Mitt Romney for President, MyManMitt.com
About Us
Contact Us
Donate to Mitt Romney Campaign

Mitt Romney on the Issues
Videos Mitt Romney
Help Mitt Romney



Founders

  • Justin Hart
  • Jason Bonham

Managing Directors

  • Tim Cross
  • Kyle Hampton

Blogger Pool

  • Scott Allan
  • Jason Bonham
  • Dave Burris
  • John Cordiero
  • Tim Cross
  • Jeff Fuller
  • Aaron Gulbransen
  • Kyle Hampton
  • Maurice Harris
  • Justin Hart
  • Julie Johnson
  • Neal Jones
  • Bill Knowling
  • Mike Laub
  • Devon Murphy
  • Ben Wren
  • Andrew Quinn
Friday, July 20, 2007

If Mormonism is on the table… then get to it already

posted by Justin Hart | 1:45 PM | permalink
Yesterday, Joshua Treviño at NRO published a piece about Romney and Mormonism essentially claiming that religion is not out of the realm of discourse in our public square. He presented his thesis in an appropriate way and he makes a good case.

My only response to Joshua is this: "get to it already!"

Between Hugh Hewitt, Jim Geraghty and others... tomes have been written about whether or not Mormonism should be part of the Romney debate. So, six months into the presidential race I ask two questions:
  • In your opinion, is there a single Mormon doctrine that disqualifies Romney from becoming President?

  • If there is, should that apply to every office in the land?

These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • del.icio.us:If Mormonism is on the table… then get to it already
  • DiggIf Mormonism is on the table… then get to it already
  • Fark:If Mormonism is on the table… then get to it already
  • Furl:If Mormonism is on the table… then get to it already
  • Ma.gnolia:If Mormonism is on the table… then get to it already
  • Netscape:If Mormonism is on the table… then get to it already
  • NewsVine:If Mormonism is on the table… then get to it already
  • Reddit:If Mormonism is on the table… then get to it already
  • Slashdot:If Mormonism is on the table… then get to it already
  • StumbleUpon:If Mormonism is on the table… then get to it already
  • TailRank:If Mormonism is on the table… then get to it already
  • Technorati:If Mormonism is on the table… then get to it already
  • YahooMyWeb:If Mormonism is on the table… then get to it already

Technorati Tags: |


Show/Hide 145 Comments | Post a Comment
 
145 Comments:


1) No part of Mormon doctrine should disqualify Romney from becoming President. However, much of Mormon doctrine disqualifies Romney from receiving my vote. I have read enough about Mormon doctrine and apologetics to have serious questions about the judgment of its adherents.

2) I will evaluate Mormons running for office on a case by case basis, but as I said, they should not be disqualified for any office based on Mormon doctrine. But I reserve the right to question the judgment of a candidate who belongs to a religious group whose beliefs are, in my opinion, disturbingly strange. I hold these opinions about Mormonism independent of Mitt Romney or his candidacy. If I found Mormonism plausible, I suspect I would become a Mormon. But I don't, and I'm not.

For the record, I would also withhold my vote from Scientologists, Christian Scientists, Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Atheists, and Zoroastrians. Basically, if you are not a mainstream Christian or Jewish, you are out of luck.

By Anonymous Aaron, at July 20, 2007 2:40 PM  

I don't think any major voice would argue that any religious doctrine or system of doctrines should -- by law -- disqualify a candidate from office.

In an essay in an online debate with writer Orson Scott Card about whether Mormonism qualifies as Christian, even the Southern Baptist theologian Al Mohler writes that he is "thankful that the U.S Constitution excludes any religious test for public office." But he continues: "this excludes any government test, and is not a constraint upon any private citizen’s electoral decision."

A more relevant question is this: is there any good reason that a person should consider a candidate's religious affiliation of Mormonism in deciding to support that candidate?

I believe there are, at least for devout Christians, and I believe that these reasons can't be simply be shouted down with by invoking religious bigotry. Mormonism is clear in its belief that it is the only true Christian church, but it promotes itself as just another evangelical denomination. Added to this incongruity -- of which Card's essays are excellent case studies -- is the fact that, theologically, both Baptists and Catholics have little choice but to reject Mormonism's claim to be Christian. The likelihood that a Mormon president would give a tremendous boost in the religion's perceived credibility perhaps makes this case different than others.

For a person who is a Christian first and a political conservative second, the Great Commission trumps putting a good manager from our political team in the White House. If a Christian perceives no conflict between the two, good for him, and great for Romney.

But there are good reasons to believe that the two are in conflict, so what are you going to say to those who see those reasons and thus perceive such a conflict?

What could one possibly say? Present politics trump eternal truths? The gulf between Mormon and Baptist really isn't that big? Both are farcical on their face.

By Anonymous Bubba, at July 20, 2007 2:41 PM  

Bubba.
If you will not vote for a man in a SECULAR election because his religion is different than yours, it is the very definition of Bigotry.
---- Sorry you do not like it but that is what it is, no matter how many of your "best friends" are ________(fill in the blank).

By Anonymous GeorgiaMom, at July 20, 2007 2:59 PM  

GoergiaMom:

So I take it you would consider voting for a practitioner of Santeria for US President? How about a Wiccan? A Satanist? Be careful! You might be called a bigot.

By Anonymous Aaron, at July 20, 2007 3:04 PM  

GeorgiaMom, respectfully, I didn't say whether I will ultimately withhold support from Romney, but the concern is not merely that Mormonism is "different", but that it claims to be Christian when it isn't; that it claims to be the only true Christian religion; and that all others, from Catholics to Baptists, are members of the church of the Devil.

It's the blind political correctness of liberalism that embraces all differences regardless of what those differences are.

Sharia law insists on religious intolerance, and that ought to matter to one who upholds classical liberalism. Likewise, Mormonism insists that it is Christian, that it is uniquely Christian, and that all other faiths are false, and it does so from a position that is irreconcilable with historic, Biblical Christianity. Are you saying that shouldn't matter to Christians?

By Anonymous Bubba, at July 20, 2007 3:22 PM  

Bubba, I vote for people based on THEIR VALUES and THEIR Actions.
I seriously doubt a Wiccan or A Statanist shares my VALUES.

By Anonymous GeorgiaMOM, at July 20, 2007 3:28 PM  

Mormons have a proven moral worldview. None of their teachings would effect policy in ANY WAY different than a typical Evangelical.

An Islamist has a worldview of killing people. A Satanist likewise has a immoral worldview. Thus their belief would effect policy and should be disqualified.

I think the sentiments of not indirectly promoting Mormonism sounds strikingly like the era of the start of the country where many denominations would argueing to disallow Baptists from elected office because allowing them to be voted for COULD promote an incorrect (which many viewed at that time) theology.

Well, history has proven that this kind of think is complete nonsense. Likewise this thinking today with Mormons is garbage. It is not going to promote Mormonism, because already anyone who knows a Mormon already think they are upstanding. Are Mormons going to convince more people of this fact? Not likely, but rather a Mormon president would create more enemies.

But why is there reluctance for people to realize that a Mormon could be a good person? That is just odd thinking. Thinking someone is good does not convert them to theology. Undermining someone because of this possibility is anti-Biblical in the clearest way. If it is the truth then why avoid the truth. The truth shall set you free as it says.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at July 20, 2007 3:30 PM  

Bubba, Why DO YOU get to decide what is Christian and What is not?
What about the foot washing Baptists? How about the snakehandlers? What about the Catholics?
YOU need to worry about your soul and worship CHRIST as you see fit and give others that right also.
It is this superior attitude that is so unbecoming a Christain.
Mitt Romney's soul is a matter left to him and God. Your soul is a matter between you and God.
Do not vote against a man who would make your life more like you want it to be because you think you know the dispotition of his soul.

By Anonymous GeorgiaMom, at July 20, 2007 3:33 PM  

Aaron, Bubba-

Neither of you addressed the purpose of this blog. Please answer the question asked: (1) Is there a single Mormon doctrine that disqualifies Romney from becomming President? & (2) If there is, should that apply to every office in the land?

Aaron, you claim to know a lot about Mormonism, that you find it unbelievable & thus lump it into a group of religions that would effectively disqualify a candidate. However, you didn't give any specific reason why. The suggestion that Mormons should be lumped into a group w/Wiccan's, Santaria practitioners & Muslim's is ridiculous. What do Mormons, in particular, believe that should disqualify Mitt? And, does that mean Mitt & Mormons generally should be barred from all public office?

Bubba, you bring up that Mormons believe they are the ONLY true Christian religion. Um, that's the feeling ALL religions have. Catholics believe they are the only true religion and they reject protestants. Protestants say the same. Mormons say the same. Mormons do NOT claim to be a mainstream evangelical faith. They only claim that in governmental policy, they align almost completely.

Your second point suggested that Mitt being President would improve the Mormon conversion rate? This is a silly argument w/o evidence to back it up. Did JFK (the epitome of cool) help Catholics gain converts? Does Harry Reid (Mormon) help Mormons gain converts? There is no evidence to support this supposition.

Bottom line: Both of you totally skip the relevant questions and give vague generalizations that are irrelevant. If you have some real doctrine or practice (specific) that Mormons engage in that should hold them out of public office, give it. Otherwise, your position is little more than irrational bigotry against 5 million Americans.


Aaron and Bubba,

Your arguments are featherweight. Equally good "Christians" as you are supporting Mitt, despite his strange, bizarre, even radical beliefs.

Check out evangelicalsformitt.org and sit through a lesson or two. Here's one paragraph explaining how they manage to support a candidate (yikes!) as talented as Mitt who happens to be Mormon. I doubt they're going to hell for it, either.

Yes, Gov. Romney is a Mormon. We are not. According to the liberal media, this is an unbridgeable gap, and evangelicals will never turn out to support a faithful Mormon like Governor Romney. As usual, the media have it wrong. And they root their error (as usual) in a fundamental misunderstanding about American evangelicals—seeing us as ignorant and intolerant simpletons who are incapable of making sophisticated political value judgments.

In the mind of the heavyweights at EFM, it sure sounds like you two are behaving as ignorant and intolerant simpletons who are incapable of making sophisticated political value judgments. Grow up and go with the best man for the job!


1) Belief in Lamanites (American Indians as Hebrews) and Nephites should disqualify Romney
2) Belief in Gordon Hinckley as a living Prophet should disqualify Romney
3) Belief in the Book of Mormon as a historical text should disqualify Romney
4) Belief in the Mormon temple endowment ceremony as a divine ordinance should disqualify Romney
5) Belief in the Book of Abraham as a translated text should disqualify Romney
6) Belief in an organization that hides its history from its members, hides its finances from its members, and indoctrinates young men and women to pay 10% in order to achieve eternal marriage and receive the signs and tokens of salvation should disqualify Romney.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at July 20, 2007 3:53 PM  

I frankly don't understand the Anonymous comment: does he think that it's been proven that letting Baptists run for office had NO positive effect on Baptist church rolls? I sure would love to see the research behind that, just as I would love to see how not supporting Romney is "anti-Biblical in the clearest way."

GeorgiaMom, I think you responded to Aaron's comment when you were addressing me, at least in part. Briefly:

A) Mormonism is clear that Catholics and Baptists aren't true Christians. Do you go through this "Why do YOU get to decide" routine with Mormons, too, or is it just directed to me?

B) I have said nothing and implied nothing about the disposition of Romney's soul. My concern is about Mormonism, not the spiritual condition of any particular Mormon.

C) Jesus Christ warned against false teachers, and His Apostles taught to reject false teachers. Did they too display a "superior attitude" unbecoming of Christians?

D) I DO NOT question Romney's right to worship or right to run for office. But if I believe that obedience to my faith entails refusing to support his candidacy, you're doing a poor job convincing me that you care about MY right to worship as I see fit.

Seriously, GeorgiaMom, suppose that I really believe my faith entails refusing to support Romney: I haven't said that, but suppose it's true. What your arguments lack in substance they more than make up for in moral preening, so what makes you think you're the least bit persuasive in changing my mind?

By Anonymous Bubba, at July 20, 2007 3:55 PM  

http://www.evangelicalsformitt.org/why.php

Go here to see how these non-LDS folks "rationalize" their support for Romney. As an increasing number of Americans, they've gone crazy for the guy.

He will do more for people of faith (including Jehovah's Witnesses, Muslims, and others you cast out) than any other candidate.

As a side note, in case you haven't noticed, he's the only one in the field (who's competitive) who's even practicing his faith. You guys always seem to forget that. Many of you are quick to support non-practicing Fred or thrice-divorced Rudy over clean-as-a-whistle Mitt. Oh, the hypocricy!


slick-willy, I did address the question, as I made clear that there should be no religious test for public office. The comparison between Romney and JFK is off if only because Catholicism has a pedigree roughly 1700 years longer than Mormonism: Europe's ruling class was almost uniformly Catholic for literally a millennium, and that kinda-sorta matters in this argument.

And, I bet you can name at least ten US Presidents, maybe 20, maybe more. Can you name even five Senate Majority Leaders? How many classrooms have pictures of Senate Majority Leaders along their walls? Tell me again there's no difference between the two offices.

By Anonymous Bubba, at July 20, 2007 4:02 PM  

Anonymous (who listed six disqualifying items):

What about question #2?

If there is, should that apply to every office in the land?

My guess is you'll say yes, but go ahead.


Justin - a bold post.

Bubba - with all due respect, the LDS Church's stance is that it is the only Church that contains a fulness of the Gospel, not that it is the only true Church and all others are false. Furthermore, it has never promoted itself as just another mainstream Christian denomination, only that it is centered on the life, teachings, and most important, the Atonement of Christ. While it encourages church members to share the "good news," it maintains as one of its core values the deference to others to believe and worship as they see fit, granting them full respect to do so. The result is that LDS members often see that they share many of the same values and deeply held principles as their creedal Christian colleagues, and desire the opportunity to work yoke up with creedal Christians wherever the beliefs and values are the same. It is not an attempt to gain outright acceptance from evangelicals, but rather a desire to work together for common causes. In my experience, most LDS who are unacquainted with Evangelicals are surprised and bewildered to learn that the perceived doctrinal differences maintained by Evangelicals rule out any possibility of bonding together on shared beliefs.

I do not want to get into a quibble over which doctrine is the most correct, I do respectfully suggest that the Mormon church you describe is not the Mormon church that is, but rather the perceived Mormon church as taught through the evangelical interpretation of various statements and verses included within the LDS liturgy. I ask that you allow the LDS church and its members to define, both officially and in common word and deed, the practical meaning of such verses, statements, etc.

Cordially yours.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at July 20, 2007 4:08 PM  

I could perhaps say all I need to say by noting that Nealie's argument here is almost chemically pure in its UTTER LACK of persuasiveness:

"In the mind of the heavyweights at EFM, it sure sounds like you two are behaving as ignorant and intolerant simpletons who are incapable of making sophisticated political value judgments. Grow up and go with the best man for the job!"

I do love being insulted and being told that I'm the one who should grow up. Yes, only those who have been tricked by Romney's opponents would ever be reluctant to support him because of his faith.

You guys are so quick to attack that you lose all credibility in trying to persuade. Have you learned nothing from the immigration reform debacle? The Administration gained no allies -- and allienated many who would have given them a honest hearing -- when they attacked all opposition as personally as they did.

What's more important? Attacking the ideas of those who are reluctant to vote for Romney because of his Mormonism? Or persuading these people to change their minds?

The more you engage in the former -- and, by doing so, demonstrate ZERO interest in the fact that these people take their faith seriously -- the more you ruin your chances at accomplishing the latter.

By Anonymous Bubba, at July 20, 2007 4:13 PM  

So, all other Christians supporting Romney have been tricked, eh? Do you seriously belive that? Very funny, indeed!

No attacks intended, amigo. Just responded to your apparent representation of all other Christians. I know many other Christians, besides myself, who support Romney. Those at Evangelicals for Mitt simply articulate their support in an organized way. That's why I passed that along for your edification/education.

Ironically, I opposed the immigration bill--like you and so many other conservatives (Christians and otherwise). We see so much in common. That's the point. Mitt sees things the same way. Just not in religious terms. That should be fine with you. I don't know why it isn't.


Commander in chief, not pastor in chief. Many prominent pastors, rabbis, and other clergy learned that lesson a long time ago and have stated similar statements publicly. You must have missed those lessons in your Sunday School.

I don't mean this in an insulting way. Yet, you've missed that lesson, nonetheless.


Bubba,

What would it take you to persuade you? You don't appear eager for persuasion.

By the way, whom are you voting for and why?

A conservative? Fred? Rudy?


Bubba,

These were evangelicals who stated this:

seeing us as ignorant and intolerant simpletons who are incapable of making sophisticated political value judgments.

They--fellow practicing evangelicals--believe the media and you two are absolutely wrong in your analysis.

I'm not attacking you. I'm presenting the best argument I can come up with about how you can and should (as a believing Christian) vote for Mittt.

If Richard Land and others could vote for Mitt you should not harbor all your disqualifying lists. Keep such lists close to you on Sundays, but lose them on election day.


Nealie, where in the world do you get that I think Christians who support Romney have been tricked into doing so?

In case you missed it the first time: If a Christian perceives no conflict between [his faith and supporting Romney], good for him, and great for Romney.

There are Christians who don't, their concerns cannot be easily dismissed, and those who try to do so, as you have done, are doing your cause more harm than good.

Appealing to matters of temporal politics without dealing substantively with their religious concerns -- e.g., Mitt's policies are good, and that should be good enough for you -- is simply not going to be effective.

Do you think people who have the concern I share here never thought of the political consequences? We have. We just don't think that those consequences trump literally everything.

By Anonymous Bubba, at July 20, 2007 4:35 PM  

Bubba,

I realize I misread your earlier statement about Mitt's opponents being tricked. I thought you had stated Mitt's non-LDS supporters were tricked into supporting him. My mistake.

You're right. Mitt's temporal policies are good and should not trump everything. Yet, under the circumstances, what are your options. If we had an outstanding conservative evangelical in the race, Mitt likely would have no chance. But, that is not the case.

Rudy is no conservative. McCain never was one, either. Fred had a less-than-conservative past and is not a great leader.

I can appreciate how difficult is is for so many to support a Mormon because of the religious factor. However, we've got to come together despite this anxiety and tension. He simply will be the best leader.


So, how do we deal substantially with your and others' religious concerns? Mitt has met with religious leaders and formed several faith-based councils/committees.

He, actually, is best at speaking about faith (because he lives it) than the other candidates. Yet, he's aware enough to not throw his religion onto others. That is not cool and will not be tolerated.


Mitt is willing to do what he can to let all Americans, especially including people of faith (since he clearly is one of them), that he will look out for their best interests.

Please provide suggestions. Justin is a campaign committee type if I remember right. He can pass along your suggestions.


I'm not sure that Romney is entirely free from the criticism of having a "less-than-conservative" past, but let's concede the point.

I think we both agree that it'll be tough for some to support Romney because of their devout Christian and despite his politically conservative platform, obviously tougher for some more than others.

If people look at the alternatives -- Rudy winning the nomination and/or Hillary winning the White House -- and then decide that they're willing to live with that, there's probably not much you can do to change their minds.

I don't know who I'm supporting frankly. I might not be capable of being convinced to support Romney, but I would really respect him as an individual if he said something like this:

"I hope Baptists and Catholics will support my campaign despite our deep theological differences. But if they can't, I'll respect their decision to live out their faith, just as they respect my decision to live out mine."

That might not change my vote, but it would be a helluva lot better than Hugh Hewitt's attempts to bully people, if only because it really would demonstrate a respect for the religious beliefs of others.

By Anonymous Bubba, at July 20, 2007 5:01 PM  

Bubba-

You seem like a nice guy and I would guess you are a good Christian. However, I believe you are misguided and I sure hope you re-evaluate your position:

"But if I believe that obedience to my faith entails refusing to support his candidacy..."

If, on the basis of your religion, you feel morally obligated to withhold your support from Mitt (faithful family man that agrees w/you across the board on moral isses, but disagrees significantly in theology), but allows you to support Thompson (nonpracticing evangelical w/a less than chaste background) or Rudy (nonpracticing Catholic w/no concept of fidelity), you should be seriously questioning your own religious affiliation. Isn't such a moral position intuitively outrageous?

Bottom line: We don't have a good or even a decent candidate w/evangelical credentials. Knowing that, we should select the person w/the best values, experience & ability.


Bubba,

You're right. Mitt flip-flopped. But, he doesn't deny his transformation, either.

Mitt has said he is seriously considering a Kennedy-like speech on the topic. I have always felt that was a great idea!

Of all people, I believe Mitt respects others beliefs and values. Give him a chance. You won't be disappointed!


I interact w/ people of all sorts of faiths (mostly Roman Catholic, several few Protestants, and a handful of Muslims). I respect all their beliefs. I don't try to bully people. It's not my style and it's not nice.

They know I'm a Romney nut. I simply tell them to give him a chance and they won't regret it.


Bubba, Name me a single Christian Denomination that does not think they ARE THE BEST, THE TRUE,THE ONLY CHRISTIANS.
.
I had a Luthern Minister tell me I was going to hell because I was a Catholic.
.
Seriously, you all are faulting Mormons for believing the exact same thing you do, just from a different Pew.
.
You guys need a mirror and some serious time in serious reflection.
Did they stop teaching humility and compassion to Christians?

By Anonymous GeorgiaMom, at July 20, 2007 5:31 PM  

Bubba-

Good idea. I think Mitt would be wise to make such a statement. However, I'd add a couple elements. Here's how I'd do it: (1) ackowledge deep theological differences (2) testify about theological agreements (Jesus is the Savior) (3) mention that in governmental policy, the moral values of the many faiths w/diverse theologies align across the board (4) Thank all religious people for their contribution to the moral fabric of society no matter who they vote for.

As for your other point, if you simply don't believe he is candid in his current positions, I view that as a justified critique of Mitt. However, choosing a lesser statesman to enact our policy because of Mitt's personal theology just doesn't make sense.


There seem to be three types of objections to supporting a Mormon raised in these comments:

1) Mormon's beliefs are such that it calls into question a candidate's ability to think. For an example of this, see the post above (at 3:53 pm) listing 6 beliefs that disqualify a Mormon from being President. The objection is of the following form: If someone is so gullible to believe "x" (which is obviously wrong!), then that person is too gullible to be President (who knows what they'd do!). The problem with this line of argument is that ALL people of faith are subject to this attack. Replace "x" above with "God created Adam and Eve" or "Jesus Christ was resurrected" and you'll see what I mean. Evangelicals should be unwilling to use this form of argument; they'll be forging the sword used against them in future elections.

2) Mormons' belief "x" would lead to policy "y". Policy "y" is bad, so Mormons should not be elected President. There is nothing wrong with this form of argument. Only, no one here has made it. No one has pointed to any Mormon doctrine that yields an unacceptable policy result. What's the policy implication of a belief that the Resurrected Lord appeared in the Americas some 2,000 years ago -- that the US should adopt a flat tax?! Contrast that formulation with a concern about what policy implications a belief in Islam might entail. It's not that Mormons might not hold beliefs that are connected to public policy questions. (Mormon doctrine is that abortion is similar to the taking of innocent life. That might be a concern for someone who wants abortions to be legal in all events.) It's that no one has identified any Mormon doctrine with an unacceptable policy position -- which was the point of the original blog post.

3) A Mormon President would lead to an increase in the size of the Mormon Church. Okay, this is an objection I can understand even if I don't accept it. If you think having a Mormon serving as President, who by example would teach the importance of being faithful to marriage vows, being honest, hard working, etc., is worse than having a thrice-divorced-lapsed-Catholic as President, then we're just going to disagree. (Note: This is separate from the argument that candidate "x" is better than candidate "y", because "x" has a better chance of winning the general election.)


Can one of you more reasonable Romney supporters please explain to GeorgiaMom that berating people and insulting them doesn't actually persuade them?

By Anonymous Bubba, at July 20, 2007 5:49 PM  

Can one of you more reasonable Romney supporters please explain to GeorgiaMom that berating people and insulting them doesn't actually persuade them?

Bubba, I think you already made that point. If she continues to ignore it, she'll be less persuasive than she otherwise might have been. However, in fairness, I don't think she's trying to berate or belittle. I think she's trying to be direct and forceful.

By the same token, I don't think you have intended to be offensive in your posts. However, your first post could be read to say: Mormon doctrine is so offensive I believe it would be immoral to vote for a Mormon. You didn't say that; but what you said could be taken as such. We each bring a lot of personal bias to the conversation (particularly on this topic), which makes it very difficult to write in a manner that cannot generate an unintended result.


I apologize if I berated anybody, I really did not mean to.
But I do know the definition of bigot and I do know the definition of ethnocentrism.
How is calling a brick a brick berating?
I do know something else, every single person posting on this board is a mortal and has no business whatsoever desparaging another person's belief system.
So if you want to say pointing out bigotry is berating, fine.
.
What do we want to call the people who are berating Mitt Romney and 12 million other human beings, who really are some of the finest people on this earth, by calling them "unChristian" and equating them with people who use religion to bring pain and sorrow on this world?

By Anonymous GeorgiaMom, at July 20, 2007 6:32 PM  

Since things have cooled off, I'm going to put up a single self-serving post.

Visit us at NY for Mitt (in Rudy's backyard).

http://nyformitt.blogspot.com/

We are having a great time.


Bubba wrote "Seriously, GeorgiaMom, suppose that I really believe my faith entails refusing to support Romney: I haven't said that, but suppose it's true. What your arguments lack in substance they more than make up for in moral preening, so what makes you think you're the least bit persuasive in changing my mind"
----------
Bubba ---
It never occured to me to try to get you to change your mind. I was simply speaking my mind.
------
I can't imagine a religion dicating you not vote for a GOOD man, who is a GOOD citizen, a GOOD leader, a GOOD Husband a GOOD father, a GOOD neighbor, a GOOD citizen and yes, a GOOD and faithful member of his church.
--------
I guess what I do not understand is why is it the only thing some people object to Romney about is the manner in which he communicates with God.
In this secular and dangerous world it just does not make a lot of sense to reject this man and end up with somebody who will work against YOUR values and the traditions of this country every moment he or she is in office.
------
Does Jesus Christ want this country to be run by folks who embrace the ACLU?

By Anonymous GeorgiaMom, at July 20, 2007 7:01 PM  

The small, gray, sans serif type in the comments is really, really hard to read.

By Anonymous Bruce H., at July 20, 2007 9:14 PM  

Why do so many people of other faiths claim to know so much about my faith (I am LDS)? I find it rather presumptive and pompous when they often tell me what I "really believe." I know what my religion teaches me, and ALL OF IT has only led me to greater happiness, enlightenment, and peace. Please don't tell me what I believe - I think I know my own beliefs. As far as outlandish doctrine, well, almost every religion has some. Do Evangelicals really believe in the miracles of the bible? I hope so, but they can seem incredibly strange when we pause to realize that Christ and Peter walked on water, Moses parted the Red Sea, Elijah called down fire from heaven, the earth was flooded, the Israelites marched around a city for seven days and then it fell to the ground, etc. - wouldn't you be skeptical of a news report citing one of these events? Any person can decide to vote for any candidate, however, I think any rational person should look at the accomplishments and character of an individual rather than citing religios doctrine. By the way the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, in 2005, was the fourth largest denomination in the United States with approx. 5.5 million members. Correct me if I am in error, but I have also heard that it is the fastest growing denomination in the U.S. I guess five and a half million people, in the U.S. alone, don't find our doctrine to weird...


Um, I know I should keep my comments to the subject, but I want to say it to you guys, anyway. It hurts my feelings to have my religious beliefs distorted. Some of the things said here tonight were correct, some were not. People just don't seem to get it. Where are they getting their information from? And, GeorgiaMom, my sister-in-law told me that my children and I were all going to hell. At the time my children were four, three and twins one-year old. I went home and cried. Not because it hurt my feelings, but because someone could actually believe such a thing. And, by the way, there is no way I would vote for Mitt just because he's a Mormon. I checked him out very carefully before I made any decision. I am voting for Mitt because he will be,in my estimation, the best president this country will have had since JFK.
prettybird

By Anonymous Anonymous, at July 21, 2007 12:51 AM  

I agree wholeheartedly with Bruce about the difficulty reading comments.

Joe, to say that "almost every religion" has outlandish doctrine is to indulge in the political correctness of the radical left, which encourages people to embrace unthinkingly diversity for its own sake with no substantive analysis of what actually distinguishes those belief systems. It reduces theology to the realm of taste and opinion and denies the possibility that the theological and historical claims of a religion can be evaluated. It is, ultimately, insulting to devout religious faith.

GeorgiaMom:

"What do we want to call the people who are berating Mitt Romney and 12 million other human beings, who really are some of the finest people on this earth, by calling them 'unChristian' and equating them with people who use religion to bring pain and sorrow on this world?"

THE WORD "CHRISTIAN" SHOULD NOT BE USED AS A TERM OF PRAISE.

I believe C.S. Lewis was right when he warned against the spoiling of the word, in the way that "gentleman" used to mean someone with landed property and a coat of arms and now means little more than "nice person."

He wrote that we must stick to the "original, obvious meaning."

"The point is not a theological, or moral one. It is only a question of using words so that we can all understand what is being said. When a man who accepts the Christian doctrine lives unworthily of it, it is much clearer to say he is a bad Christian than to say he is not a Christian."

At the same time, I can say that Mitt Romney or any other Mormon you want to name may well be a nice person, great to be around, etc., but it would still not be wrong of me to say he's not a Christian if I believe he rejects essential Christian doctrine as I understand it.

Look: pick out another 12 million human beings, suppose that THEY are really some of the finest people on this earth, but also suppose that they deny that Jesus actually existed, to say nothing of His deity, crucifixion, and resurrection. IT'S NOT BERATING THEM TO SAY THEY'RE NOT CHRISTIAN, NO MATTER HOW FINE THEY ARE: IT'S ACCURATE.

Obviously, Mormons disagree on whether they're Christians, but my belief that Mormonism isn't Christian isn't a disparagement of their behavior or their belief system or even the condition of their souls, it's a restating of my belief that their doctrines are so far from orthodoxy that it must be described by some other term.

To say that Hinduism isn't Christian isn't disparaging, it's descriptive. To say that gnosticism isn't Christian isn't disparaging, it's descriptive. To say that Islam isn't Christian isn't disparaging, it's descriptive.

And to say that Mormonism isn't Christian isn't disparaging. It's descriptive. It may be an inaccurate description (which I dispute strongly), but that doesn't make it an insulting description.


It's the public policy stupid. Ronald Reagan was not a devout Christian in the mainstream denominational sense-whereas Jimmy Carter was, but his views on abortion and other issues disqualified him among Evangelical Christians. Abraham Lincoln, widely considered the greatest American president, may have spoken with various references to the Bible and God, but was also not a member of any particular religious creed. Likewise, Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton are known for their carrying of the Holy Bible around with them, but their pro-abortion, pro-embryonic stem cell positions are hardly considered consistent with mainline orthodox Christianity. So what gives about Mitt Romney's Mormon beliefs? If his policy is in line with orthodox Christian principles than leave him alone. As an orthodox Catholic, I fully recognize that some misled Protestant groups consider the world's largest Christian group, a cult-I don't care because I am fully committed to my faith, and because my public policy is correct.

http://www.ststephensgate.blogspot.com/

Steve


Bubba ---
You do not get to decide who is Christain and who is not.
You may think you do and it may make you feel all high and mighty, but you DO NOT.
That book you read and think only you and people exactly like you understand "the correct way" was written by men.
These men see it one way and other men see it other ways.

I simply cannot take seriously a person who thinks they are the only people who are Christains.
---------
Remember, people had lofty discussion about how BLACK people were not REAL people just 150 short years ago.

By Anonymous GeorgiaMom, at July 21, 2007 1:33 AM  

THE RACE CARD, OF ALL THINGS. Beautiful. Just beautiful.

GeorgiaMom, did I miss something? Or where is it writ that I am not permitted an opinion on what Christianity is and isn't? You seem so eager to tell me what I can and cannot do -- this being the second time you've objected to my daring to suggest that (gasp!) Christianity actually has something resembling a coherent set of theological beliefs that include some preclude others -- and I cannot ascertain what gives you the right. You betray a definite authoritarian streak, which is odd for someone who thinks it so terrible that others suggest that words actually mean things.

Your post leaves me to wonder a few things.

1) Is it alright if I dare suggest that Hinduism isn't Christian, or is that just as repellant as suggesting that black people aren't fully human?

(If someone else says that Christianity isn't Hindu, is THAT as bad as saying that black people aren't fully human?)

2) Mormons believe that Baptists and Catholics aren't real Christians, that their baptisms don't count, and that the Mormon church alone is the church that God intended. When are you going to start playing the race card against Mormons and suggesting that THEY cannot be taken seriously, either?

"I simply cannot take seriously a person who thinks they are the only people who are Christains."

THEN YOU "SIMPLY CANNOT TAKE SERIOUSLY" ANY MORMON. That is, of course, if you take your thought to its logical conclusion, and that appears to be asking a lot.

3) You mention "that book" that I read. Did you know that Mormons don't stand behind the Bible as uniquely authoritative? Did you know that they have a whole 'nother book, called -- funny enough -- the Book of Mormon?

It's not just that I see the Bible one way and Mormons see it another way: THEY READ IT IN LIGHT OF THEIR OWN SEPARATE SCRIPTURES.

Jews have their Scripture, and Christians add the New Testament to create their own Scripture. Because Christians add so much new material, I think it's okay to conclude that Judaism and Christianity are two different religions. Since Mormons add the Book of Mormon and other texts to create their own scripture, maybe Mormonism should be considered its own religion.

I'LL MAKE YOU A DEAL: I'll accept Mormonism as Christian the moment it accepts the Bible as its sole authoritative text.

By Anonymous Bubba, at July 21, 2007 2:01 AM  

Geez. You guys should have gone to bed!

Leave the high-level religous debates to the professional apologists. From a practical standpoint, we've got to support Mitt because he's the best guy. His religion is odd, but we've got to get over that. We're re-hashing things that don't matter in this discussion.


Bubba -

Regarding your statement, "To say that Hinduism isn'tChristian isn't disparaging, it's descriptive. To say that gnosticism isn't Christian isn't disparaging, it's descriptive. To say that Islam isn't Christian isn't disparaging, it's descriptive.

And to say that Mormonism isn't Christian isn't disparaging. It's descriptive."

I respectfully point out that the analogy breaks down by including Mormonism in the same group as Hindus, Muslims, and gnostics, because all of these deny the central role of Christ as Savior and Redeemer of the world. When you lump Mormons with the above groups and claim that your exclusion of them as Christians is merely descriptive, you run the risk of offending LDS that maintain as their deepest belief that of Christ as Lord and Savior.

I also think this is the point on which you and GeorgiaMom continue to talk past each other. My take is that Georgia Mom would define "Christian" as one who accepts Christ as their Savior, the Redeemer of their sins, their Advocate with the Father. When you insist on defining Mormons as non-Christians without providing further explanation as to your criteria, you send the message that directly calls in question their relationship with their Savior, and there is nothing that will rile up a Mormon more than being told that they are not a true believer of Christ and his infinite Atonement.

However, if I understand you correctly, you believe that the word "Christian" entails more doctrinal definition than a central belief in Jesus as Lord and Savior. I believe your definition includes and mandates the acceptance of such doctrines (or for the sake of example) the Nicene Creed and its definition of the Trinity, etc. If you insist that the term "Christian" includes all expoundary doctrines adopted by Protestantism over the past several centuries, than you would be technically correct.

However, when discussing the topic with LDS, and when insisting on the non-Christian label for Mormons in general, I would ask that you go a bit further to specifically state your definition of Christianity. This will go a lot further towards reaching understanding, and I hope that there is at least some interest on both sides of this question to seek genuine understanding.

Also, I think you would find that Mormons by and large would be perfectly happy to accept the moniker of non-creedal Christians, although you may now believe that such a moniker defies your definition of the word "Christian" in the first place. My point is that I don't think most Mormons would have a problem disassociating themselves from your strict definition of "Christian." The problem with those like GeorgiaMom is that they do not understand your definition in its fulness (and I am sure I don't either).

Finally, I feel compelled to respond to your statement above that "Mormons believe that Baptists and Catholics aren't real Christians, that their baptisms don't count, and that the Mormon church alone is the church that God intended."

My understanding is that Mormons very strongly DO believe that Baptists and Catholics are REAL Christians because, as I stated above, Mormons define Chrisitianity with limited scope of one's central and personal faith in Christ as Savior. I have never questioned that my Catholic and evangelical friends and neighbors have a deep and sincere belief and faith in Christ. In fact, I have often been touched and positively influenced by that faith. You are right that the LDS church believes itself to be the only one with the direct authority from God to baptize and perform saving ordinances. However, that belief does not entail the corollary that Baptists, Catholics, et al. are not true Christians. Furthermore, the Mormon Church believes that the emergence of protestantism played a crucial and vital role in the eventual founding of the Mormon church, one that is deeply and truly revered. Yes, the LDS Church believes it to be the only one with a FULNESS of the Gospel, but maintains a very deeply held respect and admiration for the truth found amongst traditional Christianity. That is quite different than saying that the Mormon church alone is the Church that God intended.

As asked upthread, I am perfectly content with you being allowed to define your beliefs and the doctrines of your faith without me interpreting them for you. I sincerely ask that you afford those of the LDS faith the same privilege.

Kind regards

By Anonymous Anonymous, at July 21, 2007 9:10 AM  

For those truly interested in the reason why many evangelicals are afraid of supporting a Mormon for anything, it is not doctrinal differences. If it were that simple, we would have seen a major shift over this threshold many years ago.

The problem is the same as it was back when a teenage boy named Joseph Smith claimed to have seen God and Jesus standing on his right hand.

The problem is one of power, influence and most importantly money. All of the mainstream Protestant religions have paid ministries. Allowing a collectivist, kibbutz-like community of Mormons to establish itself in an area where certain Protestant denominations are present is a huge threat to the lively-hood of the local ecclesiastical leadership. Knowing that:

1. LDS Converts will no longer be dropping their donations into the collections plate, writing donation checks, etc.

2. LDS Converts will most likely pay a 10% tithes on their annual earnings on a monthly basis which automatically means that the local branch or ward of the LDS church will be bringing in an exponentially greater sum of money that is actually used to build chapels, take care of the overhead such as utilities and such. This does not take into consideration the fast offerings that are paid once a month which are used to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, house the poor.

It all boils down to money, power and influence. Ministers feel threatened by an efficient construct in the LDS church. Those fears are transfered on to the local parishioners through sermons, activities such as the deplorable use of anti-mormon propaganda as representative learning materials for said parishioners. I still remember all the campus crusades back in the 80's. I remember many of my HS friends telling me about all these movies about Mormons their leaders were showing.

It must stink to have a large congregation of 400-500 members shrink to 200 over three years because many of them are leaving the church disaffected and even worse, joining the Mormons.

So quit all this tap dancing garbage.

Yes. The LDS church considers itself the only true church on the face of the earth. Yes the LDS church teaches that all other religions while having some truth do not have all the truth and are therefore constructs of men and not God. The irony is that although Mormons (yes I am one) believe this, we are open to allowing all men worship how they may without resorting to scare tactics such as anti-baptist or anti-methodist propaganda to instill in the minds of your children the evils of protestantism. LOL that would raise a few eyebrows in church if that were to happen.

The amount of energy many evangelicals spend including those in this forum to force Mormonism away from the corridors of Christianity and making claims based on bigoted propaganda are only fulfilling the prophecy given to Joseph Smith back in 1820, when the Angel Moroni told him that his name would be known for good and evil throughout the entire world. Hmmmm interesting that a 15 year old had such delusions of grandeur that he would actually get that one right.

If you don't like Mitt fine, stop wasting this forums time with your "he is not a Christian and he should stop claiming to be one" mantra.

My reponse, is that you are not Christians and you have no clue what it means to actually be one. Go away. Creedal Christians are just that. A faith based on the creeds of men. End of discussion.


I disagree that Joshua Trevino made a good case, or that it was presented well.I would like to make a comment about the article by Joshua Trevino. The ideas that he had are flawed in several ways. His argument that Mormonism is so strange that it requires examination, has no logical basis. The only people that have a logical reason to want to criticize the LDS faith are the liberals that oppose any Christian becoming President. There is no belief or practice of the LDS Church that is reason to block a candidate from office, and it is obviously so, or something would have been done many years ago.
The argument that all religion must defend itself in the public forum denies the freedom of religion that the founders of this country intended.
Then the article criticized Hugh Hewitt and his book; 'A Mormon in the White House', but part of his criticism involved ideas that the book proved illogical and wrong. Also, part of Mr Trevino's argument was that "there are plenty of reasons for critiquing Romney that have nothing to do with his faith". Apparently, he never read the book. The subtitle; '10 things every American should know about Mitt Romney', is because there are 10 chapters, each dealing with different aspects of the Romney campaign; the criticisms of Romney have been addressed.
I am not suggesting that the LDS faith should be free from examination, but there isn't anything about the Church that would disqualify someone from office. The suggestion that there is, only serves to help the cause of the liberal anti-Christians. If all Christians can't unite behind a good Christian like Romney, then we deserve to get Hillary, just like we now have Democrats trying to ruin the country.


I have sat here for over an hour to read through the many rants on this blog. Throughout it all I am yet to discover ANY SINGLE THING that disqualifies Romney from pursuing the Republican nomination.
There have been typical anti-lds doctrinal issues, but this is ostensibly unrelated to his politics. He believes in Christ as his Lord and His God. He believes in family, in service. He believes in respect and tolerance for others even though he likely finds their beliefs as incredulous as many here find his. He is a good man. He offers more for the American people, and the world, than any other candidate in terms of vision, leadership, experience, family, life issues and so on. Can anyone offer a single reason that believing in modern prophets or ancient texts disqualifies him? No - or they would have in the 50 posts above. Gullibility and suggestibility do not count as reasons - his intellectual and business credentials demonstrate his ability to think critically and analytically. Let the subject rest, and let's talk about what he is doing to make the world better. Please!
Justin - in Australia

By Anonymous Anonymous, at July 22, 2007 6:54 PM  

Well said, mate!

Too bad you can't vote in the upcoming election. You can always immigrate. As you may know, doing so illegally (for example, across our porous southern border) is much simpler than completing the necessary paperwork and waiting, waiting, waiting!

Thanks for your insight.


Not sure why I'm bothering. Even I didn't bother wading through ALL the preceding comments.

For me is pretty much comes down to this: Mormon theology anthropomorphizes the afterlife in a way I find more suited to a middle school fantasy book than a serious religion. Thus anyone who takes Mormonism seriously-- all the talk of becoming like Gods with different planets to oversee-- is really puerile or not bothering to pay much attention to his or her own religion. Hence, in my book, this person is not fit to be President.

By Anonymous Mr. Marleyscone, at July 22, 2007 11:12 PM  

So how exactly will someone's view of the afterlife negatively affect their public policy decisions? What are some examples from Mitt Romney's life that show his views on the afterlife have led him to make wrong policy decisions, and therefor makes him unfit for the presidency?

If you can't come up with concrete answers to these questions, then to vote against Romney because he disagrees with you about the afterlife is sheer prejudice (def: preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience) and religious bigotry (def: intolerance toward those who hold different [religious] opinions from oneself.)

In addition, using religious arguments to exclude someone from a secular office cuts both ways. You've just legitimized an excuse for excluding any religious person from holding public office. You may win the battle, but it could cause you to loose the war.

By Anonymous danwheel, at July 23, 2007 12:16 AM  

Mr. Marleyscone,

With respect, sir, dressing one's biases up in pseudo-intellectual terminology does not make such bias any more credible or any less irrational.

However, giving you the benefit of the doubt on the Mormon view of the afterlife, I would ask you to first have an open and frank discussion with a knowledgeable and faithful LDS about such view to set it in its proper context. Rather than a self-serving viewpoint of imagining oneself as the ruler over many planets, the general LDS view of the afterlife follows is based on the principle that men shall gain immortality and have the ability to both progress eternally and help others do the same. A fair question might be, viewed in its proper light and context, how will Romney's perspective on the afterlife affect his decisions and policy positions as President. That is the legitimate question to be asked and I struggle to come up with a negative answer. If anything, Romney's belief in the afterlife may cause him to maintain a deeper respect for the people he serves as children of God. This, coupled with his belief in an eternal family in the afterlife (which, by the way, is the doctrinal emphasis of the LDS Church, not the planetary rule stuff you suggest), may PARTIALLY explain Romney's dedication to strengthening the American family. Now, at the margin, a strong belief in a vibrant afterlife may make one, all else equal, less likely to fret over global warming and the eventual destruction of our planet. As long as Romney shows a common sense ability to advocate for sound stewardship of the planet and its natural resources without signing on to the Gore madness, I think we have little to worry about in that regard.

At any rate, the above is the best offhand explanation I can provide of how Romney's afterlife beliefs may translate into his policy stances in the White House.

But your comment was less pointed than that, and really amounted to nothing more than saying that you find his viewpoint on unrelated matter X to be juvenile and stupid, therefore he is not fit for to occupy the Presidency. To that I have two responses:

1) Your view of Romney's beliefs in the afterlife seems to be based on the interpetrations of Mormon beliefs given by counter-Mormon evangelical propaganda, the likes of which you can pick up at your nearest evangelical bookstore or receive from your local pastor. Again, while not asking you to adopt Mormon beliefs as your own, I ask you to allow the Mormon church and your knowledgeable Mormon colleagues to define and expound on Mormon doctrines, and to then re-draw your conclusions. As a member of the LDS faith, I would not presume to define your beliefs for you, and I note that the LDS church does not produce materials that analyze or interpret the various and specific doctrines of other churches. Such would be folly, and without pure motive.

2) Romney's track record as governor of Massachusetts, his proven ability to both think critically and lead effectively (both in the public and private spheres), his graduating at the top of his class from the nation's premier educational institution, and his success as a husband and father, all defy your subjective conclusion that because he believes in eternal progression after this life he is unfit for the presidency. Any genuine concern that his beliefs call his judgement into question are more than overcome by the empirical evidence established by Romney's record.

Let go of your religion-based bias as applied to your choice in President. Disagree with Mormon doctrine all you want. Don't misapply your bias to Romney's fitness for the Oval Office. It defies your intelligence.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at July 23, 2007 3:37 AM  

Been out of pocket most of the weekend, but let me quickly address the point made by Anonymous (July 21, 2007 9:10 AM).

First, he mentions that it's not reasonable to group Mormons with Hindus, Muslims, and gnostics "because all of these deny the central role of Christ as Savior and Redeemer of the world." At least with respect to gnostics, that claim is questionable because they thought Jesus pointed to salvation through the hidden knowledge of gnosis.

He writes that by excluding Mormons from Christianity, I run the risk of offending them. Well, so what? I don't think people should go out of their way to offend others, but they should defend the truth as they understand it, even if it does offend others. There are people today who claim to be Christians and who attend church regularly yet ultimately deny either the historicity of the Gospel accounts of Jesus or even the historicity of Jesus Himself. I don't think they're really Christians, and I'm not afraid to say so: the fact they would be offended by my position is no proof that my position is wrong or should be suppressed.

I would guess that the anonymous commenter has a definition of Christianity that would exclude people who deny that Jesus ever historically lived. His definition would apparently exclude gnostics even though gnostics held as authoritative their own written accounts of Jesus' life and teachings. And it would apparently exclude Muslims even though they would agree with him that God sent Jesus as His messenger.

THAT'S FINE. I have no problem with a definition of Christianity that excludes some groups, but I don't understand his defense of Georgia Mom because it wasn't that she was arguing for a more inclusive definition: she was VERY CLEARLY accusing me of being morally comparable to those who denied that blacks were fully human because I had a definition of Christianity that dared to exclude anyone.

But he asks that I explain what doctrines I think are essential to Christianity and thus justify my excluding Mormonism. That is a tough request, especially at the very edges of the border between those doctrines I would include as Christian and those I would exclude, and I don't think it's a request that's germane to this discussion because Mormonism is no where near that border.

I was joking when I implied that Mormonism would be Christian if it only were to affirm the Bible alone as God's uniquely authoritative written word. The chasm between Mormonism and Christianity is much greater, and it begins with one word:

MONOTHEISM.

"Christ" is not Jesus' last name; it is His title, and it doesn't simply mean "Redeemer." It means the JEWISH Redeemer, the promised Messiah. The central feature of Judaism that distinguished it from its ancient neighboring faiths -- and an essential feature of its doctrinal character -- is monotheism, and I do not see how a person can affirm that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah (i.e., the Christ) while denying that first major tenet of Jewish doctrine.

The anonymous writer would have me refer to Baptists and Catholics as "creedal Christians" and Mormons as "non-creedal Christians", but it's not as if Mormonism disputes only the details of the Nicene creed: it disputes the first phrase of that creed.

"We believe in one God."

I believe a more accurate designation would be to call Baptists and Catholics "monotheistic Christians" and Mormons "polytheistic Christians", but there's a problem:

Calling a Christian monotheistic is redundant, and the term "polytheistic Christian" is as internally contradictory as calling something a "three-sided rectangle."

By Anonymous Bubba, at July 23, 2007 7:42 AM  

I see that the last anonymous commenter insists that Mormonism be examined only from Mormon writers: all information from non-Mormons is inherently anti-Mormon propaganda.

A clever move: examine Mormonism all you want, and if you don't embrace it, you can't communicate what conclusions you've drawn without YOURSELF being guilty of writing propaganda, no matter how fair and objective your analysis may be. Those within Mormonism are permitted to work collaboratively to argue for their faith, but those on the outside must work alone or be guilty of indulging or creating propaganda.

Clever, but this argument would be more persuasive if the writer put some teeth to the claim to afford other faiths the same defensible ground. He writes, "I would not presume to define your beliefs for you, and I note that the LDS church does not produce materials that analyze or interpret the various and specific doctrines of other churches."

But note that he does absolutely nothing to disabuse the notion of his Mormon colleague Douglas J, who just hours earlier wrote that Christians are arguing in bad faith, that our problem with Mormons has nothing to do with theology -- because we haven't seen "a major shift over this threshold many years ago," whatever that means -- but is instead political: a fight over "power, influence and most importantly money."

He then has the gall to lie transparently, to write, "we [Mormons] are open to allowing all men worship how they may without resorting to scare tactics such as anti-baptist or anti-methodist propaganda to instill in the minds of your children the evils of protestantism."

He writes this while accusing Protestants of having the worst possible motives and of arguing in bad faith, and, still, the Anonymous Mormon doesn't tell his brother in faith to let Baptists and Catholics define themselves for him.

By Anonymous Bubba, at July 23, 2007 8:12 AM  

C.S. Lewis has explained: "The command Be Ye perfect is not idealistic gas. Nor is it a command to do the impossible. He is going to make us into creatures that can obey that command. He said (in the Bible) that we were 'gods' and He is going to make good his words.

C. S. Lewis, an individual whose genuine Christianity is virtually undisputed: "It is a serious thing to live in a society of possible gods and goddesses, to remember that the dullest and most uninteresting person you can talk to may one day be a creature which, if you sa[w] it now, you would be strongly tempted to worship." 17

By Anonymous Anonymous, at July 23, 2007 8:58 AM  

I believe that first quote is from Mere Christianity, the short book in which eleven chapters (a fourth of the book) was devoted to explaining the essential Christian doctrine of THE TRINITY.

C.S. Lewis was no polytheist, and your laughable attempt to suggest otherwise in the face of the actual context of what he wrote does not endear me to the scholorship of Mormon apologetics.

By Anonymous Bubba, at July 23, 2007 9:21 AM  

Again, though this doctinal-squabbling dialogue is entertaining, it is taking us nowhere w/ respect to Mitt.

Since no morally impeccable Christian--evangelical, Roman Catholic, or someone else determined acceptable by American Christians--is running for office, we're left w/ Mitt. He's got an unusual faith, but he at least believes in it and his life reflects that belief system.

He should make statements to ease the minds of other believers. But, those waiting-for-Mitt's-speech believers will still have to overcome a fair amount to vote for him. Let's work toward making the gradual steps. What is needed, in addition to a JFK-styled speech to bridge this gap so Christians will be increasingly willing vote for our man Mitt?


Entertaining squabbling, Nealie?

It's clear from your comments here that advocating for Mitt Romney is far more important to you than questions of eternal doctrinal truth. I'm not going to try to change that, but I don't see the need for you to ridicule those who disagree with your priorities by trivializing their religious beliefs.

By Anonymous Bubba, at July 23, 2007 9:58 AM  

To me it is an interesting squabble.

I've taken the time in the past to digest and reconcile the religious points you guys are discussing ad nauseam. I hope it's beneficial for all of you, but it ain't for me.

In my opinion, we're now way off topic. Look at the original two questions: they both relate to Mitt. Question #2 hasn't been addressed at all.

I never intend to ridicule. I'm just hoping for more constructive conversation. I only proposed that you guys discuss Mitt's outreach options.

You suggested earlier for Mitt to give a speech including respect for other faiths. I agreed with you on that. What else should be done? What steps are necessary to aid those opposed to Mitt on religious terms to give him a shot for their vote?

You criticized me yesterday for failing to persuade. What type of persuasion do I (and Mitt) need to do that will make even a marginal difference?

I'm not convinced that what I call "squabbling" will do any good with the real matter at hand: the Presidency of the United States of America.


Bubba,
I have no idea what relative importance Nealie places upon his faith and his politics. That being said, I suggest you do not either. This is a political blog, not a religious blog. If you have a religious blog, I would love to be invited so that I might discuss the CoJCoLDS (that is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints) with you.
For you and me, I think it is quite clear we are more interested in the great religious questions that surround society than in the great governmental policy and political questions that are also important within this society. That being said, I believe that people of faith MUST be able to live in the world without being of the world. When you purchase a new TV, you do not shun the salesperson because his Christology is off. This is Nealie’s point and the point of his blog post. I do not believe it is warranted to draw a conclusion from this point that theological questions are less important than political questions.
What aspects of Romney’s Christology, Soteriology, or … effect his politics such that he should not be supported by those who reject his theological positions. I really can see nothing that should be any more disqualifying for Romney as he makes policy decisions than for the one who sells TVs.
I will add some more thoughts hopefully later.
Thanks, TOm

By Anonymous TOmNossor, at July 23, 2007 11:48 AM  

On the motivations of critics of the CoJCoLDS:
I think Bubba was rightly concerned with the suggestion that critics are primarily or even largely motivated by power/money.
I have issues with the mischaracterizations of my faith regularly perpetrated by critics. When these folks should know better, I wonder how they justify such excesses. Some actually argue that such incomplete presentations of LDS thought are appropriate since the most important thing is to steer folks away from the CoJCoLDS. Such critics engage in “boundary maintenance” at the expense of actually reaching out to the LDS they find to be theologically on the wrong path. This is frustrating to me as I see it as “bearing false witness.”
That being said, a large number of critics of the CoJCoLDS who I have gotten to know are sincerely convinced that the Church is not what LDS claim it to be. Some of their facts are surely inaccurate, but they are concerned in appropriate ways.
I think it is important to not demonize our theological “opponents” if we hope to have real dialogue.
Thanks, TOm

By Anonymous TOmNossor, at July 23, 2007 11:56 AM  

Tom,

Thanks for your comments.

I actually think spiritual or theological questions are much, much more important than political ones. I practice my faith (particular brand name is immaterial) as well as I can. Actually, I like most could do better, but I try.

Yet, in this political context Mitt's faith (outside his personal moral strength) should be out of bounds.

My earlier pleas attempted to re-direct the conversation to constructive dialogue. What can be done to aid those who deeply protest (and should if these are their convictions) Mitt's faith, but seem his as the most able, more leader?


That should have end with "see him as the most able, moral leader." I really blew that final sentence.


On a few theological questions (after all, I am more concerned with theology than politics):
I will start and finish with a statement that theology should not be the issue for evaluating a Romney candidacy. As a LDS I seriously considered McCain, and he would have been my second choice had he not fallen so spectacularly.


First, it should be noted that the CoJCoLDS does not have professional theologians as leaders. This IMO is somewhat positive. Hard to measure (but more important) things like capacity to love and spirituality are valued above theological learning. (I would not suggest that spiritual and loving theologians are absent in either the CoJCoLDS or in non-LDS Christianity, I only suggest that the absence of theologian-leaders is a truth within the CoJCoLDS that is not inherently condemnable). The result of this lack of theologians is a lack of “official theology.” Within the CoJCoLDS there are many different ideas.

Second, I want to emphasize that I find the CoJCoLDS to be the most reasonable read of the Bible and historical evidences (both ancient history in Judaism, Early Church history in the Old World Christian churches, early LDS history –with all its warts-, and even early Mesoamerican history). I however believe that one can develop a relationship with Christ outside of the organization of the CoJCoLDS (and one can fail to develop a relationship with Christ within the CoJCoLDS). It is thus most important that one come to know Christ as their Savior. My theological discussions are responses to criticisms (like here), attempts to uplift through commonality, or attempts to offer more to those who are seeking greater truth.

On to some theology:
I am a Social Trinitarian. I have read from authors like Ostler, Paulsen, and … who have h