sins, and He alone will accept or reject our souls based on our adhearence to HIS teachings and commandments. Man’s place in the kingdom of God is NOT determined by Speedzzter, Hoekema or any organized “Christian” religion.
Mitt Romney claims he is Christian. I see nothing in his life that would cause me to call him a liar. He’s apparently honest, openly confesses Jesus Christ as his savior, doesn’t cheat on his wife, has no history of violence or corruption and has promised to lead this nation according to his conscience, seperate from the influence of Mormon church heirarchy.
I for one believe that a man ought to be taken on his words and his actions. I’m glad that such a person as Mr. Romney is running for office. I applaud his speech and his courage. He reminds me of the man I consider one of the greatest presidents ever to occupy the white house… Ronald Reagan.
I’m sick and tired of religeous biggots with mob and witch-burning mentallity still trying to destroy anyone who doesn’t agree with their particular brand of religion. It’s time to leave Salem, and enter the twenty first century.



report abuse
 

WHo do you evangelical are?

posted December 6, 2007 at 2:15 pm


Amen!!



report abuse
 

Speedzzter

posted December 6, 2007 at 4:30 pm


Ah the LDS spinmeisters are out in force . . . .
BTW, the date is A.D. 325, not “325 A.D.” (A.D. is short of Anno Domini (In the year of the Lord). It simply makes no sense appended to the end of a date! Perhaps if the LDS folks believed in an EDUCATED clergy instead of lay leadership they’d be better informed).
I could insert material from the Ante-Nicene Fathers here on the Trinitarian dispute, but when you’re arguing with cultists who epistemologically believe their own latter-day prophets and ersatz revelations (i.e. the Egyptian Book of the Dead, a/k/a the Book of Breathings, a/k/a “Prophet Palmyra Joe” Smith’s “Book of Abraham”) are more authoritative than twenty centuries of doctrinal orthodoxy, what’s the point?
BTW, Mitt’s holy undies can’t save him from his own words today. Far from giving a “perfect” speech, he said:
“Americans do not respect believers of convenience. Americans tire of those who would jettison their beliefs, even to gain the world.”
Uh, Mitt . . . you mean those who would conveniently flip-flop on abortion, same-sex marriage and homosexual rights to “gain” election to political office?
(Not that many those who believe Jesus and Satan are brothers or that “Father God” has a celestial wife pumping out spirit babies are going to mind such inconsistency too much)



report abuse
 

WHo do you evangelical are?

posted December 6, 2007 at 4:57 pm


There is no need to be mindful of people like Speedzzler who’s only defence is to attack with no basis to back their arguments. Who only have hatred against any religion that is different.



report abuse
 

Speedzzter

posted December 6, 2007 at 5:11 pm


Ah, a punt!
And, “Who . . .”, does that mean you now admit LDS is a different religion from biblical Christianity?
ThorN: “I’m sick and tired of religeous biggots [sic] with mob and witch-burning mentallity still trying to destroy anyone who doesn’t agree with their particular brand of religion. It’s time to leave Salem, and enter the twenty first [sic]century.”
It’s sad that biblical (and extra-biblical) theology cannot be debated anymore without resort to such over-the-top rhetoric.
No one is disputing that LDS followers have the freedom to deceive themselves and “exchange truth for a lie.” But they shouldn’t complain so much when their heretical beliefs are displayed in the public square.
I guess this means I won’t be invited to ThonN’s or Who’s planet in the afterlife . . . .



report abuse
 

Sky

posted December 6, 2007 at 6:10 pm


To Speedzzter: If all you have to do is listen so attentivaly to a speech only to find that things where worded in a certin way, you clearly didn’t get the idea of the speech. What is it about people dislikeing Mormons anyway? You say our beliefs are inconsistent. Go to goole, search up BYU FARMS and read all the devotionals given, and you’ll find one to suit your obeseqious ignorant comment on the book of Abraham. Book of the dead?? your a true intellectual let me tell ya! I’m not one myself.
you guy think that God, Jesus, and the holy ghost are one person?? So Christ talks to himself while he’s in the garden atoning for our sins, because that’s where the atonement started, and ended on the cross. God being a man of flesh and bone, and having a spiritual wife, who dose not pop out spiritiual babies, but by the Father collects matter, or intelligence and makes it self aware to existance. Then we become aware of ourselves as literal children of God. Why is it so wrong to believe, that the God head is one in purpose, and Christ created the world by the instruction of his father, and is therefore the father of this earth, while God is the Father of all. O and it even says that Satan, or lucifur is the brother of Christ, check the bible for me, and then check Abraham.
Heretical beliefs?? We believe in Christ as the son of God, and that is all that should matter. Like the other guy said you have no facts to dish out except what you pissy minister says to you on Sundays about how Mormons are evil, when he should be teaching you about Christ. Don’t try and get smart and beat around the bush, and say “he teaches us about Christ, he says that Mormon believe this and we believe this so thats why where going to be saved, and there going to HELL!! Lets not forget that however many people attend the ministers church makes thier paycheck. Thats called priestcraft, Paul says thats the work of the devil, none of the apostles took money, and I can’t remember who it was but I think it was Elisha who saced the king from leporsy and his purpil took the money when Elisha refused it and was cursed by God. Not saying your minister is going to hell because he’s not. That is his livley hood, and he probebly dosn’t really look in on that part of scripture any how. The only way to go to hell is to deny Christ after once having a true testimony, or murder in cold blood, and even then during the 1000 years of the millenia they have a second chance. To me thats more consistent than orignal sin, because they could sin, if they had no knowledge of good and evil untill after they portook of the fruit, it was a transgression, wich is differnt. So there is no original sin, but there is imperfection, and the ability to know good from evil at a certin age, the age of accountability to the law, which is pretty much 8, but I’l have to look that up a little more- about the age thing. O yeah and in Rev.Which you might actually think there will be horses with lions heads and fire comming out of there mouths to display almighty Gods power which we cannot fully comprhend. But if your an intellectual you would know thats not the case. And that where it says “if anything be added to this book, he shall be cursed” or something like that. Rev was not the last book written, it was actually one of the first when paul was imprisoind, and he got out, then he wrote the rest untill his death it mearly compiled in that manner to help the reader to understand the gosple principles.
On Gods unexplainable power, we cannot “fully” explain, or understand, but we can partially. We know the earth was not created in 6 days, or even 6000 years. It took billions of years, but in Abraham and even more vaugily in Genesis, it says he created things spiritually. According to quantam physics, there are different staes of matter, and God being great would dwell with the finer state of matter. Meaning that he could in his own time with these more radical particals create the earth and universe in a spiritual state, and send them out through the other dimensions, causing two to merege causing the big bang, causing the creation of the physical earth. While Adam and eve are on the spiritual earth in the garden of eden, the physical, and imperfected earth has the time to evolve, with ameba and dinasuars, because we don’t know how long they where in the garden. So when they fell from the garden, to earth, it was ready and prepared for them. Now if you know you stuff you’ll understand that there where other huminoids is what I’ll call them, or homo species. This might explain some of the wars that occured so soon after Cain and Able, and eventually, the homo sapiens or humans where the only ones left. Therefore we never evolved we where always in this human form in the likeness of our Father in heaven. Now this is no longer a letter to bash on you, as that is what was in the beggining. While writting, I came to a conclusion, that we both believe in Christ, and this theory I wrote about the earth being created, is not fully Mormon docturine, but my own belief in hope to bring the world to an understanding of how God works. God is a man of Science, who created the laws of science to shape this universe. Nothing is unexplanable but nothing is fully understandable either. So these are my beliefs, and yes my statements to a little ignorance, but I hope I take something away from a response sometime soon. Its funny how it stared political, and became spiritual.



report abuse
 

Sky

posted December 6, 2007 at 6:19 pm


T Butler, We never said, that there wans’t anyone else on the contenent. Yes I spelled it worng big deal. seeing that somany of you waste your time being grammar fanatics.



report abuse
 

Mr. Ed

posted December 7, 2007 at 12:21 am


“And that where it says “if anything be added to this book, he shall be cursed” or something like that. Rev was not the last book written, it was actually one of the first when paul was imprisoind, and he got out, then he wrote the rest untill his death it mearly compiled in that manner to help the reader to understand the gosple principles.”
Paul wrote the Book of Revelation? Who knew?
These Mormon rants seem to make the point well about how unorthodox LDS beliefs are.



report abuse
 

Post a Comment

By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.



Previous Posts

More blogs to enjoy!!!
Thank you for visiting Casting Stones. This blog is no longer being updated. Please enjoy the archives. Here are some other blogs you may also enjoy: Faith, Media and Culture Prayer, Plain and Simple Happy Reading!!!

posted 9:07:21am Jul. 10, 2012 | read full post »

Same-Sex Marriage: Are the People Sovereign, or is it to be the Courts?
On Nov. 4, 2008, the people of California, Florida and Arizona joined the ranks of the nearly 40 of the United States that have outlawed same-sex marriage either by amending their respective state constitutions or by passing appropriate legislation. The three states mentioned above amended their sta

posted 4:11:30pm Nov. 14, 2008 | read full post »

Traditional Marriage Wins Big
Social conservatives and defenders of traditional marriage won tremendous strategic victories in ballot initiatives on Nov. 4. First and foremost, the defenders of traditional marriage overturned the California Supreme Court's legalization last June of same-sex marriage. Despite being outspent nearl

posted 11:35:03am Nov. 07, 2008 | read full post »

America: Fulfilling her promises
All Americans should take great pride and satisfaction in the election of an African-American as president of the United States. Given our nation's tragic racial history, it says something noble and fine about America that Barack Obama, both a product of a biracial marriage and the son of a Kenyan f

posted 2:03:21pm Nov. 06, 2008 | read full post »

The Party Platforms: Instructive Guides to Informed Voting - Part 3
Every year (beginning in 1988) the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission has published a comparison of the two major party platforms to assist Southern Baptists and other people of faith as they seek guidance in the decision for whom to cast their ballots in the presidential ele

posted 1:44:04pm Oct. 31, 2008 | read full post »




Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.