An earlier post I had…Caused some confusion so let me be clear…
If Mitt Romney is the nominee, I will vote for him because he is pro-life…if given the choice between Mitt and Rudy…easy choice….Mitt gets my vote…
The problem I think Mitt has is he has flip flopped on issues (much like Reagan and Bush 41 did, as well as John Kerry) …I also believe and know many in the south that don’t vote with their heads but with their hearts…and they would not vote for a mormon…while I feel comfortable with a Christian in office…I WOULD MUCH RATHER HAVE A PRO-LIFE ATHEIST AS OPPOSED TO HAVING A PRO-CHOICE CHRISTIAN…Get where I’m going with this…I support Mike not because he is a Baptist Minister but because he is very pro-life and Clintonesque as a politician i.e. very smooth…And because of the I think he could get elected…not because we have the same theology…I vote for a commander in chief not a pastor in chief …Any Questions?
November 28th, 2007 at 11:59 am
Yes, I have a question: If you’re going to make a front page post, would you calm down first?
November 28th, 2007 at 12:07 pm
Sorry…haha…I did it for emphasis…
November 28th, 2007 at 12:24 pm
I don’t buy it. Rett, you are making excuses which are thinly veiled. Which is what the Hucksters are going to do now… they will say everything they can to conceal their innate bigotry of a fellow Christian religion. They are zealots from the pulpit and from their anti-cult classes which have been inbred and ingrained for centuries. It’s like an Aunt of mine born in the 20’s – she can’t help define everyone she meets by their skin color. This post makes it clear. Hucksters, including Huck himself, can’t help inciting bigotry. It’s playing the Religion card but then trying to pretend you aren’t.
http://www.mymanmitt.com/mitt-romney/2007/11/huckabee-encouraging-discrimination.asp
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NmFhZjcxNDRhY2RjZTkxYzhmNjAzODI1MTlhMWFmNjg=
What will Huck say against Hillary if that day were to ever happen, “I’m a man, therefore I should be president”?
Timotheus says it all:
“The use of religion by Huckabee to promote his political aspirations is extraordinarily opportunistic and despicable. What is Huckabee going to do when he is running against Hillary, run an ad with the tag line in the background, “Male Leader?” Or what about if he runs against Barack Obama, is Huckabee going to have a tag line that says “White Leader?” There are some differences that just should not be contrasted. Huckabee’s playing of the religion card is one of those examples. I don’t like it and I don’t think it is becoming of a presidential candidate.”
November 28th, 2007 at 12:30 pm
Nice post Rett, I agree with most everything that you said but I don’t think that Reagan & Bush 41 & Romney’s flip flopps are anything like Kerry’s.
Setting religion aside, values are our common ground as social conservatives. How can anyone expect social conservatives to agree on faith? They can’t, but we all can agree on certain values such as being pro-life.
November 28th, 2007 at 12:42 pm
Yeah, Rett. You’re normally a pretty thoughtful guy. I’ve thought you’ve produced the best overall batch of post’s here over the last few weeks. The CAPS make you sound deranged.
November 28th, 2007 at 12:48 pm
Mitt Romney is pro-life.
Huckabee is a tax raising, big government, false conservative.
November 28th, 2007 at 1:09 pm
As a Christian, I believe that my alegiance to Jesus Christ, the true Jesus Christ of the Bible is more important than even my country which I love. I have studied Mormonism is seminary and have spent countless hours talking one-on-one over the years with Mormon missionaries. It is a false cult that is anti-Christ. “Anti” in the Greek means not merely against but “instead of”. The false “Christ” of Mormonism is not the same Jesus Christ of the Bible. That is my sincere informed religious conviction. Now, if you guys want to tell me I am a bigiot because I out of conviction to my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ will not and can not vote for a Mormon that is fine. If you you want to tell me that I am going to jeapodize the unity of the Republican party that is fine. If you tell me that I might even hurt my candidate that I support that is fine. I well tell you the truth, and I am not mad, I am just being gut level honest with the readers, that out of my deep felt religous convictions, I will not vote for a Mormon but will vote third party or independent if I have to. I am a committed Reagan conservative loyal Republican. But there are some things I won’t do, and there are some lines I won’t cross because of my convictions. The same convictions that make me a strong religiouis conservative without compromise, are the same convictions that will not let me vote for a Mormon. So I say you call me bigioted or take me out back and burn at a stake if you want to, I am not going to vote for a Mormon because I know more about Mormonism than the average Mormon and (while not the Anti-Christ that is yet to come probably out of Rome) it is clearly the spirit of anti-Christ and out of alegance to my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ I will have no part of Mormonism or voting for a Mormon.
November 28th, 2007 at 1:20 pm
Rett, this statement: “I also believe and know many in the south that don’t vote with their heads but with their hearts” is offensive. Is it only barefoot rednecks who don’t use their heads?
Sherwood,
Would you have the same problem voting for jews, who believe Christ was a heretic, or muslims, who believe Jesus was a prophet but nothing more?
And just what to you consider to be at stake if a mormon becomes president? There are already mormons in congress.
November 28th, 2007 at 1:24 pm
Sherwood Haisty, Jr. :
What then is your opinion of Bob Jones III & Paul Weyrich? I give you the benefit of the doubt that you’ve studied things, but are not these two Evangelical brethren well studied also?
Assuming that they are well studied as you are, how do you think Jones & Weyrich reconcile faith differences? I don’t think they do reconcile differences of faith. I think they are looking beyond faith to the common values. I can see the sense in their endorsements of Romney.
What is mind boggling to me is the Pat Robinson endorsement of Rudy. In that situation there are both value and religious differences.
People of differing faiths need to work together to achieve common goals based on common values, and working with or supporting a person of a different faith should not be construed as an acceptance of that faith.
November 28th, 2007 at 1:26 pm
Sherwood,
Would you vote for a “christian” who lives an unchristian life over a mormon who might just live a life based on christian principles?
I think your lack of reasoning is more alarming than your bigotry.
However, I respect your decision. But just remember that the problems we face affect everyone, not just christians and i think voting for the best candidate to solve these problems is the way to go.
Whether its Rudy, Mitt, McCain or Huck let the best candidate win.
November 28th, 2007 at 1:31 pm
Feltcher, good questions on #7. First of all, I do see Mormonism as different for two main reasons. #1. They do set forth a different “Jesus Christ” and as I said before, the fact that their “Christ” is “anti” or literaly “instead of” the true Christ, that posses a special problem for me. The Jews or Islamics do not put forth a false Christ as the Mormons do. They just reject that Christ is God. To be sure, as a Christian that is also a problem for me too. I would not feel comfortable with and President who were not at least a professing Christian. See the words of our first Supreme Court Justice John Jay, who said that we should only elect Christians to office. Also consider the requirements to hold state office in the first thirteen states. They all required that a person holding office had to be Christian. This stayed in place well after the Constitution. #2 Mormons are very aggressively promoting their faith unlike Jews. They are agressively evangelistic and the Mormon missionaries that go over my town door to door would find in Mitt Romney a case to suggest that Mormonism is respectable as another form of Christianity that Romney says it is. A Romney Presidency would lend world wide crediability to the false cult of Momonism. In effect, I think Romney would be the best thing for Momonism since Donney and Marrie. He not they openly evangelize, but they are good will ambasadors for Mormonism and the impact would be harmful.
November 28th, 2007 at 1:53 pm
“I support Mike not because he is a Baptist Minister but because he is very pro-life and Clintonesque as a politician i.e. very smooth…And because of the I think he could get elected…not because we have the same theology…I vote for a commander in chief not a pastor in chief ”
what does being pro life nad clintoneesque have to do with picking a good commander in chief?
Any saying that him being “clintonesque and sooth” as a reason to support someone is ridiculous as well. are these your real reasons?
November 28th, 2007 at 1:57 pm
Sherwood – I wonder what Seminary you attended. I attended the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, KY and while I agree with your analysis of Mormonism I find you to be a bigot for ruling someone out in a secular position based on their religion. This is not the place for a Bible study but I believe you are 100% wrong in your opinion and bigotry and believe you are doing all Evangelicals a disservice by throwing your bigotry out there.
Your allegiance to Jesus Christ, my Lord and Savior, does not predicate you from voting for someone in a secular position who does not share your faith system.
You are blatantly wrong, IMHO.
November 28th, 2007 at 2:07 pm
Sherwood:
Sounds as if the problem you have with Mormons is that they have a different understanding of Christ than what your faith has. All faiths claim to have the “true” gospel, I can’t imagine a faith that would not make that claim. All faiths have differences of beliefs else there would not be different sects or faiths.. All faiths evangelize to one extent or another, why should Mormons be any different?
Mormons accept the bible, they don’t accept declarations of Nicea or the other declarations since then. They are non-biblical. It is from these councils that the Trinity or nature of God was established after much debate. T
It is also my understanding that many “Christian faiths” themselves cannot agree on the nature of God. Take for example the East & West Orthodox churches. Around year 600 or so, the West orthodox church came up with new doctrine relating to the Trinity and the holy spirit after the declaration of Nicea. The Western Orthodox church started believing that the Holy Spirit could come from both the Father & the Son whereas the Eastern Orthodox church maintained that the Sprit could only come from the Son. This disagreement led to wars and bloodshed. Notwithstanding those differences, both Easter & Western churches are accepted as Christian.
It is my understanding that Mormons believe in the Father & the Son & the Holy Ghost, but they have a different understanding as to their nature. They are not Trinitarians. I don’t think such a belief warrants exclusion by definition from Christianity or even exclusion from office or the seeking of office..
November 28th, 2007 at 2:12 pm
Thank you Sherwood for your response. I have to say that the evangelical part of mormonism was unknown to me before just a few weeks ago and I then understood why some find that problematic.
November 28th, 2007 at 2:22 pm
sherwood and others: i have a related question i have always wondered about. i’m sure there is a wikipedia or webster’s definition. but what really makes a group a “cult”? do small evangelical groups count as cults? are jews a cult? it seems that it is a slur adopted by evangelicals, mostly reserved for Mormons. i think that to simply dismiss a religion by calling it a cult is a lazy way of expressing yourself.
November 28th, 2007 at 2:24 pm
Sherwood, just because we don’t believe that the Father, The Son and the Holy Ghost are one being, you are throwing the religion under the bus. The Nicean creed was a great compromise of different beliefs. What the Nicean creed established was a man-made compromise of spiritual beliefs. As long as you realize that this is the basis for your beliefs about the nature of deity, I can accept your assertion that Mormoms beleive in a different Jesus.
November 28th, 2007 at 2:25 pm
Huck’s true colors are found in today’s article from Yahoo News:
http://brownbacker.com/?cat=23
November 28th, 2007 at 2:31 pm
joe c:
“but what really makes a group a “cult—
He who controls the definition of terms always wins the argument. The real problem with differing faiths is how they define certain things, they can’t agree to the same definition of these terms. Since they can never agree, I think those of faith should focus on values. Values are the similarities which can bring social conservatives together to form a strong coalition.
I’ve seen many different definitions of the word cult. Problem is that when this same cult criteria is applied evenly and fairly, you’ll soon discover that the early Christian church fits that definition!
Religionists need to not fight over religion, we need to stop smearing each other with names such as “cult.” We have bigger more important battles to fight then the petty differences amongst ourselves.
November 28th, 2007 at 2:32 pm
Feltcher, you mean you’ve never had Mormon boys knocking on your door before? Or heard of that? You must live in an isolated area.
November 28th, 2007 at 2:34 pm
The difference is, these snoopy and judgmental Mormons knocking on our doors now want the full force of governmental executive force behind their designs for changing our families.
At a bare minimum, that’s how a Romney campaign would be perceived.
November 28th, 2007 at 2:35 pm
I am sick of the media thinking the world revolves around Evangelicals. How about an article about the danger of Huckabee not getting the Mormon vote (Jewish vote, Muslim vote, etc) because he is a zealous and outspoken Baptist preacher whose theology clashes with these voting segments.
November 28th, 2007 at 2:38 pm
I think the jews killed Jesus because they considered he was fostering a cult. Jews, in turn, were often persecuted as a cult. Jews lived in their own areas (ghettos), they had their own stores, and were seen as having no allegiance to the particular country they were in. I think many people, not just evangelicals, view mormons in the same way as some used to view the jews.
November 28th, 2007 at 2:39 pm
MR – what makes Mormon missionaries snoopy and judgemental? you’re welcome not to answer your door if they knock. i dont mind people coming over if they want to talk, i like a good discussion.
November 28th, 2007 at 2:57 pm
Sherwood:
You mentioned,
“I am not going to vote for a Mormon because I know more about Mormonism than the average Mormon…”
This is a rather interesting rationale when deciding to vote or not vote for a candidate.
While it may be true you know more about Mormonism than the average Mormon, I would like to inform you of the average Mormon’s experience so you can conclude if this is indeed a true statement.
1) Attend 3 hours of Mormon church every Sunday
Religion courses are required at church schools. (14 credit hours)
2) Attend Mormon Youth Group once a week
3) Hold Family Home Evening every Monday night to teach the family about the gospel
4) Personal daily prayers and scripture study
5) One hour Mormon Seminary every school day for High School students
6) Two year Mormon mission. (About 2.5 hours are spent studying every morning.)
7) Weekly Mormon Institute courses for young single adults
9) Each member has a calling in the church. Thus, they are instructors, youth group leaders, clerks, etc, etc. They do this voluntarily without pay.
10) Make monthly visits to teach and bless families within the congregation.
11) Attend firesides, devotionals, General, Stake and Ward Conferences, etc, etc…
The list can go on and on. If you’ve done equivalent to this, boy…hats off to you.
November 28th, 2007 at 3:01 pm
That list sounds awfully cult-like to me.
Might want to find a better line of argument.
November 28th, 2007 at 3:18 pm
Have you seen the latest polls out of South Carolina? Mitt is doing awesome there! When people get to know him it’s not a question of “Would you vote for A Mormon?” it’s “Would you vote for THIS Mormon?” and the answer for most will be YES!
November 28th, 2007 at 3:36 pm
MetroRepublican,
For the longest time I actually thought you were simply anti-Romney. Unfortunately, as we get closer to actually casting votes, your anti-Mormon scree becomes more and more pronounced.
While you may have decent ideas and arguments, your vitriol has chased most away from considering your points. You have made yourself irrelevant.
November 28th, 2007 at 4:18 pm
I have serious theological difference with pretty much every politician running or that has ever run. I’m SDA so I pretty much don’t have any politicians currently in office. ( I guess we have a couple SDA congressmen) so I wouldn’t be into politics if I was voting based on theology. That said I think faith is a relavent issue as it effects everything about a person’s worldview. However, just becasue I have serious theological disagreements with someone doesn’t mean that I’m going to have serious political disagreements with them, we may come to the same basic conclusions politically without having the same belief.
Those who don’t think they could vote for a Mormon should ask themselves, what particular political belief that the Mormon would have because of being Mormon do they think would be harmful. I figure being Mormon will influence them to work hard, and means they will have greater concern for the familly. Now the downside to Mormonism is such theological differences as the fact that they believe in the Book of Mormons, don’t believe in the trinity, and there’s probably other theological differences. However, I know of no bill in congress dealing with those theological issues. I suppose if I actually had someone to choose who I could agree with completely or near completely on theology I might think that was a slight advantage, but hardly. As it stands now I vote for people who believe in eternal hellfire, which I find to be terrible doctrine ( and one not supported biblically) so I don’t see any problem voting for someone with a little more theological difference. The hellfire doctrine actually even has some bad ethical implications, if one can believe God could be so cruel and unjust, what is their concept of cruelty going to be, however, since allmost everybody seems to believe the doctrine I don’t really have much choice.
BTW, An advantage to having a Mormon in office would be that I think they would be more sensitive to religous minorities and issues that they face. Someone from a religous minority is also more likely to be in favor of Religous freedom because they Know that if there is not religous freedom it is only a short matter of time and they will be the persecuted. The concept of Religous freedom was actually encouraged in America by people who probably would have been considered cults of that time or even cults now.
November 28th, 2007 at 4:19 pm
Though Romney is not my first choice, I consider his Mormonism a plus in his favor, and I’m not Mormon.
November 28th, 2007 at 4:31 pm
Good points John..
November 28th, 2007 at 4:40 pm
What possible relevance is there of one’s opinions on the details of the trinitarian nature of some supposed supreme being to the question of who can best protect the country from enemies, foreign and domestic, or who can best administer a vast federal bureacracy, or develop wise policies to address the real problems faced by our nation?
This touches on what seems to be to be a rather large contraction amongst conservatives.
The very people who most loudly proclaim their belief in a limited government, also seem compelled to imbue the position of the chief executive of that government with a status approaching that of a spiritual leader.
The president is an employee of the people, hired to do an entirely secular job. Why do some of you want to make him/her into something so much more?
November 28th, 2007 at 5:03 pm
Pollster.com has an excellent chart site, summary of all major polls for South Carolina, just updated yesterday and it doesn’t completely agree with Rett’s conclusions. A picture is worth a thousand words:
http://www.pollster.com/08-SC-Rep-Pres-Primary.php
November 28th, 2007 at 5:04 pm
Sherman:
Despite the time you’ve spent studying my religion, there may be a few things you could learn. The term “cult” is a derogatory term that people apply to religions they don’t agree with, but doesn’t add any light to the discussion. For more understanding, please read:
http://www.romneyexperience.com/2007/06/28/is-mormonism-a-cult-part-i/
You also claim that the Jesus Christ worshiped by Latter-day Saints is somehow different from the one in the Bible. This is simply not true. Our Savior is the Jesus born in Bethlehem who died for us on the cross and was resurrected on the first Easter. For more understanding, please read:
http://www.romneyexperience.com/2007/07/10/who-is-the-jesus-of-mormonism/
While you say, “we should only elect Christians to office,” I say there should be no religious test for public office. We should vote for those who share our values. I, for one, appreciate the good people of many faiths who share my values serve well in public office.
November 28th, 2007 at 5:08 pm
The only thing all of you anti-mormon bloggers are doing is driving people with similar political values as yourself away from the Republican party. If the Republican party only consisted of evangelicals who would never vote for nayone except a Baptist, the party would be doomed. Instead of bashing Mormonism, why don’t you go ahead and write an obituary for the Republican party.
November 28th, 2007 at 5:49 pm
I believe that even before the title of disciple of Christ, our first role is that of child of God which is to say; we are all created equal as brothers and sisters with one God: our Father. As a result we appreciate the efforts of people of other faiths in improving the Human condition. We do not think ourselves above even the heathen atheist.
On the 6th of April 1830, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was organized. From that day onward, in every congregation, almost every Sunday, this Prayer has been offered:
That is the central theme of our worship service every week. Our entire religious life is centered on and around this sacramental prayer; it has always been this way for Latter-day Saints. Let the careful reader judge the merits of our efforts as a people to become better disciples of Christ by keeping the promises we make to God every Sunday, and judge whether the God of Moses and Paul hears our prayers.
I appreciate Rhett’s honesty in working with me in the cause of innocent life. We may disagree on who would be more competent as president, but I accept his generous olive leaf offering.
For others who wish to use their positions as pastors and leaders of congregations to get gain or worldly power over God’s children in unholy crusades; I censure you in the strongest of terms. Your efforts in opposing Romney because of his Mormonism are base, rank hypocrisy, for are you better than your Master? If you really believe in Christ, then believe in his condescension towards you insignificant creature, and at least give your fellowservants in the cause of Life a little Christian charity.
November 28th, 2007 at 6:08 pm
Rett,
I haven’t read most of the comments on this thread, but as for your post I really appreciate you explaining your thoughts. It’s good to see you have your two feet on the ground
November 28th, 2007 at 7:06 pm
Wow, I have been away from my computer for most of the day after this morning. I see that a lot of people diagree with me and I have read most of the responces and latter tonight wish to read all carefully. For one, we can all agree that we are thankful for our freedom of religion and freedom of speech. I would not take yours away and I don’t feel that any of you would take mine away. It was Patrick Hennry who said that America was not founded upon by religionist but by Christians, it was not founded upon relgion, but upon the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this reason people of other faiths have been aforded assilum here.” I would say that if we were in a Islamic dominated country we would not be free to do what we are doing on this blog. I have a lot more to add but about Mormonism that you shoulc read.
Please go to the blog at my web site at…
http://pastors4huckabeeblog.com/are-christians-bigiots-if-they-can-not-support-mitt-romney-because-he-is-a-mormon/
and read a the article…
“What Mormonism Teaches About Following Their Living Prophet”
Below are a few disturbing summary points taken from Ezra Taft Benson, the thirteenth Prophet and President of the Church of Latter Day Saints. These are linked at my site from BYU itself. Check it out for yourself.
________________________________________________________________________
# 1 The Living Prophet is the only man who speaks for the Lord in everything.
# 2 The Living Prophet is more vital to us than the standard works (which are for Mormons the Bible the Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price, Doctrines and Covenant).
# 3 The Living Prophet is more important to us than a dead Prophet.
# 6 The Prophet doesn’t have to say “Thus saith the Lord†to give us scripture.
# 9 The Prophet can recieve revelation on any matter, temporal or spiritual.
#10 The Prophet may be involved in civic matters.
#14 The Prophet and the Presidency – the living Prophet and the First Presidency – follow them and be blessed, reject them and suffer.
… If we want to know how well we stand with the Lord, then let us ask ourselves how well we stand with His moral captian. How closely do our lives harmonize with the words of the Lord’s anoited-the Living Prophet the President of the Church of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.
__________________________________________________
As far as using the term cult. I understand that it may be inflamatory to a Mormon and that is not my goal. I understand the word cult to mean a group that claims to be the authentic representation of a religion but that is in reality a substitue conterfit for it. I would also point to the above 14 points for following the living prophet and say that Mormonism is very much a cult on the basis that it ask of its follower real alegiance to a man -the living Prophet.
Fellow Republicans, this is not the same as J. F. K. being a Roman Catholic. Please do not say I am fear mongering until you do the homework and study these facts for yourself.
Furthermore, did you all know that Mormon theology teaches that Mormons are the fulfillment of the prophecy of Daniel in Daniel chapter 2. Mormons consider themselves and their church to be the stone that becomes a mountain and fills the whole earth. One Mormon who responded to my blog at RettHatcher & Company said that this was going to happen and that their was nothing that I could do to stop it.
Daniel 2:44-45
(44) And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.
(45) Forasmuch as thou sawest that the stone was cut out of the mountain without hands, and that it brake in pieces the iron, the brass, the clay, the silver, and the gold; the great God hath made known to the king what shall come to pass hereafter: and the dream is certain, and the interpretation thereof sure.
I have not even begun to address why Mormonism is not true Christianity. I have found Mormon people to be nice good clean Americans. I do not wish to degrade them personaly, but I believe they are decieved by a very well packaed slick cult that I am affraid will only lead more people to die and go to hell. I don’t want that. I desire people to be saved by Jesus Christ the true one of the Bible. This is a big deal here and your soul for all eternity means more than the Republican Party.
November 28th, 2007 at 7:23 pm
“This is a big deal here and your soul for all eternity means more than the Republican Party.”
So do I lose my soul if I vote for Mitt Romney?
November 28th, 2007 at 7:29 pm
“The president is an employee of the people, hired to do an entirely secular job. Why do some of you want to make him/her into something so much more?” – Tano
Good freaking question.
(Ask Barack Obama, by the way.)
November 28th, 2007 at 7:30 pm
“I am not going to vote for a Mormon because I know more about Mormonism than the average Mormon”
That’s pretty obnoxious
November 28th, 2007 at 8:35 pm
Mr. Haisty,
Why don’t you mind your own salvation instead of trying to politically disinfranchize an entire people who constitute a small but important part of this country and her heritage. As a people we have paid and repaid more than any other for the right to be a part of this country. From the days when the U.S. Government and the state of Missouri authorized and implemented an extermination order (to kill all Mormons in the State of Missouri), to the time when a significant number of our people (including my ancestors) fought in the Mexican-American war (even while the U.S. Government was actively seeking to destroy our people); out of which service, Mormons helped expand America to California. If it weren’t for these Mormons then much of southern Arizona would probably belong to Mexico today! (Think on that McCain fans) This was the one-and-only segregated religious “unit” that has ever existed in the Military.
The Mormons were instrumental in the Building of this nation with Brigham Young being one of the original 5 stockholders in the Union Pacific Railroad. It was the Mormons, along with the Chineese on the West, and the Irish on the East who joined the nation with the fastest-built most innovative transcontinental railroad system in history. That contribution led to the establishment of the United States as a world power in WWII because it significantly increased the transportation capacity between the Pacific and the Atlantic.
A young Winston Churchill actively fought for the right of Latter-day Saints to practice their religion in Great Britan despite widespread mob violence. I suppose you would have sided with Churchill’s antagonist and had those Mormons deported.
Mormons are also probably the only people who have had to fight for the right to representation in the Senate of the United States. The Reed-Smoot hearings in the Senate–which was probably the biggest event in Senate history; caused widespread anger and animosity towards the Latter-day Saint people as well as kind acts of Christian charity. Thousands of letters and petitions a day streamed into Washington. The remains of those letters from angry Americans has become the largest collection of it’s kind in the National Archives. I suppose you are saying that the Senate of the United States was wrong in seating a Mormon back in 1907–that a Mormon never should be allowed to THINK they would have a place in American Politics. That they should just sit by as their master religionist take care of them with “Christian” paternalism?
We Mormons have fought hard for the Right of representation. We have helped build this country into what it is today. We have every right to representation. WE weren’t the ones tearing this country apart during the civil war! You know that I could bring up horrible racist quotes of Southern Baptist Leaders from the Civil War era, but I won’t go there. All of this is to say that I have a right to be represented in U.S. Government. I have an interest and not your, or anybody else in the Republican party are going to stop me or any other Mormon from running for office, soliciting votes, and representing our constituents in the Federal Government. We as a people have more than earned our right to participate in United States Society, Business and Government.
November 28th, 2007 at 8:55 pm
Sherwood Haisty,
In all your wisdom, are you capable of reciting the Story of the Pilgrims and the circumstances as to why they chose to risk everything and come to this land?
You wouldn’t be here today, nor your denomination, had they not made the ultimate sacrifice for you. Your denomination and any others that arose from that crossing are the pure expression of Divine Providence.
What kind of sanctimonious pontificating would you use to explain Martin Luther?
Get over yourself.
November 29th, 2007 at 12:19 am
Sherwood:
Like you, I’m proud of our country’s Christian heritage. Like you, I consider myself a Christian–a follower of the Lord, Jesus Christ. Unlike you, I allow the adherents of each religion to define themselves according to their own beliefs. I don’t agree with all of your theology, but I don’t call you a Christian, not a cultist.
I suspect some people found it disturbing that the members of one religion believed Moses spoke for the Lord, that the words he brought from the Lord were considered more important at that time than, say, the earlier words of Noah, that Moses could write new scripture, receive revelation on any matter, be involved in civic matters, etc. In New Testament times, some were similarly disturbed about Jesus, and later about his apostles.
I’m not surprised that you find it odd that we believe in a living prophet today. But it’s no less logical for good people to believe a good man is a prophet today than it was for good people to believe Moses was a prophet in his day. Jesus warned of future false prophets and told us we could know them by their fruits. If all future prophets were going to be false, He wouldn’t have needed to establish the “by their fruits” test. Many people, applying the test Jesus gave in the Bible, have concluded there is a prophet of Jesus Christ alive today.
I find it curious that you don’t intend the inflammatory word “cult” to be inflammatory. You use it to mean “a group that claims to be the authentic representation of a religion but that is in reality a substitue (sic) conterfit (sic) for it.” Why not just say that, rather than stooping to name calling? If you “have found Mormon people to be nice good clean Americans,” and you “do not wish to degrade them personaly (sic),” then please don’t.
November 29th, 2007 at 12:21 am
That third sentence should end with, “I call you a Christian, not a cultist.” Sorry about the typo.
November 29th, 2007 at 4:28 am
Sherwood,
We do not have freedom of religion because our founding fathers were Christians.
We have freedom of religion because our founding fathers were inspired by Enlightenment ideas about government, and having experienced the centuries of Christian factional wars in England, and the rest of Europe, hit upon the brilliant notion that the way to secure religious freedom for all people, of all faiths (or none), was to keep secular government and religion separate.
Government protects your right to live your faith by not taking sides in any religious dispute.
That is NOT a Christian value, it is a secular Enlightenment value.
November 29th, 2007 at 11:35 am
Tano,
Actually it was Christ who said “Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s” and “My kingdom is not of this world.” True Christians recognize these principles to be true.
So let the reader judge the “Christianity” of Anti-Mormons who use governments and worldly power to spread their worldly dominion. Many cry out not to be duped by so-called ‘cultist’ Latter-day Saints and the humble-meek old men who run this church without pay, but I would be much more skepticle of charasmatic millionare televangelists who drive Bentley’s, live in 6,000 sq.ft homes, and wear $6,000 dollar Itallian-taylored suits.
November 29th, 2007 at 4:25 pm
Very nice comments Joseph D Walch, you seem well-studied on this subject matter.
November 29th, 2007 at 5:58 pm
Sherwood Haisty Jr.
Tell the truth!!! As a pastor of First Baptist Church, I would expect more from you to spam your “false” views of a seperate Christ that is worshipped by Mormons. We all know that there is only one Jesus Christ whom the world including Mormons revere. Just because you are an incognito Huckabee campaigner doesn’t give you the right, especially as a minister, to attack anothers religion of peace. Shame on you! There are many, many evangelicals who support Mitt Romney evangelicalsformitt.com. Keep your bigoted views to yourself please. Maybe you should return your Pastorial degree, because the Christ I know would not defame another.
November 30th, 2007 at 7:04 pm
[...] the pathological summary by Rett Hatcher about why Mitt Romney should be burned at the proverbial political [...]
December 1st, 2007 at 11:00 pm
I have just looked back to read some of the responces. I think one of the most thoughtful responces was #42. I actualy agree with the conclusions of what Joseph Walch said as far as his arguments for a right of a Mormon to practice his faith or seek office. I have never questioned that in anything I said. If called upon, I would fight as an American for a Mormon’s right to have freedom of worship. I do not believe that anyones faith is to be mandated by the state or forbidden by the state. I hold to freedom of religion for those with whom I disagree. I also as a Christian, do not believe that God would have Christians force others to believe. Because in reality it is impossible. Any devotion to the Lord that is not freely given but is forced is not real devotion anyway. Second, I believe that in America today, anyone should be free to run for office. Mitt Romney is free to run. Senator Hatch and Repesenative Reed have been elected by their state or district and should be received in their chambers as representing their states. I respect their freedom and the freedom of those who elected them to choose their represenatives. However, it is in my mind a totaly different thing for me to say that I personaly now exercise my freedom and say that issues of faith are very important to me. More important than maybe a lot of other people I don’t know. But if I say that I don’t intend to vote for Mitt Romney because he is a Mormon, that is not saying that I don’t feel that he should have permission to run for President because he is a Mormon. There is a BIG difference in the two lines of thinking. I don’t believe that Christian Evangelicals should vote for a Mormon for President. One of the biggest reasons is that I believe it will ultimately be used to promote and advance the image of Mormonism world wide. I believe it will be a “selling point” for Mormonism and the advancement of this rapid growing cult. (At this point, if you don’t like me calling it a cult I understand but I believe it is very much a cult. I am not using that word to stir up things. I do stand by it because I believe Mormonism desperately is trying to paint itself as a respectable form of Christianity. I asure you that Mormonism is not though it has been very sucessful in redifing itself and reworking its image. Just read the above comments by many people for evidence.) Now back to my point. I believe if Mitt Romney were elected, it would be used by Mormon missionaries to advace Mormonism, not only in America, but world wide. If I believe it is a cult, and I do. If I believe that Mormonism is very “evangelistic” and is a fast growing cult, and I do. If I believe that the eleciton of Romney would promote Mormonism world wide even more, and I do. And if I believe that this fact would lead to the deception and damnation of more people, and I do. Then I can I support anything personaly that would promote Mormonism. I can not. I believe the Mormon should have freedom to worship and evangelise. I believe he should have the same freedom as I took seek office by others. I also believe that the Mormon person should also have the freedom to speek his or her mind and say that they would not vote for me because of any reason they feel like including my religous views. They also have the freedom to not vote for me and incourage others to not do so as well. Now lets be honest here. For all those Mormons who are saying that I am a bigiot for not supporting a Mormon because he is a Mormon. I wonder how many Mormons are supporting Mitt Romney because he is a Mormon? Hmm? That is fine with me. But I am only pointing out that logicaly it works both ways. If I am a biogot because my religious views are important enough for me in my selection of a candidate. Are not others bigiots if their religion is important enough for them in their selection of a candidate. I say no on both points. I say let each of us vote according to our convictions. Let us be civil about it. Let us debate freely on blogs like these. Let us disagree if we do. And let us as Americans pledge our dedication to the fact that we believe others should have the same freedom of religion and convictions that we cherish for ourselves. I have been called a bigot and other things over and over. I hope that my tone has not been harsh toward any Mormon or anyone else. I understand that the term “cult” is offesive to many but use it because I believe to back away from it would be to compromise with language when I think clarity and honesty about what I believe is important. Thank you for reading my comments.