The co-chair of Fred Thompson’s South Carolina campaign laid into Mitt’s Mormonism on the eve of Romney’s speech on religious liberties. Cyndi Mosteller, who has gotten in hot water previously for Mormon bashing, pulls no punches in an interview with the Palmetto Scoop:
TPS: Why do you think it is that Republicans, the previous issue aside, might be reluctant to support a Mormon president, such that Romney feels he needs to give a speech addressing just this issue?
CYNDI MOSTELLER: I think the doctrines of Protestantism, Catholicism and Judaism are so vastly different from the Mormon doctrine; from the concept of polygamy being the order of Heaven, to human man’s progression to godhead of other worlds, to the idea that Jesus had multiple wives, to the idea that, after the death of the last apostle, all of Christendom was in apostasy – with a capital “A” as the Church refers to it – until Joseph Smith discovered the golden plates in the 1830s. So I think it’s inconsistent with so many basic Christian doctrines and it’s very unusual to the point that it’s almost unbelievable. These concepts are things that are theologically beyond our orthodox imagination.
Orthodox imagination? Regardless of what Miss Mosteller believes about Mormons vs. Christianity (and she gets some Mormon doctrines and history FLAT WRONG in the interview), how does she make the leap from doctrinal disagreements to dissing Romney because he’s not orthodox enough to vote for?
I suppose if I accused Catholics of “ritual cannibalism” I could put the traditional Mass in a bad light for anyone and diss Rudy.
If I accused Baptists of worshiping a disembodied God who is everywhere and nowhere at the same time I might be able to peel away a few members from the fold and stop people from voting for Huckabee.
I won’t do this because its nonsensical and can only lead to one thing, the left dissing all of us:
Will the Thompson campaign condemn Miss Mosteller?
December 5th, 2007 at 5:17 pm
This only helps Romney. Hilarious cartoon.
December 5th, 2007 at 5:17 pm
Thompson is irrelevant now, and this woman has already made a fool of herself many times over. She good for a laugh once every few months.
December 5th, 2007 at 5:18 pm
Wow, what an ingnoramous! And to think that Fred was my second choice.
December 5th, 2007 at 5:19 pm
Mosteller ran the anti-Mormon unit for Team McCain a while back. Nice to see she’s still making herself useful.
December 5th, 2007 at 5:19 pm
She is all wrong on her doctrinal examples as well.
December 5th, 2007 at 5:20 pm
I do remember that she was the anti-Mormon McCain gal earlier this year when Romney first started to make stops in SC.
December 5th, 2007 at 5:24 pm
Um, she is not wrong on her doctrinal examples. Orthodox Christianity and Mormonism do differ in their concepts of Heaven and polygamy.
Joseph Smith had multiple wives. Unless he’s a poor representation of the religion that he founded, polygamy is acceptable within Mormon doctrine. Polygamy was abolished so that Utah could receive statehood.
December 5th, 2007 at 5:25 pm
When you said “pull not punches” I thought I was going to read that she said, “all mormons are going to hell”.
This just appears to be the same rhetoric that has been going on since the beginning. Maybe the timing is the question, but the blame would be on the interviewer not her, but she takes advantage of it.
December 5th, 2007 at 5:25 pm
Oh, and she’s correct also about Mormons believing that they can be gods one day.
What is the problem?
It’s like I said — “anti-Mormon insult” really means “pointing out things that regular Christians will find strange.”
December 5th, 2007 at 5:26 pm
“Wow, what an ingnoramous! And to think that Fred was my second choice.”
Huck should be your first choice
I’m not going for Huckabee because Romney is a mormon (alhtough I think his choice of beliefs may reflect on some problems with judgment). I’m going for Huckabee because he understands the “regular guy” better then Romney. And if Romney want against Hillary in a debate, she would run circles around him.
Ronmney has a hard enough time not losing 10% in these debates against Republicans, imagine a debate of Romney against Hillary without a Republican crowd….ouch.
December 5th, 2007 at 5:30 pm
Justin, this is just wrong of them and you’re in the right on this . Good cartoon, that was also printed in the (Pgh) Post-Gazette too a few months back. It’s a liberal paper, but it’s still the city’s main one. There was an editorial defending Romney too, of all things.
But right now Romney has bigger fish to fry. As the lawn worker story earlier this week showed, Romney wants the story this week to be his big speech, not petty arguments. Engaging Fred at all right now is a tactical distraction for your team.
December 5th, 2007 at 5:31 pm
ben – should libertarians or athiests judge huckabee badly because he believes in floating axes, rising from the dead, instant healings, fiery serpents, or wall-crashing chants?
How is that any different than the partial decision you’ve made against Romney because he believes seemingly off-the-wall things from a religious point of view?
December 5th, 2007 at 5:32 pm
Can someone please tell me what was incorrect about what Mosteller said?
December 5th, 2007 at 5:33 pm
She claimed that Blacks could not be members of the church until 1978. This is false. Blacks have been members of the church since the beginning. Black males could not hold the priesthood until 1978.
December 5th, 2007 at 5:33 pm
ben – should libertarians or athiests judge huckabee badly because he believes in floating axes, rising from the dead, instant healings, fiery serpents, or wall-crashing chants?
I do. And especially because he wants to govern as a religious leader at the post of the presidency.
I dislike Huckabee more than Mitt. Mitt doesn’t want to govern as a religious leader.
When I criticize Mormonism as an atheist, I do it in the same way that I do any other religion. It’s not a knock against Romney; he isn’t running as a Mormon. I’m just angry at how the Rombots have tried to make things like what Mollester said look like “anti-Mormon” comments.
Why are they anti-Mormon?! She’s just pointing out what you believe!
December 5th, 2007 at 5:34 pm
TLG – see 14.
December 5th, 2007 at 5:36 pm
One simple thing, TLG, is the item about Jesus having multiple wives.
December 5th, 2007 at 5:36 pm
I would prefer a president to understand the “crazy” (read Ahmadinejad) guy more than the regular guy.
December 5th, 2007 at 5:37 pm
She claimed that Blacks could not be members of the church until 1978. This is false. Blacks have been members of the church since the beginning. Black males could not hold the priesthood until 1978.
Maybe she meant members of the church establishment. Either way, it’s a pretty small distinction: the Mormon Church viewed blacks as inferior until then. (And probably still would, had it not been for changing social customs. They held onto their orthodoxy 14 years after the Civil Rights Act was passed!) And even if we cross that off of the list, we still have the other aspects that regular Christians would find bizarre.
Again, I don’t care: Mormonism is as stupid as any other religion is, to me, and Mitt isn’t running as a “Mormon candidate,” unlike Huckabee, who is running as a pastor. But I don’t want you Mormons to get mad at people for pointing things out about the religion when Mitt’s trying to appeal to Evangelicals as a social conservative leader. Those people vote based on these things. Mitt knows that. So if someone points out something that they don’t like about Mormon doctrine, don’t complain.
December 5th, 2007 at 5:38 pm
We never said that Jesus had multiple wives, and she stated this.
December 5th, 2007 at 5:38 pm
TLG #7: Polygamy was abolished so that Utah could receive statehood.
Nope. That’s the lazy explanation, and it’s pretty ignorant of the situation the church faced in the late 19th century.
Successive Republican Congresses passed laws punishing polygamy in the territories, the pace and severity of which increased after the Civil War. It got to the point of people being prosecuted based on beliefs, the disincorporation of the Church, and the government’s confiscation of all of church property and assets.
Mormons abandoned polygamy because the practice of polygamy was worth sacrificing their practice of religion in general.
December 5th, 2007 at 5:40 pm
One simple thing, TLG, is the item about Jesus having multiple wives.
Many Mormons believe that.
http://www.leaderu.com/offices/michaeldavis/docs/mormonism/jesus-refs.html
3. Mormon leaders have taught that Jesus was a polygamist. Because Mormon prophets considered polygamy a righteous principle and practiced it (despite reversals in doctrine and concessions to U.S. law by the LDS Church), it is easy to see why they taught Jesus was married and had multiple wives:
* Orson Pratt (LDS apostle) stated: “the great Messiah who was the founder of the Christian religion, was a polygamist…marrying many honorable wives himself…God the Father had a plurality of wives…the Son followed the example of his Father…both God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ inherit their wives in eternity as well as in time” (The Seer, p.172, 1853).
* Jedediah M. Grant (second counselor to Brigham Young) stated: “the burst of public sentiment in anathemas upon Christ and his disciples, causing his crucifixion, was evidently based on polygamy…a belief of a plurality of wives caused the persecution of Jesus and his followers” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 1, p.346).
*
Some Mormon leaders contend that the wedding at Cana was an account Jesus’ marriage:
* Apostle Orson Hyde: “…Jesus Christ was married at Cana of Galilee… Mary, Martha, and others were his wives … he begat children” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 2, p.210).
* Jedediah M. Grant: “Jesus was the bridegroom at the marriage of Cana of Galilee, and he told them what to do… Now there was actually a marriage; and if Jesus was not the bridegroom on that occasion, please tell who was. If any man can show this, and prove that it was not the Savior of the world, then I will acknowledge I am in error. We say it was Jesus Christ who was married, to be brought into the relation whereby he could see his seed, before he was crucified” (Journal of Discourses, vol.2, p.82).
* Orson Hyde: “It will be borne in mind that once on a time, there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and on a careful reading of that transaction, it will be discovered that no less a person than Jesus Christ was married on that occasion. If he was never married, his intimacy with Mary and Martha, and the other Mary also whom Jesus loved, must have been highly unbecoming and improper to say the best of it” (Journal of Discourses, vol.4, p.259).
* Orson Pratt: “We have now clearly shown that God the Father had a plurality of wives, one or more being in eternity, by whom He begat our spirits as well as the spirit of Jesus His First Born… We have also proved most clearly that the Son followed the example of his Father, and became the great Bridegroom to whom kings’ daughters and many honorable wives are to be married” (The Seer, p. 172).
December 5th, 2007 at 5:40 pm
#18
Wrong thread..sorry
December 5th, 2007 at 5:40 pm
Polygamy was a short-term answer to a problem the Church had at the time. Don’t we see bibilical evidence of polygamy, even among the most famous of prophets?
December 5th, 2007 at 5:40 pm
#15 – TLG – The point is she is singling out mormonism as far differnet than Protestantism, Catholicism and Judaism when in fact the all differ in practices and beliefs.
December 5th, 2007 at 5:40 pm
TLG,
And not that you care, but the black people over at http://www.blacklds.org/ don’t seem to think that the Church regarded them as inferior.
December 5th, 2007 at 5:42 pm
#15 – TLG – The point is she is singling out mormonism as far differnet than Protestantism, Catholicism and Judaism when in fact the all differ in practices and beliefs.
Um. Mormonism is different inasmuch as it follows the Book of Mormon, too, and says that it ‘completes’ the Bible.
The addition of that book is what makes it radically different.
It says that the Bible is fallible and incomplete. No other sect of Christianity says that.
December 5th, 2007 at 5:42 pm
Inthat sense, don’t catholics beleive that their nuns marry Jesus?
December 5th, 2007 at 5:42 pm
Ahem. #21: was NOT worth sacrificing…
December 5th, 2007 at 5:44 pm
Successive Republican Congresses passed laws punishing polygamy in the territories, the pace and severity of which increased after the Civil War. It got to the point of people being prosecuted based on beliefs, the disincorporation of the Church, and the government’s confiscation of all of church property and assets. Mormons abandoned polygamy because the practice of polygamy was worth sacrificing their practice of religion in general.
Um. Right. In other words, they didn’t abandon it on theological grounds.
December 5th, 2007 at 5:45 pm
They abandoned it on political grounds, regardless of which of our explanations is correct, murphy.
The point is that polygamy is theologically sound in Mormon doctrine, and you people are trying to make it sound like it’s not.
December 5th, 2007 at 5:45 pm
The Church did not regard them as inferior. The current prophet of the Church has said that many mebers of the church were not ready for blacks to receive the preisthood, and that the timing had to be right to incorporate the change in doctrine so as not to weakednthe Church.
December 5th, 2007 at 5:46 pm
TLG #12 – Do you have any Mormon in this century or the last century claiming Jesus had multiple wives? This is silly
December 5th, 2007 at 5:46 pm
26 — Um…then they are mistaken!
December 5th, 2007 at 5:47 pm
#27 – TLG – Judaism doesnt even believe chist has come to the earth – that is a much bigger difference as it does away with all the new testement docterine. But she lumped them right in with protestants. Yeah they are much closer to christians than mormons.
December 5th, 2007 at 5:47 pm
TLG #12 – Do you have any Mormon in this century or the last century claiming Jesus had multiple wives? This is silly
Since when have you religionists cared about how recent a source is?
Either way, wouldn’t it be more appropriate to look at the words of the founders of Mormonism and those closest to them?
December 5th, 2007 at 5:48 pm
TLG: Um. Right. In other words, they didn’t abandon it on theological grounds.
I’m sorry, this may be a small point, but you’re absolutely wrong.
What about the phrase “sacrificing their practice of religion in general” is not on theological grounds? Take away a church’s property, ability to organize, and take away a citizen’s right to worship…it’s not political at that point, it’s the destruction of a religion.
December 5th, 2007 at 5:49 pm
TLG,
I didn’t read the whole thing, but I believe she is incorrect about “polygamy being the order of Heaven” and “the idea that Jesus had multiple wives.” She is correct that Mormons believe they can become like God and that there was an Apostasy after the last apostle died.
Just to preempt the coming assault, Mosteller may have found some church leader from the 1800s that said polygamy is the order of heaven or that Jesus had multiple wives, but that doesn’t make it so. First, the only set doctrine of the church is what is in the scriptures (and neither one of those two I mentioned is in the scriptures). Anything not in the scriptures is just personal interpretation. There may be a lot of people that believe in certain interpretations to the point that it may sound like it is doctrine, but it is not. The last point to keep in mind is that the church’s leaders are not infallible. Many have propounded various personal interpretations that were later shown to be incorrect.
December 5th, 2007 at 5:49 pm
#27 – TLG – Judaism doesnt even believe chist has come to the earth – that is a much bigger difference as it does away with all the new testement docterine. But she lumped them right in with protestants. Yeah they are much closer to christians than mormons.
Oh, I didn’t mean Judaism. I meant the other sects of Christianity. Yes, Judaism is far more different than Christianity than Mormonism is.
December 5th, 2007 at 5:49 pm
Dubious,
“This only helps Romney. Hilarious cartoon.”
NO! NO! NO! It doesn’t! Maybe it should. But it doesn’t. The people that Mitt is trying to woo are going to agree with all of these statements and it’s going to make Mitt look kooky. There’s nothing Mitt can do. He COULD have stressed his executive experience and he COULD have run on his record months ago. But bringing all of these things to light is a negative for Romney (and the next part is key) ***within the confines of the group Romney is trying to court***. He put himself in a no-win situation.
December 5th, 2007 at 5:50 pm
ya know, I don’t think I’ve ever seen a “this is loony doctrine” thread here. I could have passed on it now, as well.
December 5th, 2007 at 5:51 pm
I’m sorry, this may be a small point, but you’re absolutely wrong.
What about the phrase “sacrificing their practice of religion in general†is not on theological grounds? Take away a church’s property, ability to organize, and take away a citizen’s right to worship…it’s not political at that point, it’s the destruction of a religion.
What on Earth did you just write to discredit what I said?
I said that they did not abandon it on theological grounds. You replied and said “Yes, they did! Their property was being destroyed!”
I am completely correct. Polygamy is theologically sound in Mormon doctrine. Again, I say: Unless Joseph Smith is a poor representation of Mormonism.
December 5th, 2007 at 5:53 pm
#39-TLG- thats the whole point. she lumps Protestantism, Catholicism and Judaism together and then says people wont vote for a mormon because their beliefs are too different when in fact they are all vastly different.
December 5th, 2007 at 5:54 pm
TLG, I didn’t read the whole thing, but I believe she is incorrect about “polygamy being the order of Heaven†and “the idea that Jesus had multiple wives.†She is correct that Mormons believe they can become like God and that there was an Apostasy after the last apostle died.
That isn’t what she said. She was just talking about the ranks of Heaven that Mormons believe in.
And I already pointed out that many Mormons believed that Jesus had multiple wives.
December 5th, 2007 at 5:55 pm
Wrong again, TLG. I said their practice of religion was being destroyed. Property ownership is merely one component of religious practice.
And just to be clear, the practice of polygamy will get you a no-questions-asked excommunication from the Church these days.
December 5th, 2007 at 5:55 pm
#39-TLG- thats the whole point. she lumps Protestantism, Catholicism and Judaism together and then says people wont vote for a mormon because their beliefs are too different when in fact they are all vastly different.
Protestantism and Catholicism are really pretty similar. Judaism is radically different, and I have no idea why she’d say that.
December 5th, 2007 at 5:56 pm
Wrong again, TLG. I said their practice of religion was being destroyed. Property ownership is merely one component of religious practice. And just to be clear, the practice of polygamy will get you a no-questions-asked excommunication from the Church these days.
The practice was being destroyed by the state, so they abandoned it. Okay? Not on any theological grounds.
LOL Joseph Smith would have been excommunicated.
December 5th, 2007 at 5:57 pm
TLG, I have the perfect board for you. Here is a place where you can discuss all of these theological issues.
http://www.mormonapologetics.com/
December 5th, 2007 at 5:57 pm
TLG: And I already pointed out that many Mormons believed that Jesus had multiple wives.
Pointing out that even highly prominent mormons believed that does not make it church doctrine. It is not even church doctrine on whether or not Jesus had ONE wife. There is simply no official church stance on the matter.
December 5th, 2007 at 5:59 pm
TLG: The practice was being destroyed by the state, so they abandoned it. Okay? Not on any theological grounds.
Not the practice of polygamy being destroyed by the state, as you imply here. The practice of religion in general.
It’s theological grounds in that everything in mormon religious practice which is unrelated to polygamy is far more important than polygamy specifically.
December 5th, 2007 at 6:00 pm
Pointing out that even highly prominent mormons believed that does not make it church doctrine. It is not even church doctrine on whether or not Jesus had ONE wife. There is simply no official church stance on the matter.
No official church stance? So it’s debatable? Considering that people so close to Brigham Young believed it…
She is wrong when she says it’s church doctrine now, though.
December 5th, 2007 at 6:02 pm
Not the practice of polygamy being destroyed by the state, as you imply here. The practice of religion in general. It’s theological grounds in that everything in mormon religious practice which is unrelated to polygamy is far more important than polygamy specifically.
…No, I did not imply that. I knew exactly what you meant!
And saying that polygamy isn’t important doesn’t say that it’s not theologically sound!
It’s still theologically sound!
Unless, like Romney, the Mormon Church flip-flops, too. You say that practicing polygamy will get you excommunicated.
So, question: would Joseph Smith be excommunicated today?
December 5th, 2007 at 6:02 pm
#10 Ben, Huckabee s actually my last choice at which point I would stay at home and watch Hillary become president.
December 5th, 2007 at 6:03 pm
48 — I don’t really much care about Mormonism. I just don’t want you people to call others “anti-Mormon” by pointing out that polygamy is acceptable under Mormonism, that they believe radically different things about Heaven, their history with blacks, etc.
December 5th, 2007 at 6:05 pm
TLG,
You are simply not going to get anywhere by pointing to what some people believed who were close to the leader of the church 120 years ago.
The marital status of Christ, though debated, is simply not church doctrine. And it’s pretty ridiculous to present the belief that Jesus had multiple wives as a portrayal of mormons in general.
December 5th, 2007 at 6:08 pm
TLG, Regarding LDS doctorine
http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Brochures/What_is_Mormon_Doctrine.pdf
As far as I know nothing she said was official doctorine.
December 5th, 2007 at 6:09 pm
,You are simply not going to get anywhere by pointing to what some people believed who were close to the leader of the church 120 years ago. The marital status of Christ, though debated, is simply not church doctrine. And it’s pretty ridiculous to present the belief that Jesus had multiple wives as a portrayal of mormons in general.
Alright. It’s not a big deal and I already said that she was wrong to say that it was doctrine.
But answer my question: Would Joseph Smith be excommunicated today?
December 5th, 2007 at 6:09 pm
TLG, I don’t know about the Mormon stuff. What I find objectionable is her hypocrisy in suggesting that the stuff she mentions is off the wall compared to what she believes. It’s all equally off the wall or not. There is nothing yet about Mormonism that is so out there that “mainstream” beliefs don’t compare.
From an objective observer’s point of view I think all of it would be considered pure craziness or they would have to consider all of it reasonable. Nothing makes the Mormon stuff worse. Maybe less common, but not worse.
December 5th, 2007 at 6:09 pm
Why do you folks keep saying Huckabee is running as a pastor or wants to be Pastor in Chief. This is hog wash. Yes he was a pastor and yes he has strong christian beliefs, but it is the media who asks the questions
and he answers them. He Governed for over 10 years and he did not replace the dome of the capitol
building with a steeple. He governed according to the law without compromising his values, and he was innovative and effective. While he is more than willing to talk about his faith because it defines who he is regarding his values others act as if their faith has nothing to do with the rest of their life. Which that is more troubling to me than some one who is open about their faith playing a major role.
If the media would quit asking about religion, religion wouldn’t be an issue. I have heard huckabee on several occasions say he would love to get some questions on education, infrastructure, health care, taxes, etc.
December 5th, 2007 at 6:10 pm
TLG,
The practice of polygamy is only as theologically sound as it is commanded by God. As an athiest, you will likely find this an unsatisfying answer. Oh well.
Polygamy was acceptable (in that you’d be right with God) and unacceptable at various times in Biblical history, and even at simultaneous times under different situations. The LDS church teaches that it was acceptable during the 19th century under commandment from God, but not now.
Did you seriously not know that practicing polygamy will get you excommunicated these days?
December 5th, 2007 at 6:10 pm
TLG,
Why don’t you get your information from one of the official church websites (e.g. http://www.lds.org) to us as ammunition instead of going to anti-mormon sites to find stupid things to hold up your stupid claims.
December 5th, 2007 at 6:12 pm
“Why do you folks keep saying Huckabee is running as a pastor or wants to be Pastor in Chief. This is hog wash. Yes he was a pastor and yes he has strong christian beliefs, but it is the media who asks the questions and he answers them.”
Who made the “Christian Leader” video?
December 5th, 2007 at 6:12 pm
Did you seriously not know that practicing polygamy will get you excommunicated these days?
lmfao. Yes. So you’ve answered my question: Joseph Smith would be excommunicated today.
December 5th, 2007 at 6:13 pm
I’ll try and answer your question TLG, though I’m no authority on this. Yes he would. However, I’m sure mormons would say that he would have stopped practicing it himself instead of be excommunicated.
December 5th, 2007 at 6:13 pm
Brett, it’s not “ammunition.” I’m not out to get you. Your religion is no stupider than any other sect of Christianity, to me. I just don’t want you people lying and saying that Mormonism is anti-polygamy or something when your religion’s founder was a polygamist.
December 5th, 2007 at 6:14 pm
Smith wouldn’t have practiced polygamy today, duh, he lived his religion, which means obeying the commandments.
December 5th, 2007 at 6:14 pm
TLG,
And in answer to your hypothetical question, if polygamy were not commanded by God, anyone, including Joseph Smith, would be excommunicated. And in answer to your likely next question about a prophet being the sole determiner of what God says, that only makes sense to an athiest so it won’t get you anywhere.
December 5th, 2007 at 6:14 pm
James Boulder, maybe it’s because Huckabee claims that God is endorsing his candidacy, and he is working with pasto netwroks to ecnourage their congregations to vote for him. Sounds like Pastor-in-Chief, does it not.
December 5th, 2007 at 6:14 pm
The LDS church teaches that it was acceptable during the 19th century under commandment from God, but not now.
LOL. As we’ve discussed, they abolished polygamy for non-theological reasons, but rather, so that the state would leave them alone.
December 5th, 2007 at 6:15 pm
I won’t take up for her comments. She’s obviously ignorant over the theological aspects, but so is most of America. By the way, where were you guys when Bob Jones said basically the same thing? Oh yeah… he was backing Romney in spite of his religion. Besides the fact that she’s got the wrong ideas. I don’t see where she used it to attack Romney. She said she thinks it’s unorthodox.
This is the hurdle Romney faces, however unfair it may be. Romney is going to have to persuade the skeptical. People who are ignorant are going to have to be made comfortable enough to overlook their disagreements.
December 5th, 2007 at 6:16 pm
TLG #69,
Only an athiest would consider the practice of religion as non-theological.
December 5th, 2007 at 6:18 pm
#70 – tommy – its an attack when she singles out mormonism as having wierd and different beliefs compared to Protestantism, Catholicism and Judaism.
December 5th, 2007 at 6:18 pm
“Brett, it’s not “ammunition.†I’m not out to get you. Your religion is no stupider than any other sect of Christianity, to me. I just don’t want you people lying and saying that Mormonism is anti-polygamy or something when your religion’s founder was a polygamist.”
Look, Christians & Muslims & Jews have a history of Polygamy in their past. It’s not something practiced in these days, nor is slavery which was probably practiced in all religions as well.
This isn’t a political issue.
December 5th, 2007 at 6:18 pm
Only an athiest would consider the practice of religion as non-theological.
HUH? THEY ABOLISHED IT SO THE GOVERNMENT WOULD LEAVE THEM ALONE. IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH IT VIOLATING ANY ASPECTS OF DOCTRINE.
IT WAS A PURELY NON-THEOLOGICAL MOVE. IF THE STATE WOULD HAVE LEFT THEM ALONE, IT WOULD HAVE NEVER BEEN ABOLISHED.
December 5th, 2007 at 6:19 pm
Tommy,
Were the statements of Bob Jones which misrepresent mormon doctrine ever up on a front page post?
Far more important than educating TLG about mormon theology is the fact that Bob Jones considers the presidency to be somewhat independent of theological particulars, and that if someone as fundamentalist as Jones can do so, regular evangelicals can do so as well.
December 5th, 2007 at 6:20 pm
Look, Christians & Muslims & Jews have a history of Polygamy in their past. It’s not something practiced in these days, nor is slavery which was probably practiced in all religions as well. This isn’t a political issue.
It’s all stupid to me. Don’t make me try to understand religionist logic. I’m just telling you that the Evangelicals are going to get pissed off at what’s true about Mormonism as well as what’s false.
December 5th, 2007 at 6:20 pm
Steve, I think you have the order in reverse
December 5th, 2007 at 6:21 pm
As Luther said I’d rather be governed by a wise Turk than a foolish Christian.
So Romney’s religion doesn’t bother me. I think Romney should actually tell us we receive morality from something greater than our selfish desires. We are bound by laws of morality that are obvious to Jews, Christians, Mormons and all other people.
He should say he holds those values and can govern as well as any other candidate because he shares our common moral values even if he gets them from somewhere else.
December 5th, 2007 at 6:22 pm
TLG: IF THE STATE WOULD HAVE LEFT THEM ALONE, IT WOULD HAVE NEVER BEEN ABOLISHED.
Purely speculative on your part. There were other problems surfacing with the practice of polygamy that would make it unlikely to survive for long, state persecution notwithstanding. Also, one of the functional aspects of polygamy, to quickly grow a population suffering from low male percentages, was not as much of a problem in the early 20th century as the late 19th century.
December 5th, 2007 at 6:23 pm
76 – ” Don’t make me try to understand religionist logic”
you asked for it from the begining of the post… you got it
December 5th, 2007 at 6:25 pm
you asked for it from the begining of the post… you got it
No kidding.
Purely speculative on your part. There were other problems surfacing with the practice of polygamy that would make it unlikely to survive for long, state persecution notwithstanding. Also, one of the functional aspects of polygamy, to quickly grow a population suffering from low male percentages, was not as much of a problem in the early 20th century as the late 19th century.
So now doctrine is about functionality!?
December 5th, 2007 at 6:25 pm
maybe he better go down the church-state separation route.
It has served us so well, if for no other reason than keeping discussions like this out of the realm of political discourse.
December 5th, 2007 at 6:25 pm
TLG: HUH? THEY ABOLISHED IT SO THE GOVERNMENT WOULD LEAVE THEM ALONE. IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH IT VIOLATING ANY ASPECTS OF DOCTRINE.
Also, I think you should breathe a little and think things through. You’re getting emotional again.
The destruction of religious practice qualifies as an important theological concern, IMHO. Compare the theological importance of polygamy to the theological importance of the sum total of other mormon doctrine, and it’s not hard to see which one must get axed from a theological perspective.
December 5th, 2007 at 6:28 pm
TLG: So now doctrine is about functionality!?
You know, I should have made more of a point in annunciating that polygamy is far more of a practice than a doctrine.
December 5th, 2007 at 6:29 pm
EGStud,
I agree entirely. Based on what I’ve heard Romney answer before on this topic, I am cautiously optimistic.
December 5th, 2007 at 6:38 pm
murphy,
When Bob Jones endorsed Romney, he specifically mentioned that he supported Mitt Romney in spite of his religion. He also made comments that he did not think that it was a Christian religion. So, is it only when they support the candidate that it’s ok to question the religion?
Steve,
She was specifically questioned about Mormonism. She answered it. She’s right. Southern Baptists do not accept Mormonism as Christianity, to my knowledge. She states inaccuracies about their belief system. She’s obviously ignorant, but where does she attack Romney besides the fact that she doesn’t seem to be a fan of his religion? She’s even ignorant enough to state that she thinks Mormons feel the same way about her beliefs. I am no expert, nor have any real desire to be one, but I don’t think that’s the case either. However, that’s why Romney needs to make the speech in the first place.
Thick skin, people. To gain acceptance for a belief, one must be able to withstand the skeptics, and change their minds.
December 5th, 2007 at 6:41 pm
TLG,
God commanded the practice of polygamy and then he commanded its cessation. It’s not that he changed his mind, it’s probably that it helped the church grow. There were a lot more women in the church than men, and the saints were going to the wilderness. I can’t speak for the Lord, but it makes sense to me that having every fertile female bearing children would result in a lot more Mormons than merely having some of them bear children. Later, as the country grew to surround and infiltrate church lands, it would ,make more sense to discontinue the practice so that the church could become a more accepted part of the culture. Another possible reason would be so that every woman could experience the joys of marriage and parenting, which many would have been deprived of otherwise. Whatever God’s reason was, the church was striving to be obedient and faithful. Note that the Bible never condemns the practice of polygamy, and that it was indeed practiced by Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David, Solomon, and other revered Biblical leaders.
December 5th, 2007 at 6:47 pm
86 – tommy – Oh I see she’s not attacking Romney then. just the mormons. Or are you saying she’s not attacking the mormons either?
December 5th, 2007 at 6:49 pm
86 – tommy – In here position how is attacking the mormons not attacking Romeny?
December 5th, 2007 at 6:50 pm
Polygamy is something that clearly separates Christians from Mormons:
1st Timothy 3:2
“A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of but one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behavior, given to hospitality, apt to teach;”
December 5th, 2007 at 6:52 pm
Actually scratch that last post. This isn’t the place to discuss that issue.
December 5th, 2007 at 6:52 pm
Solid comment #90 econ grad stud.
December 5th, 2007 at 6:58 pm
Tommy: When Bob Jones endorsed Romney, he specifically mentioned that he supported Mitt Romney in spite of his religion. He also made comments that he did not think that it was a Christian religion. So, is it only when they support the candidate that it’s ok to question the religion?
I can fully accept that people don’t think mormonism is Christian. That doesn’t get under my skin much at all. What I find irritating is when someone misrepresents Romney’s religion and beliefs in order to turn people against him politically.
December 5th, 2007 at 7:00 pm
“The Crusades” are something that clearly separate Mormons from Catholics.
econ. could you be more obtuse. yes indeed. another place please.
December 5th, 2007 at 7:05 pm
econ grad stud,
As previously discussed, the church doesn’t practice polygamy. What we practice is obedience to the will of the Lord. But note that the Bible doesn’t condemn polygamy anywhere, and comes close to an outright endorsement of it in 2nd Samuel.
December 5th, 2007 at 7:05 pm
I guess than EGS polygamy is something that separates Chrisitianity from Judaism as well. And that scripture leaves the question, was polygamy really not allowed in the early Christian church? If not, then why is it pointed out as a disqualifier for being a bishop? Why was there even a need for it to be mentioned if it was not practiced?
The idea that Christianity is separated from Mormonism by polygamy is absurd, unless we consider Abraham one of the Prophets and you don’t.
December 5th, 2007 at 7:07 pm
[...] Race42008) Share and Enjoy: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and [...]
December 5th, 2007 at 7:23 pm
And from the Wiki article on Polygamy:
It’s a hard argument to say Polygamy seperates Mormons from Chrisitianity when the father of Protestantism condoned it and suggested it, and the prophets of the old testament practiced it, with Jesus Christ himself being a direct descendant of polygamy.
December 5th, 2007 at 7:24 pm
With all that, I will be the first to argue that Mormons aren’t mainstram Christian.
December 5th, 2007 at 8:32 pm
Jason, I’d like to discuss this issue because it is interesting and I’d love to see how our perspectives would interact. However I don’t think it would be appropriate here.
I’m also a bit concerned that my Mormon friends here would take personal offense. That’s certainly something I try to avoid. That’s primarily why I withdrew my post in #90.
December 5th, 2007 at 8:59 pm
[...] response to Justin Hart’s earlier post, I think he took things a little out of context. Now, I am not defending Ms. Mosteller’s [...]
December 6th, 2007 at 12:01 am
Say what you want about Mormon doctrine. Believe what you want to believe! Isn’t it GREAT that we live in a country that you can do that????? The problem for Huckabee is that he is using his evangelical Christian beliefs to color his DECISIONS. THAT’s where the issue is. Case in point: The convicted rapist he let go while governor. Watch the news report. Why did he let him go?? One of his pastors talked with him about it and suggested it!!! Go watch it yourself. And this one too: on Monday he had a “private meeting” with pastors in Iowa to ‘discuss his campaign.” Can you even begin to imagine what would happen if Romney had a private meeting without the press, with a bunch of Mormon officials to discuss his campaign??? I think that is extremely scary. In fact, truth be told, I think Huck is the scariest candidate running for either side. And his actions of late prove it.
December 6th, 2007 at 1:29 am
Beliefnet has a good, short FAQ about Mormon beliefs (http://www.beliefnet.com/story/227/story_22729_1.html) that does a much better job of describing accurately the more controversial aspects of Mormon beliefs than the distorted statements by Cyndi Mosteller.