I have been meaning to write on this for several days, but I have been doing a lot of thinking about the way we throw around the term “populism” to describe political figures. Specifically, I am increasingly appalled at how the various definitions of that term are becoming purposefully blurred in our political rhetoric - using the word as a way of associating people with views they do not hold.
The two figures who get most mixed up in this are Sarah Palin and Mike Huckabee – with Palin in particular being purposefully lumped with Huckabee as “fellow populists” as a way of scaring off potential conservative voters. This was done most recently in the American Spectator, with Palin being lumped not only with Huckabee, but with three time losing presidential candidate William Jennings Bryan. So, I think we need to take a long, hard look at what this word means if we are going to continually throw it around
First off, let’s be clear Populism as an ideology and populism as a rhetorical style are two very different things. In the ideological sense, a populist is one who mixes left wing and right wing views in order to craft an ideological framework that appeals to the masses (especially those in the working class). In the American sense of the term, this often means combining conservative social positions with a big-government “hose the rich” economic plan. In all honesty, there are few true Populists in the GOP today – and the ideology holds primarily among so-called “conservative Democrats”. These people are often fully in line with Obama on spending, it’s just on abortion that they differ.
Someone like Mike Huckabee, a preacher politician who believes that government has a role in helping people, could be defined as a mmild Populist – but I have trouble using the term even for him. Actually, I have always found it easier to describe Huckabee using the European ideological term “Christian Democrat” - which describes a more compassion based but still conservative ideology.
A rhetorical populist, however, is merely campaigner who use folksy, down-to-earth delivery as a way of targeting a wide audience that is inaccessible to more intellectual candidates. To illustrate just how meaning less the term is, I would note that Sarah Palin (a conservative), Jimmy Carter (a liberal), and Ron Paul (a libertarian) all employ a degree of populism in their approach. Huckabee also fits into this category, but I would note that he was one-upped on populist delivery in 2008 by Fred Thompson.
Thompson was never labeled a ‘populist’, nor was this term used to link him to Mike Huckabee (with whom he had many differences). However, we do now see that phenomenon with Palin, who is arguably far closer to Thompson in her ideology than she is to Huck (as proved by the fact that Fred and Jeri Thompson have moved to align themselves with Sarah). The key to this dichotomy is that this notion of “Huckabee the Populist” seemed not to develop until after Thompson had been in the race a while. Conversely, it was fully developed when Palin hit the scene. It then took a wild turn when certain members of the conservative intelligentsia figured out that they could lump Palin and Huckabee together as ’populists’ without noting that Huck is something of an ideological Populist wheras Palin is an ideological conservative who employs rhetorical populism. This is intellectually dishonest to the hilt, but the slight of hand does accomplish the goal of linking Palin to Huckabee’s fiscal policy (even if she doesn’t actually agree.)
Even more ridiculous is the William Jennings Bryan comparison. Bryan didn’t lose because of his rhetoric, he lost because of his devotion to bimetallism (an issue which no longer exists at all), among other things. He was an Populist ideologue in addition to his rhetoric, and that’s why he lost. I might also not that, between Bryan’s three losses, arch-rhetorical populist Teddy Roosevelt won the presidency in a landslide.
Now, there are people who take issue with rhetorical populism. They tend to be intellectuals who believe in elevating discourse and assume that anyone who talks with a drawl must therefore think with a drawl. In my opinion this is an illegitimate and almost bigoted reason to dismiss politicians – and frankly it’s juvenile.
July 17th, 2009 at 11:13 pm
You kiddin’ me? One of Sarah Palin’s big points is how she “took on Big Oil” and “gave the money back to the people.” Taking on the “Good Old Boy” network. That’s pretty ideologically populist. Palin is a big-time People vs. The Powerful candidate.
Besides that, we just don’t know enough about her to make much of a judgment on her economic ideology.
July 17th, 2009 at 11:17 pm
Adam B.,
Is “Christian Democrat” another term for European socialism?? I would say that Huckabee is a conservative, but one who couches his appeal in populist terms. This is personally how I, if I were to campaign for office, run. Its just how I tak to people about political issues. I can explain a really complex problem in simpler terms. Its what very skilled politicians do. Reagan, Clinton, and even GW had that ability to connect.
July 17th, 2009 at 11:19 pm
Alex,
If you haven’t noticed, big business is now an ally of Barack Obama’s.
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/peter-roff/2009/04/29/chrysler-bankruptcy-obamas-big-government-is-big-business-which-is-bad-news.html
July 17th, 2009 at 11:22 pm
BTW, I am NOT comparing myself to Reagan, etc… lol. Not everyone can make their types of appeals… they have to convince voters that theyre life story is inspiring, but at the same time all-American, rags to riches story, that they understand Middle America. Reagan growing up in the Midwest during the Depression era, Clinton growing up in rural Arkansas, GW growing up in West Texas.
July 17th, 2009 at 11:27 pm
Alex, how is taking on the good ole boy network ideologically populist? If a conservative Republican took on the good ole boy network of the Chicago Democratic politcal machine, would that mean they’re no longer conservative? Fighting corruption in govt, in both parties, is a noble duty. I think the Powerful people in govt, big unions, some big businesses have sold the middle class and small business down the river? The Republicans are gonna run on that somewhat if Obama’s popularity is low in 2010 and 2012– that the hard-working people of America have been betrayed by an alliance of big government, big labor, and big business.
July 17th, 2009 at 11:31 pm
Mac,
Alex still believes “big business” is an opponent or adversary of Barack Obama despite all the evidence to the contrary. GM is certainly a big business and one that is pretty cozy with Barack these days.
July 17th, 2009 at 11:34 pm
I wouldn’t say that Thompson out-populisted Huckabee. Thompson came across to me as the non-populist, GOP establishment type. He didn’t inspire. Populists tend to inspire the masses. I dont think Thompson had that appeal. Campaigning didnt really energize him. It energized Huckabee.
July 17th, 2009 at 11:38 pm
Adam:
While I agree with most of what you said, I do have a small quibble with the section on rhetorical populism. Populist rhetoric does tend to simplify complex issues into an “us vs. them” mentality. Using William Jennings Bryan as an example, his crack-pot idea of bimetalism was talked about as “the people’s currency” against the fat-cat Eastern industrialists who backed gold. Bryan turned the complex issue of national monetary policy into an “the many vs. the few” issue.
Don’t get me wrong, I think people with a drawl, especially a Southern drawl, are usually the smartest people in the room (Fred Thompson, Sam Irvin, and Karl Rove all talk with a Southern twang). But populist rhetoric is rather simplistic in it’s outlook.
July 17th, 2009 at 11:39 pm
I wouldnt say Fred out-populist’d Huck. Populists tend to inspire the masses. I think the knock on Thompson was his inabiity to energize a crowd and inspire his causes. Part of the reason for Huckabee’s rise was that he was a conservative who could inspire, after Thompson, the one most conservatives were looking to as their leader in the GOP field, flamed out because he didnt energize ppl.
July 17th, 2009 at 11:44 pm
#8… I can understand your point, but the fact is it WINS ELECTIONS. Reagan, Nixon, Clinton, Obama all had populist appeals. Reagan was able to turn big government into the enemy of the broad middle class struggling in the Carter economy. It was “us” vs. “them”– hard-working middle class and business people against a corrupt Washington bureaucratic establishment that had drove the economy into the ground. It cant be angry, it has to say “this is what they have done, this is how we’ll fix it and fight for you.”
July 17th, 2009 at 11:49 pm
#6… correct, Reagan didnt run against big business… but that was a diff time… You didnt have big business cozying up with the govt bureaucrats and the powerful politicians in the Administration and Congress and Fed Reserve. Reagan made his appeal about the people, the regular guy trying to put food on his dinner table… that’s POPULIST rhetoric, but free-market conservative ideology and policy proposals. Couching conservative policy in how it will work to improve the lives of working and middle class families is how to win. Whoever wins the middle class and Middle America wins the election.
July 17th, 2009 at 11:54 pm
#10:
Undoubtedly populist rhetoric helps in getting votes, but there is a fine line between a right amount of populism and so much that it trumps everything else. Being too populist makes a candidate look like either 1.) a perpetually angry politician (think Barry Goldwater) or 2.) almost too folksy to be taken seriously (to a certain extent Huckabee and Palin).
If our candidates need to use populist rhetoric to win, than they should go for it, but that can’t be their only mode. Good candidates find the right amount of fire-brand oratory and sober addresses.
July 18th, 2009 at 3:39 am
Thompson was the antithesis of a populist with his loafers and his avoidance of any form of politiking at any cost (and boy was there a cost). How can anyone claim he was a populist is beyond me.
July 18th, 2009 at 4:30 am
While you are at it, why don’t you take a look at the incorrect use of the terms “flip-flopper” and “phony” if you are so worried about the misrepresentation of candidates?
July 18th, 2009 at 5:56 am
“Besides that, we just don’t know enough about her to make much of a judgment on her economic ideology.” Haha Martha thinks she knows enough.
“While you are at it, why don’t you take a look at the incorrect use of the terms “flip-flopper” and “phony” if you are so worried about the misrepresentation of candidates?” Fair point Conservative, while Populism is a word thrown around simply to attack some candidates, other words such as flip-flopper, phony racist, communist and fascist are thrown around to attack other candidates.
Great article Adam Brinkley; generally speaking, populism is more of a campaign tactic than an ideology. There are many strains of Populism throughout the world and even throughout America itself. Populists can come from both sides of the political spectrum. You mentioned abortion as an issue for Populist, to be sure that is an issue for some, but so are other issue. In some parts of the world, capital punishment and anti-monarchism can be populist issues. In my younger years back in my homeland I joined a Rightist Quazi-Populist party during a time of constitutional and economic crises. I did not agree with everything that they stood for, but they were the best alternative of the bunch. Some in my region of the country would not join that party largely because their base was in a different region of the country. A Leftist Populist party also popped up at the time.
As you mentioned, populism can be a ticket to the White House, I cannot remember a President (seriously except for maybe one) who has not in at least some small way played the populist card if you will. On the other hand the anti-Populist card can be used to beat up somebody ‘why look at him or her, that populist son of a gun is just like candidate A, B and C and just like President D, E and F’ when in reality they may share little ideologically.
July 18th, 2009 at 8:42 am
Alex K.)
You and I differ on what the definition of ideological populism is then. I would say you described rehetorical populism. It is true that Palin does run on taking on the big boys (especially oil companies) – but she did so by shrinkiing gov’t and putting in place regulations to keep the companies from undermining free markets (which they could do in AK due to the fact that three companies control about 60% of th jobs and all of the oil leases). That sort of gov’t shrikage ad free market advocacy is what separtates “conservatives” from “populists.”
On Thompson)
He had the biggest twang and the simplest phrasing in my opinion. This to me is the basis of rhetorical populism. If you add an ideological “us against them” angle, you arre moving from the rhetorical in the direction of the ideological.
July 18th, 2009 at 8:47 am
14)
“flip-flopper” and “phony” are pure rhetoric – they mean nothing in and of themselves and have no ideological imlications – they are overused, but that’s politics.
The issue with “Populism” as a rhtorical term is one of purposeful definition-blurring, not one of overuse. Find me tow separate and distinct definitions of “phony” and then we’ll talk.
July 18th, 2009 at 8:50 am
And no, “Christiam Democrat” does not mean socialist – it means somoene on the right who nonetheless is occasionally open to using gov’t as an agent of compassion and the advancement of Christian values. Some are more fiscally conservative, other are more moderate, but the overriding theme is gov’t having moral responsibility
July 18th, 2009 at 9:02 am
Could you be a liberal Christian Democrat? Or can they not co-exist? I’m just curious, because the term ‘Christian’ is tossed around like a bag of salt. And some even attempt to exculde certain faiths out of the Christian unbrella. And some say you can’t be a christian and a democrate or a center-right christian republican.
July 18th, 2009 at 9:03 am
and would having moral responsiblity include NOT cheating on your spouse?
July 18th, 2009 at 9:18 am
I think at its heart, populism is about rallying the masses to take action and defend themselves against a tiny elite that is harming them (real or imagined). It can manifest itself in many ways, and can be a greater or lesser part of a politician’s program. But at its essense, it is about defending or taking back for “the people” what a small group has/is taking from them. It can be correct and beneficial, but it can also be destructive and harmful. It can- particularly when it scapegroups racial or ethnic groups- devolve into demagogery.
At various points on the spectrum, we can see an assortment of populist appeals, both good and bad, as well as how important the populist appeal is to the public figure:
-Hitler (all consuming, people vs. the Jews)
-Reagan (mild, people vs. the bureaucrats)
-Bryan (central, people vs. the monied interests)
-Wallace (central, people vs. the intellectuals)
-Buchanan (important, people vs. the cultural marxists)
-Palin (mild, people vs. the insiders)
-Clinton (mild, people vs. “the system” of ‘broken’ capitalism)
-Obama (central, people vs. the rich)
July 18th, 2009 at 9:19 am
“And no, “Christiam Democrat” does not mean socialist – it means somoene on the right who nonetheless is occasionally open to using gov’t as an agent of compassion and the advancement of Christian values.”
Right, and another key distinction with socialists is that Christian Democrats are usually defenders of private property.
July 18th, 2009 at 9:20 am
“And some even attempt to exculde certain faiths out of the Christian unbrella.”
Like Hindus?
July 18th, 2009 at 9:31 am
If Governor Palin runs in 2012, I could see Fred Thompson and his wife Jeri as being huge assets for Sarah. I could see Fred barnstorming the country and delivering wildly popular YouTube broadcasts in her support.
If Governor Palin declines to run, some ardent Fred Heads think that the old war horse might have one more battle left in him and could see Fred test the waters starting in 2010.
July 18th, 2009 at 9:47 am
JA. Palin won’t get close. She’s flipped and flopped on cap and trade already. Her dabble into the wonk world fell flat – when the courtic interview tape surfaced with Palin explaining (but not in great detail. Details are something she can’t grasp) why she and McCain SUPPORTED cap and trade.
Huh.
And you don’t think any of these flipflops (and more) will surface? Youbecha they will.
July 18th, 2009 at 9:48 am
Hindus are not christian. But they can be conservative voters.
July 18th, 2009 at 9:54 am
Knickers,
“Hindus are not christian.”
So I guess you are one of those people you refer to in #19, who “even attempt to exculde certain faiths out of the Christian unbrella”?
July 18th, 2009 at 10:15 am
MWS, you are usually not that obtuse.
July 18th, 2009 at 10:22 am
Martha,
“you are usually not that obtuse.”
Yeah, I am.
July 18th, 2009 at 10:23 am
My take on Palin is that she is more concerned with her own popularity than any ideology. She does what she thinks will score points – whether it’s populism, conservatism, liberalism or pragmatism, etc. Take the stimulus for example. She lobbied for it, then came home and spoke out against it because she was feeling the heat. Then she said she would only accept half – based on ideology no less. Then she took the whole darn thing – as we all knew she would!
Palin’s record as governor does not quite match the story line. I’m so sick of hearing about how she “took on the good old boys”. Her main accomplishment was to tax big oil and dole out more cash. If folks in Alaska like that, fine. But let’s not make her out to be some giant hero when she’s only been in office 2 years. If she’s really some larger-than-life pitbull reformer, she wouldn’t have quit with only 18 months left.
July 18th, 2009 at 10:26 am
Palin is just like the mavericky McCain. One of her most repeated lines during the election was “I want to cross the aisle and get something done for the American people!”. I never understood why that didn’t bother conservatives.
July 18th, 2009 at 10:40 am
27 – Hindus never claim to be Christians so they exclude themselves from the umbrella.
But you knew that already.
July 18th, 2009 at 10:43 am
Getreal,
So anyone who claims to be Christian is, by defintion, Christian?
July 18th, 2009 at 10:48 am
33 – Anyone who claims to follow the teachings of Christ is at the very least a Christian by the dictionary definition.
July 18th, 2009 at 10:55 am
Getreal,
Well, I don’t what to highjack the thread, which started with some promise, but I’d just say that if the word “Christian” is going to have an meaning to it, there must be some kind of objective standard, even if we don’t agree on what that standard is. It can’t objectively mean whatever anyone wants it to mean. Then it means nothing.
You can have the last word on the subject if you like…..
July 18th, 2009 at 11:11 am
#34 Muslims claim to follow the *true* teachings of Christ.
July 18th, 2009 at 11:19 am
MWS,
“Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.”
Matthew 7:21-23
“Ye shall no them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?”
Matthew 7:16
Christians are
1. Followers (worshippers) of Christ. Key to this requirement is that they profess his divinity.
2. Those who strive to live his teachings and his commandments.
July 18th, 2009 at 11:19 am
Good point Doug.
MWS you are correct that just saying you are a Christian does not make you one anymore than saying I am a Marshian makes me from Mars. However, I do not know why you brought up Hindus because they do not claim to be Christians.
July 18th, 2009 at 11:21 am
“1. Followers (worshippers) of Christ. Key to this requirement is that they profess his divinity.” Good point DanL, Muslims deny Christ’s Divinity.
July 18th, 2009 at 11:24 am
#39 So do Unitarians and Jehovah’s Witnesses.
Are Jehovah’s Witnesses not Christian?
July 18th, 2009 at 11:32 am
Once Christianity begins to be defined certain groups that call themselves Christian will fall outside the definition.
In a political setting I think it’s best to deal with the issues and leave religious identity a personal matter.
July 18th, 2009 at 11:33 am
MSW–I think I’ll let Christ decide who is Christian.
In the meantime, I’ll just try to do my best to follow his example.
July 18th, 2009 at 11:39 am
I think this is why it’s a mistake for Romney to claim to be a Christian. By doing that Romney implicitly disputes the religious beliefs of others and he brings up a theological issue that doesn’t belong in politics.
When people asked Romney about his religion he ought to have just said “I’m running for President, I’m not running for a religious office.”
July 18th, 2009 at 11:41 am
“Are Jehovah’s Witnesses not Christian?” Well, if it is true that they deny Christ’s Divinity then it is difficult to categorize them as Christians. Few Unitarians these days even claim to be Christian.
July 18th, 2009 at 11:43 am
Back to the thread……
I think the “street” definition of populism is using demagoguery to con the uninformed masses into believing or doing something they might not normally do if there were properly informed. One of the main tools of this type of populism is to identify some “enemy” or prejudice of the masses and then play up and exaggerate the animosity between the masses and the “enemy” to get the masses to give power, etc., to the demagogy populist.
Some believe that is what the Huckabee campaign did in the 2008 primaries when it played the Evangelicals against the Mormons and the “working man” against the “corporate carpet baggers.”
July 18th, 2009 at 11:45 am
#43–Doug, if I remember right, that’s what he tried to do, but people would let it be.
July 18th, 2009 at 11:52 am
#43–Statements like this are just as lame as people who keep trying to tell other’s they are conservative when the individual believes he/she is.
Romney believes he is a Christian, so trying to make him say otherwise is just lame.
It’s kind like, “Who died and made you God to decide who is and who isn’t Christian.” You may have your personal beliefs about, but forcing someone to deny what they believe sounds, well, like an extremist.
Why don’t we just burn Romney at the stake? If he lives, he’s a Christian, and if he dies he’s not.
July 18th, 2009 at 11:52 am
#46–”would not let it be”
July 18th, 2009 at 11:53 am
You remember it perfectly #43. Mitt handled the issue as well as it could be handled, under the circumstances. Its a shame that the speech on faith had to be made, but it was a great speech.
July 18th, 2009 at 11:54 am
#46
July 18th, 2009 at 12:00 pm
“Why don’t we just burn Romney at the stake? If he lives, he’s a Christian, and if he dies he’s not.” Huh? First, nobody in this particular post said that Mr. Romney was not a Christian and second who said that Christians want to burn non-Christians at the stake?
July 18th, 2009 at 12:01 pm
#46 Mitt was I believe a little paranoid. He was afraid that Americans wouldn’t elect man that most of them considered non-Christian.
Barack Obama had the same fear and he pandered based on religion just as much as people claim Huckabee did.
I believe in America we’d elect a Mormon.
However in a Republican primary it’s a good idea to not get into theological controversies. I guess Mitt felt he had to step into the “Is Mormonism a Christian religion” controversy.
I think he’d have been better off to ignore the criticism and just run as an American.
July 18th, 2009 at 12:09 pm
I’m not much on defining labels, but on many fronts, Mike Huckabee wasn’t a conservative. Listen to those close to the situation in Arkansas:
Betsy Hagan, Arkansas director of the conservative Eagle Forum and a key backer of his early runs for office, was once “his No. 1 fan.” She was bitterly disappointed with his record. “He was pro-life and pro-gun, but otherwise a liberal,” she says. “Just like Bill Clinton he will charm you, but don’t be surprised if he takes a completely different turn in office.”
Phyllis Schlafly, president of the national Eagle Forum, is even more blunt. “He destroyed the conservative movement in Arkansas, and left the Republican Party a shambles,” she says. “Yet some of the same evangelicals who sold us on George W. Bush as a ‘compassionate conservative’ are now trying to sell us on Mike Huckabee.”
“The business community in Arkansas is split. Some praise Mr. Huckabee’s efforts to raise taxes to repair roads and work with an overwhelmingly Democratic legislature. Free-market advocates are skeptical. “He has zero intellectual underpinnings in the conservative movement,” says Blant Hurt, a former part owner of, and columnist for, Arkansas Business magazine. “He’s hostile to free trade, hiked sales and grocery taxes, backed sales taxes on Internet purchases, and presided over state spending going up more than twice the inflation rate.”
Wall Street Journal Article:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110010782
July 18th, 2009 at 12:19 pm
OJ, MWS was trying to drag us into a relgious argument. Doug may have been doing the same. MWS was implying that the label may not fit all candidate (Romney). Jerald was probably looking at that implication by MWS, and thinking about the fact that many have been burned at the stake in the past by not believe exactly like some thought they should. But, as we all know our founding father’s were smart enough to do all they could to keep us from being bigots with out politics.
God bless America.
July 18th, 2009 at 12:22 pm
#53 Yeah Mike Huckabee wasn’t conservative on every issue. Neither were Mitt Romney, John McCain or Rudy Giuliani.
I guess it depends on what sort of conservative you are as to whether you consider Giuliani, Huckabee, Romney or McCain ‘conservative’.
There is a need to appeal to conservative principles but our party has to deal with real issues and not just ideology. Sometimes reality requires compromise.
Mitt would argue his health care plan was a compromise between conservative principles and reality.
July 18th, 2009 at 12:32 pm
That’s true, Doug. Sometimes people have to work within the political realities in which they find themselves.
July 18th, 2009 at 1:27 pm
Illinois,
“MWS was trying to drag us into a relgious argument.”
Not really. Knickers brought it up. I was just correcting a contradiction (namely, that noone can place any faith outside “the Christian umbrella.”). But I don’t want a religious argument here. See #35.
July 18th, 2009 at 1:37 pm
MWS, it seems to me that you were disagreeing with getreal in #34, and wanted to define it more tightly than he did, because you said:
“but I’d just say that if the word “Christian” is going to have an meaning to it, there must be some kind of objective standard, even if we don’t agree on what that standard is. It can’t objectively mean whatever anyone wants it to mean. Then it means nothing.”
If you didn’t mean to narrow the definition (implying LDS theology off limits) then why did you counter getreal with what he said? You love contention on here, because at this point, your guy is sitting on 1-3%.
July 18th, 2009 at 2:07 pm
Illinois,
Don’t be paranoid. I never said or implied anything about LDS here. In fact, I didn’t mention any specific faith except Hinduisn. Are you trying to drag us into a religious discussion? Because I tried to drop it in #35.
July 18th, 2009 at 2:08 pm
Illinois,
“You love contention on here, because at this point, your guy is sitting on 1-3%.”
No. I love contention on here because I love contention. But I didn’t want to hijack a thread about populism and turn it into a theological debate. That’s why I tried to drop it.
July 18th, 2009 at 2:11 pm
Haha, yes Illinoisguy, MWS’s guy is at about 3% now, but that has nothing to do with the definition of Christianity or of Christian Democrats for that matter.
July 18th, 2009 at 2:19 pm
Well, the thought is if he can cause contention between LDS and others, the other candidates win, because we are definitely a minority!
Unlike MWS, I hate contention, but I hate seeing Mitt or his religion get ran over even more.
July 18th, 2009 at 2:29 pm
43. Right Doug. I think it was a mistake for Romney to claim he’s a husband, father, and businessman too. He should have just ran as an American. Leave all the particulars out of it.
July 18th, 2009 at 2:32 pm
Illinois,
You know, just because someone says that there are people in this world who are not Christian, doesn’t mean they are talking about LDS or Romney. Respond to what people write, instead of chasing wind mills.
July 18th, 2009 at 3:12 pm
The first reference to who is/is not a Christian was by Knickers: “I’m just curious, because the term ‘Christian’ is tossed around like a bag of salt. And some even attempt to exculde certain faiths out of the Christian unbrella.”
July 18th, 2009 at 3:18 pm
#64 – To not have thought of LDS, I would have had to purge my mind of everything you’ve every written before on the subject.
Yes, BobH, knickers knows I don’t always agree with her antagonistic comments. She’s like MWS; she likes contention too, or at least she appears to.
July 18th, 2009 at 3:20 pm
Illinois,
“To not have thought of LDS, I would have had to purge my mind of everything you’ve every written before on the subject.”
Perhaps. But I didn’t bring it up here. You did. And yet you think I was trying to turn this into a religious thread?
July 18th, 2009 at 3:22 pm
Illinois,
“She’s like MWS”
You better take that back, before she punches you in the face!
July 18th, 2009 at 3:27 pm
Her arms aren’t 1400 miles long!
July 18th, 2009 at 3:29 pm
Illinois,
Well, I’ve never seen a picture, so I wouldn’t know.
July 18th, 2009 at 4:00 pm
I don’t like it when politicians waltz into theological controversies.
If it bothered you when Huckabee asked if Satan and Jesus were brothers within the Mormon religion, it ought to bother you just as much when Romney enters a religious controversy by claiming Mormonism is a Christian religion.
Both are an example of a politician bringing theology into politics.
July 18th, 2009 at 4:19 pm
#18… I would argue that Huckabee is still economically conservative (believe me, I know some on this board will disagree with me, but you have to look at the whole story not just soundbites), so in that sense not as much of a Christian Democrat, but a populist-toned conservative. Huckabee has to be careful to not over-do the populist rhetoric that it divides and angers ppl, but instead must use it to unite a broad majority against an elite minority. I think one criticism of Palin during the campaign was of her comment about “pro-America areas of this great nation” in Western NC was that that was divisive rhetoric that seemed to shut out ppl in non-rural, consevative parts of the country.
July 18th, 2009 at 4:23 pm
I just want to make sure Huckabee is not seen in your mind as GWB, Compassionate Conservative, Part II. Because IMO, they are very different. I am a big fan of Huckabee, not as much of GWB. I think Huckabee recognizes that just “tax cuts” and cutting govt spending is not gonna address problems in education, health care… it’ll take more free-market solutions, but that doesnt just cutting taxes and spending.
July 18th, 2009 at 6:20 pm
Well, Doug, I can see you’re wanting to argue, but I’ll hold back. Suffice it to say that The name of the church is The church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, and the first 4 of our Aticles of faith are:
We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.
We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression.
We believe that through the atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.
We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.
The others are just as Christian. Which of those disqualify us?
And he was defending his faith, not inserting it.
July 18th, 2009 at 6:41 pm
#71–Doug, since every Mormon believes to the morrow that they are Christian, the whole basis for your argument is off.
From the Mormon standpoint, the controversy is that people like you go around claiming that Mormons are not Christian when they are.
Believe what you want, but maybe you should sneak into an LDS church some Sunday. You will be amazed to find all the Mormons talking to each other and teaching each other like they are Christians. So either Mormons all subscribe to some unwritten controversy that they have to con each other by faking they believe they are Christians or they really do believe they are. Which is more plausible?
Romney didn’t try to sell himself as a Christian to the likes of yourself, he truly believes he is one.
That’s one reason you people called him a fake. YOU think he is faking he’s a Christian.
One day you folks will wake up and realize the Mormons are sincere and earnest about their belief in Christ.
July 18th, 2009 at 6:47 pm
Illinois,
“The others are just as Christian. Which of those disqualify us?”
Polytheism.
July 18th, 2009 at 6:51 pm
36 – I’m not really interested in carrying this further, as I’m not a church attendee, but I do have to make a correction there. The Quran mentions a guy named “Isa” who is…Jesus-ish. It never actually mentions Jesus. So its not the same.
July 18th, 2009 at 7:25 pm
MWS – BULL! We believe it EXACTLY as the Holy Bible teaches it. We don’t follow the doctrines of men, but the word of God on this matter.
July 18th, 2009 at 7:30 pm
#77 Isa is the Arabic name for Jesus.
Christian Arabs call Jesus by the name “Isa”. They have for over 19 centuries.
July 18th, 2009 at 7:35 pm
#75 If Romney wants my vote he won’t wade into a controversial theological issue by claiming his sect is Christian.
That sort of apologetic is a fine thing for a Mormon minister to do but that has to go away if you want to be unifying figure for the Republican Party.
In Republican primaries you can’t bring up such contentious religious issues without serious consequences.
July 18th, 2009 at 7:36 pm
Illinois,
So you believe God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one in being?
July 18th, 2009 at 7:38 pm
It would be as if Rudy Giuliani had run and claimed to be a good Catholic.
Rudy didn’t do that to his credit. He said “Others can judge what kind of Catholic I am.”
As a former Catholic I appreciated that he didn’t try to wrap himself in the Pope after having lived like the devil. He let the issue slide without jumping into religious controversy.
July 18th, 2009 at 7:39 pm
#81 My understanding is that the LDS religion holds to Arianism.
July 18th, 2009 at 7:41 pm
We believe they are three distinct personages, one in purpose, and all devine, just like the Bible teaches it
We don’t believe he was praying to himself….don’t believe he is sitting at his own right hand, etc. Don’t believe he was attending his own baptism as another being, etc…
July 18th, 2009 at 7:42 pm
Doug,
My understanding is the LDS holds that there are many gods. That God the father is just one of many, and Jesus is his eldest son, and our brother. They teach that we can be gods like Jesus, and gods of our own worlds in the afterlife. Arians, on the other hand, rejected the divinity of Christ because it conflicted with their (mistaken) understanding of monotheism. So they are kind of opposite, actually.
Is this correct, Illinois? Remember, YOU asked why we don’t believe LDS is Christian.
July 18th, 2009 at 7:42 pm
Did you read our Articles of Faith Doug?
July 18th, 2009 at 7:43 pm
Illinois,
Do you worship Jesus?
July 18th, 2009 at 7:46 pm
Doug,
Aside from not applying his religion very well to his personal and public life (in some respects) Rudy actually had some rather mature things to say on the subject in the primaries. It’s hard not to like him.
July 18th, 2009 at 7:50 pm
Doug,
Mormons and Arians do share a common belief that Jesus is not eternal, that he was created by the Father. That would be another disqualifyer in my book, and the Nicene Creed.
July 18th, 2009 at 7:51 pm
…..created or the result of a conjugal act with one of God’s (supposed) wives. I think they also believe that God the father was once a man like us. That would be another reason…….
July 18th, 2009 at 7:52 pm
He is my Savior, my Redeemer, my advocate with the Father…He is the Creator of the earth….he died for my sins, the sins of the whole earth…he was crucified for me….we sing up him, we praise him, we pray through him to our Father in Heaven, just as he prayed to our Father in Heaven. He loves us…we love him….of course we worship him… he’s divine and without sin. He is the only begotten Son of the Father….again, just EXACTLY like it teaches in the Bible!
July 18th, 2009 at 7:53 pm
The Nicene Creed is a doctrine of men, and not of God. We go by the Bible.
July 18th, 2009 at 7:55 pm
Illinois,
But you do not believe that He is one in being with the Father. You do not believe that He is coeternal with the Father. You believe there was, when He was not. So you have a multitude of gods.
Do you believe that you can become a god like Jesus?
July 18th, 2009 at 7:55 pm
Illinois,
The Bible condemns polytheism.
About a million times.
July 18th, 2009 at 7:56 pm
#80–Doug you are the folks that keep bringing it up. You are the folks that keep after Romney to deny he is a Christian. But from Romney’s point of view, you are asking him to deny Christ. He’s not going to do it.
You’ll just have to decide what to do with your vote on your own conscious.
July 18th, 2009 at 7:57 pm
I’m not arguing any more on the subject…..You can go by all the creeds you want, but as for me and my house we will serve the Lord, and use the scriptures for our guidance. I will not point out the scores of things that could disqualify other churches.
July 18th, 2009 at 8:00 pm
MWS – I won’t dwell on it… I have a tough time visualizing myself that way, as do most members, however, the Bible teaches us that Jesus will inherit all that the Father has, and that we will be joint heirs with Christ.
July 18th, 2009 at 8:00 pm
94 – I’ve never heard of Mormons worshipping their ancestors as gods, if they believe they can become gods it might be strange but I don’t see it as polytheism unless they worship those supposed gods.
July 18th, 2009 at 8:02 pm
We don’t worship our ancestors as gods at all, not even close….
They are just regular folks awaiting the resurrection of the just…
That’s all folks!
July 18th, 2009 at 8:03 pm
Illinois,
“I will not point out the scores of things that could disqualify other churches.”
Well, polytheism is a biggie, in my estimation.
July 18th, 2009 at 8:05 pm
Getreal,
Whether they worship all their gods or not, Mormons believe that many gods exist, and that makes them polytheist. But if you think polytheism is based on the number of gods you WORSHIP (instead of believing in), then Illinois has already told us he worships Jesus and God the Father, but believes they are two Gods. So Illinois worships at least two gods. That would make him a polytheist- even under your definition.
July 18th, 2009 at 8:06 pm
#96 Don’t your scriptures include texts Joseph Smith translated while looking through a hat?
That book and the doctrines within it would be a point of serious disagreement between Christians and Mormons.
July 18th, 2009 at 8:08 pm
MWS,
That’s a pretty correct view in my opinion. As one of the few Mormons in existence that isn’t a Romney pusher, I tend to stay back from theological discussions made politics, but since this isn’t one of them, I feel a little more inclined to comment.
We believe that while other divinities/gods do exist and that those who attain salvation become like God, the only ones that pertain to us for matters of redemption and salvation are the Christian Godhead. Thus we worship only them. Polytheists worship and pay respects to many gods. Most Christians take the side of the classical Nicaen debate of the Trinity being one in substance. Mormons are on the other side, we believe that while they are divine and united in purpose, they are wholly distinct persons.
I do tend to agree with Doug, though, on the political aspect. I’d wish Romney would avoid making himself into some iconic Mormon leader. Just talk about how real religion is manifest in a person’s character – the only real qualification for office – and leave the subject alone.
July 18th, 2009 at 8:12 pm
Doug,
I’d venture a guess that you have never read the Book of Mormon, since none of the most combative Mormon doctrines are contained therein. It actually talks very frequently of being spiritually born again, much more than the Bible does.
July 18th, 2009 at 8:14 pm
MPC,
So how do you square that with Duet. 4:35?
“All this you were allowed to see that you might know the LORD is God and there is no other.”
July 18th, 2009 at 8:15 pm
“Thus says the LORD, Israel’s King and redeemer, the LORD of hosts: I am the first and I am the last; there is no God but me.”
-Isaiah 44:6
July 18th, 2009 at 8:16 pm
MWS, just to help our your understanding of where IllinoisGuy is coming from:
When New Testament Christianity entered a dark period after the Apostles were martyred and the Christians persecuted by Rome using ethnic cleansing-like purges and a focus on destroying the leadership and the holy writings, Christianity emerged out the other side several hundred years later in disarray—leaderless and with only a few scraps of New Testament teachings and letters (what became scripture) left. Everybody was arguing about what the tenets of faith were. Nobody claimed divine revelation anymore (Of course, the Apostles and other divinely inspired leaders had all been killed off and not replaced centuries ago), all sorts of off-shoot sects has sprung up.
Then one day the Emperor of Rome decides to become Christian and make it the state religion. He doesn’t like all the mass confusion so he commands that a bunch of councils be held to “set policy” and the debates began. Everybody argued about what the tenets and beliefs of Christianity were. The took votes, and more votes, and more votes and come up with different creeds after many power struggles. The definitive one for the now Holy Roman Empire was the Nicene Creed, but even then, many leaders and churches did not accept it. May branches split off because of it. Many compromises were reached and many local pagan customs were adopted to establish this new State Religion throughout the Roman Empire. The Christian Church was now run by the political Empire Rome—the vary same entity that had persecuted it on and off for centuries.
Ever since then, Christians have been arguing about what they believe. The Holy Roman Church has spit into many pieces. The Protestants rebelled against the Catholics and themselves established many sects that are still arguing about doctrine.
The Nicene Creed came out of backroom power brokering that was lorded over by the very unholy Roman Emperor.
Just keep that in mind when discussing Bible teachings with Illinois Guy…..
July 18th, 2009 at 8:17 pm
You stated that well MPC.. Thanks, but in all fairness to Mitt, he has not pushed this issue at all, but only responded to it when necessary. He’s not about to deny Christ or his religion in order to get elected President.
July 18th, 2009 at 8:19 pm
Mormons are henotheists. Believe in many Gods but worship one.
Christians are monotheists in that they believe only one eternal God exists in three persons. They believe God created the Universe.
#104 I began to read the Book of Mormon (a few months ago) but found the text a bit repetitive. I somehow couldn’t generate the enthusiasm to get through it just like I got bored with the writings of Ayn Rand. I’ve skimmed some sections of importance to Mormon belief though.
July 18th, 2009 at 8:19 pm
Try Hebrews 1:1,2 Jesus Christ was the Creator under the direction of our Heavenly Father.
July 18th, 2009 at 8:20 pm
MWS,
Simple, there is no other god to whom pertains our salvation, but God himself. Other exalted people (even ones like Moses, Abraham, etc), material objects, and ideas, no matter how great, cannot save.
Polytheism would be to believe just that.
July 18th, 2009 at 8:26 pm
Jerald,
#107. Your fanciful history doesn’t square with the facts. For one, there were already heresies in Apostolic times (St. Paul warns of them repeatedly). So there was hardly any period of time when all who claimed to be Christian actually were, or where there was “consensus” among all who claimed the name, “Christian.” Secondly, I have about about 40 (thick) volumes on my shelves written by the Church Fathers; most of them before the Nicene Council. Your “dark ages” of Christianity is fictitious. In that period we had men like St. Ignatius of Antioch, St. Clement of Rome, St. Irenaeus, St. Polycarp, etc…. writing eloquently of the same faith as St. Paul, St. John, etc……
July 18th, 2009 at 8:27 pm
#110 I think you don’t understand the Christian doctrine of the Trinity Illinoisguy. You mistake it with modalism.
Malachi 2:10 together with Hebrews 1:1,2 are vital for Christian’s understanding of the Holy Trinity.
July 18th, 2009 at 8:28 pm
Btw, we only pray to one God, God the Father. Don’t you pray to many? Jesus, Mary, various Saints? We would never do that… we do it as Jesus taught us only, to God the Father.
July 18th, 2009 at 8:28 pm
MPC,
Isaiah doesn’t use your qualifier. God said “there is no God but me,” not “there is no (redeemer) God but me.”
July 18th, 2009 at 8:29 pm
boy, there sure a lot of people on here talking about things they know nothing about concerning the Church of JESUS CHRIST of Latter Day Saints.. wow,
July 18th, 2009 at 8:29 pm
Illinois,
What is your Hebrews citation supposed to prove, in your mind?
July 18th, 2009 at 8:31 pm
Doug,
I think the misunderstanding there is that Mormons believe that perfection is attainable without being of the same substance as God Himself – a belief that one may become like unto God in His perfection but still be completely distinct from Him – whereas mainstream Christianity holds that the only perfect substance in existence is God Himself by definition.
It’s an breakoff of the old debate really – is there just one Perfection, or is perfection possible in distinct entities?
IG,
It’s about staying above the fray. No one is forcing Romney to deny that he is a Christian, after all. The real way to respond to political-religious bomb throwing is to avoid theological battles and simply let the people judge your beliefs by your character.
July 18th, 2009 at 8:32 pm
Illinois,
We pray to only one God too. But we don’t believe the saints are deaf. Scripture teaches us that we are surrounded by a great cloud of witnesses, and that the prayers of a righteous man are effective. But just a few posts ago you said you worship Jesus.
Why do you worship Him, and not pray to Him?
July 18th, 2009 at 8:34 pm
I honestly believe that is what Mitt did, and does. His speech on faith should have put it all to bed, but that wouldn’t give his opponents a political advantage amongst the bigots.
July 18th, 2009 at 8:36 pm
MWS, it shows that Jesus and Heavenly Father were distinct from each other, (but working to achieve one purpose) even before Jesus’ birth on earth as Son of God.
July 18th, 2009 at 8:36 pm
We worship Jesus Christ as the Saviour and redeemer of the world of God’s children. It was He that suffered and bled in Gethsemane, was beaten and had a crown of thorns thrust upon HIS great head and He that bled and died on the cross. Our great Father watched in great pain the suffering of HIS son. How happy I am to know that is the Christ I revere, love and adore and yes, even worship. He is the one who judges me because He is the one that earned the right through HIS great atoning sacrifice… I am so happy to understand these things and know just who Jesus was and what HE did…
July 18th, 2009 at 8:37 pm
I pray to the Father in the name of the Son. They are two separate and distinct individuals…
July 18th, 2009 at 8:38 pm
Because we believe we pray to the Father in the name of Jesus Christ. He is our advocate with the Father.
Why do you pray to all of those Saints though? Where in the scriptures did you get that?
July 18th, 2009 at 8:38 pm
These are the things Mitt believes in.
July 18th, 2009 at 8:40 pm
Let’s just put an end to this discussion….we’ve all said our piece not. thanks!
July 18th, 2009 at 8:40 pm
I think Mitt’s speech on Faith in America was one of the best talks ever!!!! He is and was stellar and it was on of his best moments…
July 18th, 2009 at 8:45 pm
#112-MWS
Okay. Whatever. I’ve got lots of thick books on my selves too. Read even thicker books on the shelves of others. Seen lots of good research done by people of many Christian sects.
I’ll just note that during the New Testament times when people got off track on doctrine, the divinely inspired leaders put them back on track. When necessary the leaders were given direct revelation, such as Peter being told to take the Gospel to the gentiles.
But any divine direction has been denied by the Christian churches since way before the Nicene Council—and they have been left to arguing, voting, and fighting about doctrine ever since. If you claim that is fanciful history, well not much left to say.
July 18th, 2009 at 8:51 pm
Catholics, the Orthodox and some Protestants pray to the saints based on Revelation 5:8 among other parts of scripture.
July 18th, 2009 at 8:52 pm
I like what you said Jerald… There is so much that is interesting in those yrs between the death of the Apostles and the Nicene Council… much to learn from the lack of involvement on a spiritual level… thanks again
July 18th, 2009 at 9:00 pm
The Nicene Creed was written to affirm doctrines all Christians had believed until a priest named Arius began to spread a new heresy.
With great effort Athanasius and other saints defended the doctrines all Churches had held prior to Arius.
July 18th, 2009 at 9:32 pm
You forget, Doug, history is written by the winners.
July 18th, 2009 at 9:39 pm
#132—Yes, it was a lot more messy than Doug makes it sound–and that’s just going with what history we do have.
July 18th, 2009 at 10:07 pm
Jerald and marK,
There is an unbroken lineage from the Apostles for belief in the Triune God. Not many gods. To pretend that know one knew the Truth from the moment St. John the Beloved died is to deny the volumes of writing these men left behind. It’s not that the Church just got around to figuring this stuff out at Nicea. The Church always proclaimed the truth, but from time to time, she has seen fit to formally define the truth in the face of heresy. In this case, Arianism. But heresy existed from the time of the Apostles, and has ever since. But so has the truth. God did not abandon the Church. He need not leave us orphans to wander around, stark raving mad for 1800 years until Joseph Smith. He sent the Spirit of Truth. The Gospel has been faithfully proclaimed to ALL generations.
July 18th, 2009 at 10:11 pm
Illinois,
“MWS, it shows that Jesus and Heavenly Father were distinct from each other, (but working to achieve one purpose) even before Jesus’ birth on earth as Son of God.”
It shows the humanity of Jesus. He is fully God, and fully man. But he shares one essence with the Father. One Being, three divine persons.
Why else did Christ say, “I and the Father are one.” Or “If you have seen me, you have seen the Father.” Or when the pharisees asked who He was, why did he respond, “I AM,” invoking the name of He who spoke to Moses and was worshiped by the Israelites for millennia?
July 18th, 2009 at 10:18 pm
#134-MWS, I reallize that’s what you believe and I will respect that, but there is plenty of evidence to counter that, not to mention weird statements in the New Testament like “Father forgive them for they know not what they do” “Father, why have you forsaken me?” “Touch me not, for I have not yet ascended to my Father” and “Be ye therefore perfect as your Father in Heaven is perfect” and Christ having this weird habit of always praying to himself, or at least belief in the Nicene Creed makes all of that appear weird.
July 18th, 2009 at 10:21 pm
#135–Actually, there are some really good answers to your questions, but I’m off to church. Maybe later if IG does get back to you first.
July 18th, 2009 at 10:23 pm
Jerald,
One Being. Three Persons. It is difficult to fathom. But there it is. Yes, there is relationship within the Trinity. But the dual nature of Christ- fully God and fully man- is the only way to make sense of Scripture. He and the Father are one. Yet He emptied himself. But he is I AM. But He also did not see equality with the Father as something to be grasped.
Christ is one person of the Trinity, with two natures (divine and human) and two wills (divine and human).
Incidentally, I’ve seen other Mormons make that whole “was Jesus praying to himself” argument. I’m guessing it’s common in Mormon apologetics? Anyway, it makes no sense; not to anyone who understands orthodox Christian teaching. Find another line of attack.
July 18th, 2009 at 10:29 pm
ANYWAY…………
It case this thread dies here (and I was actually hoping for a good discussion on populism, which is why I tried to snuff the nascent theology debate in #35), the answer to the question, “Why don’t a lot of folks consider LDS Christian?” would include, among other things, LDS belief in many gods, LDS belief that we can become gods, and LDS belief that Jesus was created. Any one of those would be a disqualifier, in my opinion.
BTW, I keep getting contradictory answers from some here on whether Mormons worship Jesus. I’ve read “yes,” and I’ve read, “We’re not polytheist even though we believe in many gods, because we only worship God the Father,” or words to that effect.
Which is it?
July 18th, 2009 at 10:33 pm
Illinois,
Almost forgot, “Why do you pray to all of those Saints though?”
Same reason I ask others to pray for me, only better. Because unlike my friends who pray for me, and intervene for me, the saints are already enjoying the beatific vision, and are thus closer to God.
If I had to pick between asking my friends or the saints to intervene for me, makes sense to pick the saints. Those guys know what they’re doing. Fortunately, though, we have the Church Militant AND the Church Triumphant for help.
July 18th, 2009 at 10:37 pm
Jerald,
“Okay. Whatever. I’ve got lots of thick books on my selves too.”
But you are effectively telling me my books don’t exist, when you say that the Church lost its way after the Apostles and didn’t teach the same thing. My books show they did. When you suggest that Christianity effectively disappeared. These guys existed. I’ve got their writings. And they taught the same things as Peter, Paul, and John.
July 18th, 2009 at 11:14 pm
“It shows the humanity of Jesus. He is fully God, and fully man. But he shares one essence with the Father. One Being, three divine persons.”
You apparently have no idea how befuddled your whole argument is, but you can believe what you want. Jut don’t try to tell us we’re not Christian, because we choose to beleive it the way the Bible teaches us. The Bible teaches the exact relationship of God the Father, God the Son, and the Holy Ghost. It’s not what you are purporting it to be. “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me”? As Jesus was being baptized a voice from heaven declaring….and the holy spirit descending like a dove…Stephen sees Jesus sitting at the right hand of God. Does this really sound like ‘one being’ to you, as you are declaring.
Regarding you statement above “I and the Father are one”, do you not realize that he asked us to be one, even as he and the father are one? Are we part of one being also? NO! There are countless passages in the Bible showing explicitly the relationship of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost…..far too many to enumerate. Nobody needs a creed to know exactly how they relate to each other.
July 18th, 2009 at 11:21 pm
Tertulian expressed trinitarian theology a century before the Nicene Council.
Ignatius of Antioch, who was a student of the Apostle John, certainly had writings that affirmed trinitarianism although the word hadn’t been coined yet.
If trinitarianism is a heresy it is one that has been the majority view of the Christians from the time of the Apostles to today.
July 18th, 2009 at 11:23 pm
“But you are effectively telling me my books don’t exist, when you say that the Church lost its way after the Apostles and didn’t teach the same thing.”
Had the church lost its way when they were burning people at the stake for what they called heresy, which many times was just not believing exactly what ‘the church’ said they were to believe? Through centuries of several inqisition periods, there was extreme measures taken attempting to keep people in line with the ‘teachings’.
If they hadn’t lost there way, why was that happening? Do you think God was directing that wickenness?
Do you think the problems Luther had with the church were all bogus? Where had those ideas come from and how did they become part of the ‘church’? You admitted praying to Saints? Where did you learn that, not from the Bible?
DON’T COME ON HERE AND ACT AS IF YOUR CHURCH HAS BEEN PERFECT!! We’re not a bunch of ignorant Amos’ as you must believe. I tried to stop this thread earlier, but you just wouldn’t stop, so be it.
July 18th, 2009 at 11:25 pm
You cited two people so far before the creed! Majority? How do you know! Of course it was after the creed, because they had to either accept it or suffer the consequences.
July 18th, 2009 at 11:25 pm
LDS people are Christian. I am suprised that sectarians here (some of whom I respect somewhat) would not vote for Romney unless he denied his faith (i.e., by playing down his christianity). That is, frankly, despicable. If you want to vote for somebody who is willing to deny his faith for political reasons then vote for Obama.
I wish that those Constantine Christians here would stop trying to exclude the LDS for our rejection of unbiblical trinitarian doctrines, and would stop trying to get Romney to deny his faith for political reasons.
July 18th, 2009 at 11:26 pm
Common man had no Bible in those days. They accepted what the church told them…not like a Bible was laying around the house to be read….it was all hand written and only a few copies, no in the regular households.
So how would they have know any better if that’s what they were taught?
July 18th, 2009 at 11:28 pm
Illinoisguy is this youtube inaccurate in explaining what the Mormon religion believes?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bsp0inDZ22M
July 18th, 2009 at 11:31 pm
Doug, do you really believe that Romney claimed he is Christian in order to get votes? Even if you disagree with LDS theology, why would you require a politician to deny his lifelong fervently held faith in order to get your vote?
July 18th, 2009 at 11:33 pm
Much of it is false…I couldn’t stand to watch over 3 minutes of it. Have you ever heard of Jesus’ admonition to teach line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little, there a little….?
I have, and I refuse to go through tht idiotic video and pluck out the lies from the truth…suffice it to say, much of it is false, within the first three minutes.
July 18th, 2009 at 11:35 pm
Doug, You should know that that very cartoon was denounced by the anti-defamation league as ‘religious pornography’ and was one reason why a first-page poster was removed from this site. If you really want to have an honest discussion about religion then let’s stop posting highly offensive crap like you just posted. It’s equivalent to somebody posting the “Protocols” and asking a Jewish person to explain why it’s wrong.
July 18th, 2009 at 11:36 pm
I would require a politician to keep his mouth shut about controversial religious disputes if he wants to be a politician.
If the President of the Mormon Church wants to give an apologetic that’s his duty. However I’m not going to vote for a politician who uses his position to argue for the Mormon religion as orthodox Christianity instead of being silent on the issue.
Mitt can consider himself whatever he wants. If he wants my vote he’ll keep his mouth shut on the issue.
July 18th, 2009 at 11:38 pm
He was as silent as the situation allowed him to be. If you don’t believe that, then vote your conscience.
July 18th, 2009 at 11:41 pm
So, you expect somebody running for office who is attacked by somebody like yourself posting inflammatory videos should just let it slide.
I guess you expect Romney to leave the Christian ideal of defending one’s faith at home as well, or is that not a Christian ideal (to defend one’s faith in truth). Would you be willing to live up to the same standard if somebody started viciously attacking your faith?
July 18th, 2009 at 11:42 pm
I think what Romney ended up doing cost him votes. I think he’d have gotten closer to the nomination if he didn’t go off and give his speech on religion.
July 18th, 2009 at 11:48 pm
Illinois,
“DON’T COME ON HERE AND ACT AS IF YOUR CHURCH HAS BEEN PERFECT!!”
Never said or suggested she is. God uses humans. Humans who sin and make horrible mistakes. The Church is infallible in matters essential to faith and morals, but that doesn’t mean her members, bishops, or popes are without sin or never make a bad decision regarding discipline.
But as long as we’re throwing mud, and bringing up things like the auto da’ fe, should you explain the LDS longtime embrace of polygamy and rejection of blacks in the priesthood?
July 18th, 2009 at 11:51 pm
That’s only because people cared more about forcing their own sectarian notions of theology onto the public (by disqualifying a person based on their belief rather than on merits of his character, ideas and abilities) than they did about promoting general welfare. With full frontal attacks on Romney by evangelicals he had to give his speech, and it was his duty to respond to such attacks–even by his opponents in the race for the nomination.
July 18th, 2009 at 11:52 pm
You have a right to your opinion. I think he tries to let his light shine before men as the scriptural admonition would direct, but he never, ever brings up his religion unless it is thrust on him? By the way, Doug, did you even listen to his speech on faith? It doesn’t seem like it. People didn’t see it as a talk about his faith, but about faith generally, and how our forefathers came to this country to escape religious persecution, and how our forefather’s had the wisdom to include in the Constitution verbage guaranteeing us a freedom of religion in America. Too bad many people today consider that wrong on their part. They prefer to be bigots.
July 18th, 2009 at 11:53 pm
#154 I’d never run for national office. I can’t as an employee of the Army. However people do viciously attack my religion.
If I was running for office I’d tell voters that our constitution contains no religious test. We can live up to the Founders ideal when we are willing to vote for those of any or no religion.
However when you enter the political sphere it’s wise not to divide people by bringing up contentious religious issues.
For a member of the Mormon religion I think the best bet is to ask the voters to ignore bigotry and to vote for the candidate who will do the best job regardless of religion.
A President doesn’t need to be Christian so it shouldn’t matter whether I think Romney is Christian or not. I’d vote for a Mormon, an atheist or a Muslim without blinking.
I’ve always been annoyed by people who claimed Obama was Muslim as if that was disqualification for office.
July 18th, 2009 at 11:55 pm
MWS, polygamy? Why don’t you ask God to explain it to you?
July 18th, 2009 at 11:57 pm
And you think it would be wrong of Obama to correct people of that misconception or to even address it?
July 18th, 2009 at 11:58 pm
#159, that’s exactly what Mitt always did! And that’s what his speech did.
July 18th, 2009 at 11:59 pm
Illinois,
“MWS, polygamy? Why don’t you ask God to explain it to you?”
What do you mean?
Also, did/does the LDS really teach that black people are “marked” as descendants of beings that remained neutral in the Jesus-Lucifer split?
July 19th, 2009 at 12:02 am
I mean that God accepted, even condoned it during the Old Testament period, so pray about why that was.
Your last paragraph, NO!
July 19th, 2009 at 12:04 am
Obama went pretty far in making clear he wasn’t a Muslim. He sent out fliers that made him look as if he was a preacher.
It annoyed me during the primary which is why I reported on it.
http://race42008.com/2008/05/12/barack-obamas-pitch-in-kentucky/
July 19th, 2009 at 12:10 am
So Doug, you thought that Romney’s defense against frontal attacks on his religion were simply publicity stunts.
For some of us, attacking our religion is like attacking our family. Just as it is appropriate for Palin to defend her family against vicious, ignorant attacks, it is appropriate for Romney to defend against unwarranted attacks on his most closely held beliefs–including addressing ignorance like the ‘Satan and Jesus are Bros’ meme.
July 19th, 2009 at 12:10 am
Illinois,
“I mean that God accepted, even condoned it during the Old Testament period”
So does He accept it today? If not, why when did that change?
July 19th, 2009 at 12:11 am
Did it bother you that Huckabee pitched himself as God’s candidate? It did me. Mitt would never have done that in a million years.
July 19th, 2009 at 12:12 am
Which they are not, BTW. And no, Adam isn’t Jesus’s Father either.
July 19th, 2009 at 12:13 am
No, he doesn’t MWS. You’ll have to ask him about why the change. He changed from the Old Testament to the New Testament too. We may have to wait a while to learn some of those things.
July 19th, 2009 at 12:16 am
I’m going to go to bed!
July 19th, 2009 at 12:23 am
#166 I’m not sure. I did at the time but I’d have to look over things again to see if I still feel that way.
I think you leave defending the religion to those who aren’t running for office.
However those who knowingly opposed Romney based on his Mormonism range from the honestly mistaken to the bigoted. I think he could reach the honestly mistaken without defending his religion. I don’t think he could reach the bigoted by defending his religion.
I suppose as a practical matter this is a more complex issue because many people were peddling rumors about Mormons as if a Mormon President would do scary things. I think Romney could have handled this a better though.
July 19th, 2009 at 1:28 am
Well, Doug. It’s not hard to see why you supported Huckabee.
But you are dead wrong that Romney ever made his religion an issue. He did everything he could to avoid the topic until your man forced him to deal with it. And then when he did defend his faith – he gave one of the most brilliant speeches of the entire campaign, which had almost nothing to do with his Mormonism. Bravo to Romney.
What an incredibly ridiculous argument you make about Romney in light of what your guy did!!! The irony is rich, but you haven’t got a clue.
BTW – It sort of makes me sick that you want Romney to hide his Christianity.
July 19th, 2009 at 4:13 am
That arguments about Romney always somehow evolve into debates on Mormon theology really prove that it was in fact made an issue and remains an issue. It simply doesn’t go away. And that’s not just because one side is laden with bomb-throwers. Mormons like to yank out the howitzers in response rather than respond less sharply. Honestly, where would any anti-Mormon conversation in politics go if Mormons themselves didn’t get really really offended every time, even when the comments aren’t provocative?
Is asking people to judge on character, not on religion, some sign of weakness? Is Romney himself going to look weak for saying that? And what does a response like that say about the beliefs of that person?
What Romney needs to jettison from the campaign is making faith a pivotal issue. As if questioning the level of faith of a candidate is valid (this of course was probably thought up when McCain and Rudy were the enemies). Talking about faith as a central necessity of leadership just invites debates over Mormonism to begin, because by some yardsticks Mormonism doesn’t measure up and Romney will be forced to step in to back up his own faith, or back down from his own campaign, just like last year. Between the two he’d be better advised on the former, but it’s better still to avoid it altogether.
July 19th, 2009 at 5:19 am
MWS:
This Anti Mormon stuff is down right prejudice. Why don’t you talk about the Jews, or the Blacks, why stop at Mormons. Is this the last group that has to endure Prejudice by other Christians?
These comments are hateful and Self serving. You folks that making anti-Mormon comments have lost it. Why should they have to defend their Faith? Do you have to defend your Religion?
Prejudice and Bigotry is ignorance.
July 19th, 2009 at 6:10 am
Well, after ironically gone from race42012 because of going to a religious talk and having a nights sleep, I learned a lot about theology reading comment on this article on Populism. Nevertheless, I still do not have the theological expertise to say definitively who is a Christian and who is not. In # 74, Illinoisguy does a very good job of explaining that Mormons are Christians. Later on, Doug and MSW, point to a few theological aspects of Mormonism that are serious enough to challenge the notion that Mormonism is within the realm of Christianity. However, as troubling as these few serious stumbling blocks are, I do not know for sure if these are current officially Mormon doctrine. A good friend of mine told me that he talked to Mormons who claim that anybody can be a god. If this is true Mormon theology, it is troubling, but we non-Mormons may not understand what is truly taught by the Mormon Church just as Mormons and other Christian sects do not truly understand the doctrine of or various faiths, so to a degree as troubled as I am about a few aspects of what I think to be Mormonism, I have to give them some benefit of the doubt.
“#110 I think you don’t understand the Christian doctrine of the Trinity Illinoisguy. You mistake it with modalism.” Yes, while Doug after reading some of IllinoisGuy’s comments, it appears to me that Illinoisguy does not have a good understanding of the Trinity, but he may or may not be speaking for his Church. I know Catholics who do not have a good understanding of the Trinity, nevermind a whole bunch of other non-Catholic Christians. If fact, I do not think any of us will have a perfect understanding of the Trinity in this lifetime. I have in the past voted for politicians who did not have a good understanding of the Trinity because they happened to have better political policies than those who appeared to be Trinitarian, but had bad policies.
I have not heard every word of Mr. Romney’s so-called religious speech myself, but one local Evangelical Radio lady said what troubled her most was that she thought that Mr. Romney tried to project the idea that Mormons are just like any other Catholic or Protestant. She correctly said that it is one thing to suggest that Mormons are Christians, it is another for them to downplay those differences. Nevertheless, despite her being troubled, she eventually became a Romneyite.
July 19th, 2009 at 6:46 am
OJ, it’s true that I don’t have a good understanding of the Trinity, but it has nothing to do with me. It has more to do with the fact that it makes no sense whatsoever. When people attempt to describe it, it sounds utterly ridiculous. They revert to the same ‘talking points’ that you hear over and over that make no sense. Thanks for admitting that ‘In fact, I do not think any of us will have a perfect understanding of the Trinity in this lifetime.”
Here is a link for a great speech: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2Mr-2mff6Q&feature=relate
July 19th, 2009 at 7:13 am
And btw, I was Protestant for 31 years, and I didn’t know of a single person that could explain the Trinity.
Also, I’ve taught numerous people of various faiths through the years, and nearly every one of them personally had a belief essentially the same as the LDS understanding of the Godhead, so in spite of them belonging to faiths embracing the Trinity concept, they didn’t buy it.
July 19th, 2009 at 8:56 am
All of this theological discussion is interesting, but my main contention is the idea that Latter-day Saints have to live as second-class citizens; hiding their religion from the public if perchance they choose to serve the public interest.
e.g. from Doug,
Why? Don’t we have a 1st amendment protecting our right to free association and religious practice? Why is it that only Latter-day Saints have to divorce themselves from their private life while Protestants don’t face restricted freedom of religious expression in their public service.
Why do you and others here pointedly apply a hypocritical double standard to Huckabee supporters (who are free to express whatever religious belief in the public square as public officers; including overt campaigning as a ‘Christian Leader’) while punishing and oppressing Latter-day Saint public officials for any mention of religion whatsoever. This relegates Latter-day Saints to a second class status, and attempts to exclude us from society, and public service. It is equivalent to militant atheists who would force their religious views on President Bush by suing him for praying at innagurantion, and it’s the same kind of garbage that requires me as a scientist to always express anti-theist doctrine in any academic writing or teaching.
This coersion of conscience is unamerican and counterproductive to religious liberty (as evidenced by SCOTUS cases such as Santa Fe Independent vs. Doe). Here’s a fact: Latter-day saints consider themselves to be Christian. Here’s another fact: nothing people here do or say will coerce me or other Latter-day Saints to distance ourselves from our faith; in public life or private. Fact #3: To attempt to do so would be against the ideals of this Nation’s core principles.
On the other hand, I have every right to vote against people who would enact laws that persecute religious minorities; including evangelicals who would limit religious expression in public, Islamist who would seek to incorporate Sharia into our legal system, or Atheist who would restrict any pro-theist public expression whatsoever.
July 19th, 2009 at 9:02 am
So Doug, please explain why you support restrictions on religious expression and association by Latter-day Saints, but not by President Bush or Candidate Huckabee? Why do you advocate communist-like suppresion of free association by saying that Romney’s faith must go underground if he wishes to enter public service?
July 19th, 2009 at 9:23 am
lkv,
“This Anti Mormon stuff is down right prejudice. Why don’t you talk about the Jews, or the Blacks, why stop at Mormons…..
These comments are hateful and Self serving. You folks that making anti-Mormon comments have lost it. Why should they have to defend their Faith? Do you have to defend your Religion?”
1. If you read through the comments, you will notice that IllinoisGuy decided to make this about Mormonism, and that Knickers brought up religion to begin with. So we are discussing Mormonism because that’s the topic THEY picked.
2. What have I written that is hateful?
3. Yes, I do have to defend my religion. Mormons don’t have the market cornered on animosity. Christ said we would have to defend our faith, and we should be prepared to do that. I don’t whine about defending my faith, but am happy to do it.
July 19th, 2009 at 9:24 am
Illinois,
“And btw, I was Protestant for 31 years, and I didn’t know of a single person that could explain the Trinity.”
Because SURELY we must have a god that is completely comprehensible to our own finite minds, right? I think that is what is called an idol.
July 19th, 2009 at 10:22 am
MWS, you’re not even being honest. You baited this discussion from the beginning any you know you did.
July 19th, 2009 at 10:25 am
The creed is what is not comprehensible; the Bible is perfectly clear on the relationship of Father in Heaven, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost.
July 19th, 2009 at 10:39 am
79 – He is still called Isa in the english translations of the Quran. I’m sure they didn’t use “Jesus” for a reason. Just like Allah was previously the name of a moon god, but they aren’t talking about the same guy there either.
July 19th, 2009 at 12:07 pm
This is where Joseph Smith comes in. When that 14-year-old boy looked up in that grove of trees clear back in the spring of 1820, he saw two personages standing above him in the air. He later said,
So it comes down to this. Was Joseph Smith telling the truth? If he was, then all the arguments, all the thick volumes written by scholarly men, all the sermons, exposes, sophistries, treatises, and centuries of tradition are swept away. God the Father and his Son, Jesus Christ really are two separate and distinct individuals, and we are created in their literal physical likeness. Which means that the Council of Nicea got it wrong.
Should that be all that surprising — unsettling maybe, but surprising? All the members of that long ago council were were scholarly men. There wasn’t a single prophet, apostle, or seer among them. We have the equivalent councils meeting today attended by just as scholarly men (and women) to determine (to take just one example) if homosexuality is a sin or not. If they can get the answer wrong today, why should it surprise anyone that they could get it wrong back in the fourth century?
July 19th, 2009 at 12:48 pm
marK,
A Catholic ecumenical council CAN’T get it wrong. That’s part of the dogma of infallibility. We don’t conceive of these councils the same why the Proddies do.
July 19th, 2009 at 12:53 pm
I would never punch Ill guy! I have great respect for him! What I meant was some ‘christian’s’ exclude others who call themsleves christian. Not always LDS faith is exclued, but others as well.
July 19th, 2009 at 12:56 pm
Walsh.
Thank you for your well written and thought out comments. I appreciate it.
July 19th, 2009 at 12:59 pm
MWS. I am the mother of several black children. All are full members of the LDS Church.
Next argument?
July 19th, 2009 at 1:09 pm
I’m actually glad this is again raising it’s head now, regarding Mitt’s faith. We can get it out, get it over with. So it’s NOT part of the election process. I don’t care who calls themselves a christian and who does not. I do care that others see fit to tear apart that which is sacred to millions of people throughout the world, for the sake of their political needs. Would I vote for a Baptist or a Cathoic? Yes, I would. And it would not bother me at all what faith they practice, so long as they are true to who they are and what they believe. and stand for the moral values I find important in a person whom I will be electing to represent me and my family.
July 19th, 2009 at 2:30 pm
#179 I’m not an Evangelical so some of your comments don’t apply.
Obviously I don’t suggest that members of the LDS religion should face any legal restrictions.
It just a matter that if someone runs for office and tries to impose their view of a religious controversy on society, they will lose votes.
In Canada, Prime Minister Stephen Harper caused a minor scandal when he took the Eucharist at a Funeral Mass for a politician despite being a Protestant. In addition he may have threw the ‘wafer’ on the floor.
Nothing about that is illegal but you don’t do that unless you want to lose Catholic votes.
July 19th, 2009 at 2:39 pm
192 – Romney didn’t throw anything on the floor or disrespect anyone’s tradition. However, if someone asks if he’s a Christian and he feels that he is, he’s supposed to deny it to please people who disagree?
July 19th, 2009 at 2:54 pm
“A Catholic ecumenical council CAN’T get it wrong.”
In your humble opinion? Guess what, they did!!!
July 19th, 2009 at 3:12 pm
Mr. Harper claims that he actually did not throw the Eucharist on the floor or put it in his pocket, but he did handle the situation badly.
Well, Illinoisguy, they think the council did get it right. I may not understand GOD as much as I like because of my humanity, but I believe in Him and the power of His Trinitarian nature. I have seen people healed by the Holy Spirit who could not previously walk or were deaf. The Power of the Three in One GOD is real.
July 19th, 2009 at 3:32 pm
#181;
MWS:
You see what you just said? Why do you proudly defend your religion, but Mormons whine when the defend theirs, I have never read any comments by LDS putting other Religions down.
Whatever religion you are I’m sure wouldn’t account for 200 comments. Your a smart guy, much smarter than the comments you made.
I might have been a little harsh with my comment about you and Doug this morning, but Geez, you should really check into finding out why Romney being Mormon bothers you so much.
July 19th, 2009 at 3:47 pm
“Well, Illinoisguy, they think the council did get it right.”
Oh, I’m sure they do!
OJ, I’m not implying anything; I’m just asking the question. Did you personally know the people who could not walk or were deaf? I’m not talking about third party, but did you personally know them, and their sitatin as far as their impairment?
I don’t know of a single faithful LDS family that has not see miracles right within our own families. So, God the Father, Jesus Christ, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are alive and well in performing miracles in our church too.
July 19th, 2009 at 3:55 pm
Yes, Illinoisguy, for the record I am not saying that you have to be Catholic or even Christian to be healed of physical illness, Not all the sick are healed, but I am convinced that it is The Holy Spirit that does such healing.
July 19th, 2009 at 4:14 pm
You didn’t answer my question about you personally know those being healed and their situation.
July 19th, 2009 at 4:50 pm
Yes I do know of people who have been healed, One lady in particular (I did not know well) could not walk at all without a walker and since being healed by the Holy Spirit, she can walk freely.
July 19th, 2009 at 5:20 pm
According to John Wesley, these gifts of the spirit were almost non existent for many centuries from shortly ater the time of Christ:
“Extract from the 94th Sermon of John Wesley, on “The More Excellent Way.”–”It does not appear that the extraordinary gifts of the spirit were common in the church for more than two or three centuries. We seldom hear of them after that fatal period when the Emperor Constantine called himself a Christian, and from a vain imagination of promoting the Christian religion, heaped riches, power, and honour upon the Christians in general From this time they almost wholly ceased. Very few instances of this kind were found. The cause of this was not, as has vulgarly been supposed, because there was no more occasion for them, because all the world had become Christians. This is a miserable mistake! Not a twentieth part was then nominally Christians. The real cause was because the love of many waxed cold–the Christians had no more of the Spirit of Christ than the other Heathens! The Son of Man when he came to examine his church could hardly find faith on the earth.–This was the real cause why the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost were no longer to be found in the Christian Church, because the Christians were turned Heathens again, and had only a dead form” left
I just find it interesting.
July 19th, 2009 at 5:37 pm
How is Romney imposing his view on you or any other Protestant/Catholic? You are free to believe what you want without retribution. Romney isn’t promoting any kind of retribution against you for not believing in modern revelation, nor is he proposing to use government for sectarian ends, but that is exactly what you seem to have done and propose to do again. What you propose is to use the machinations of government as a tool to reward people who have the ‘right’ theological perspective, and punish those who don’t by limiting representation. That is abhorrent and totally antithetical to American values.
You are advocating a policy that would infringe upon the religious liberties of Latter-day Saints. By saying that Romney, or any other Latter-day Saint will face political (albeit not legal) retribution if they don’t hide or distance themselves artificially from their faith is a thought-police, brow-beating infringement of the ideal of religious liberty. Can you be put in jail for organizing opposition to Romney because he won’t conform to your exclusive, sectarian view of Christianity? Of course not, but is that conscience coersion destructive to society? Definitly, and it is just one part of the insular ideological infighting that is hurting the Republican party.
July 19th, 2009 at 6:03 pm
Doug. You’re been proven wrong here, why do you persist? We’re left with the impression that the real problem is not Romney, but Mormonism. Is that true? I hope not.
I can’t believe you’re actually putting forth the notion that Romney tried to inject his religion into the campaign! He did no such thing. Do you honestly believe that Romney should hide his faith to get elected??? do you think he should lie if he is asked about his Christianity? Maybe he should say, “Sorry, I can’t answer that. My religion is too “controversial”. Is this what you’re after?
BTW – Are you familiar with your candidates actions in the primary, or were you sleeping?
July 19th, 2009 at 6:23 pm
Mormon beliefs are not all that strange.
First, we worship God the Father and Jesus Christ. We do not worship other Gods, we simply believe they exist- which makes sense to us. Do we know anything about them? No. Do we pray to them? No. We have nothing to do with any other Gods, so the whole topic is pretty much pointless. Our first article of faith states, “We believe in God the Eternal Father, and in his son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.”
Second – yes, we do believe that we can become as God, or like God. Why else would he command us to be perfect as he is? Why else would he offer to give us all he has, and promise us that we can live with him forever? To live in the presence of God would require a holiness and perfection that is not possible on earth. In one of our scriptures, God said, “Behold, this is my work and my glory – to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.” So we simply believe that through an eternal process, we can progress and become like Him. That is not so strange, either, when you think about it. (What do you think you’ll be doing in Heaven anyway? Floating around on a cloud wearing a halo all day?) Mormons believe Heaven is a time of progression where perfection is possible.
Third, we believe in a literal Father in Heaven. With flesh and bones – perfected. I don’t see why that should be so strange. There are many scriptures that reveal the physical nature of the Father, and we know that the ressurrected Christ has a perfected body. We view our relationship with God as a Father/child relationship. Jesus himself taught us to pray to the Father. He speaks of the Father. He reveals his relationship with the Father. Any reasonable interpretation of the Bible would allow for the idea of God as Father.
Now, why all this matters in a political campaign is a mystery to me. Folks who have a problem with Mormonism and are hell-bent that Mormons cannot be called Christians should have better things to do. I know who I am. I am a Christian, and I think everyone should just stop worrying so much about it and try living Christlike lives instead.
How about that, Doug?
July 19th, 2009 at 6:36 pm
C.S> Lewis didn’t think it so strange, and I think most of you think he was a Christian:
Closer to the Latter-day Saint understanding of the doctrine are the views expressed by C. S. Lewis, 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 talk to may one day be a creature which, if you saw it now, you would be strongly tempted to worship.”21
In a fuller statement of this doctrine of deification, Lewis 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. If we let Him-for we can prevent Him, if we choose-He will make the feeblest and filthiest of us into a god or goddess, dazzling, radiant, immortal creature, pulsating all through with such energy and joy and wisdom and love as we cannot now imagine, a bright stainless mirror which reflects back to God perfectly (though, of course, on a smaller scale) His own boundless power and delight and goodness. The process will be long and in parts very painful; but that is what we are in for. Nothing less. He meant what He said.”
July 19th, 2009 at 6:51 pm
Martha,
“We do not worship other Gods, we simply believe they exist- which makes sense to us. Do we know anything about them? No. Do we pray to them? No. We have nothing to do with any other Gods, so the whole topic is pretty much pointless. ”
It’s not pointless when the Bible clearly and repeatedly states that your other gods don’t exist. Christianity cannot be polytheistic. It is flatly contradicted in the Bible and fundamental to the faith. You may not think that believing in thousands or millions or however many gods is a big deal, but the inspired word of the ONE true God thinks it is.
July 19th, 2009 at 7:01 pm
Illinois,
“According to John Wesley, these gifts of the spirit were almost non existent for many centuries from shortly ater the time of Christ:”
Yeah, that’s standard Protestant claptrap. If they thought Christ’s Church endured, they wouldn’t have broke off.
July 19th, 2009 at 7:35 pm
Well Romney doesn’t want just Mormons to vote for him. So he might not want to go around saying things that are offensive or controversial to large numbers of non-Mormons.
If Mormons believe they’re Christian that’s fine. Most Christians don’t believe that. When Romney asserts his point of view on that religious topic he just alienates voters who would have voted for him.
If Romney doesn’t want to appeal to large numbers of Protestants and Catholics that’s fine. If he wants to appeal to those voters he won’t say things they find uncomfortable.
Here’s the analogue. My Church has determined the LDS to not qualify as Christian. If I ran for office against a Mormon I’d not bring up the issue or discuss any aspect of Mormonism. I’d expect the other candidate to do the same by keeping discussion of his faith to areas that don’t divide along sectarian lines.
July 19th, 2009 at 8:06 pm
208. So Romney should have to shut up about his faith, even when asked? Right.
New rule: If you’re Mormon, you can’t talk about it. My heavens, don’t even think about mentioning that you’re Christian or all hell will break lose! Just as Joseph Walch said, you want Mormon politicians censored. Sorry, Doug. That’s unAmerican.
Wow, though! A Mormon calling himself a Christian is offensive and controversial, and alienates voters!? Who knew? Doug, do you believe what you write? I think most people would be appalled at what you suggest. Again, though. It’s easy to see how and why you are a Huck fan. In other words, you fit the mold.
Doug, my church has determined to be exactly what we are, which is Christian. We have the right to define ourselves. We don’t care what you think, really. And who made your church the arbiter of who can be called Christian, anyway??? I think we might want to leave that to the good Lord himself.
BTW – Didn’t you support the Huckster? It doesn’t wash with your last sentence, does it? Again, how ironic.
July 19th, 2009 at 8:20 pm
Martha,
I think Doug’s suggestion that Romney not wade into theologically contentious issues was more political advice than moral imperative.
July 19th, 2009 at 8:24 pm
Martha,
Can I define for myself what it means to be Mormon, and start calling myself a Mormon? Is there any kind of objective standard to what Mormon means, or are we each free to make it mean whatever we want? Would you be okay if I started calling my belief in the Trinity, the communion of saints, and the incorporeal body of God Mormonism?
July 19th, 2009 at 8:28 pm
“Doug, my church has determined to be exactly what we are, which is Christian. We have the right to define ourselves. We don’t care what you think, really. And who made your church the arbiter of who can be called Christian, anyway??? I think we might want to leave that to the good Lord himself.”
Obviously that’s the Mormon point of view. However if a candidate wants my vote he won’t use his running for office to push one side of religious dispute.
“208. So Romney should have to shut up about his faith, even when asked? Right.”
Wrong. He can talk about whatever he likes. He may want to avoid those things that divide Americans along sectarian lines if he wants to appeal to non-Mormon voters.
July 19th, 2009 at 8:33 pm
Doug, when did he ever do that? Can you link it? Did you listen to his speech on faith? As we’ve said a million times, Mitt never pushed this issue. He was forced to address the overall issue of faith, but then, he said very little about his own faith. It was much more general.
July 19th, 2009 at 9:08 pm
Unless you happen to agree with that particular candidate right? This is what happens when people start using political office to promote their own exclusive sectarian theology. This is part of the reason why people (including my ancestors) left the old country to escape religious persecution.
Now, you don’t have to worry about Latter-day Saints using government to further their own ends. We are very capable of doing that all on our own (unlike many churches on both the left and right that have to use government to surreptitiously promote their own sectarian world-view). It’s just astonishing that people are so daft as to perseverate in arguing that Romney was somehow doing anything other than respond to the vicious attacks and undermining whisper campaigns that some crafty priests set out to exploit for their own gain (if you don’t believe that then just look at the millions of dollars people make smearing the LDS church).
July 19th, 2009 at 9:18 pm
“Unless you happen to agree with that particular candidate right?”
I don’t envision Tim Pawlenty doing that sort of thing. In fact I think Pawlenty ought to put Romney on his VP shortlist if he’s nominated.
July 19th, 2009 at 9:20 pm
Doug, you sound worse than the militant atheist who say that any debate on abortion or civil law must be void of any theologically based motive (of course that’s what you say, I suspect that you mean any theology that happens to not be your own). I’d admit that there are some theological implications in science, law, and society (e.g., human life begins at conception, all humans have unalienable rights to life and liberty, people are morally superior to animals and insects, etc).
However, if you can point to one single public policy implication of Romney’s rejection of the Nicene or Apostles creed, then I will take back my assertion that your communist-lite oppression of religious expression and association is unwarrented and unamerican.
July 19th, 2009 at 9:35 pm
Doug, when did Romney E V E R “use his running for office to push one side of religious dispute”?
Sorry, what in the H are you talking about?
Push one side of a religious dispute??? You think because he has the audacity to be who he is, and not lie about his faith, that he is pushing a religious dispute?
Being a Mormon is a religious dispute? Ha ha ha.
You’re one wacked out dude.
July 19th, 2009 at 9:37 pm
Just so we’re clear, Doug. Romney can admit to being a Mormon (shudder) as long as he makes it clear he’s not a Christian? Is that it?
Unfortunately that’s not possible. The man has too much integrity. I think you’re going to find that he doesn’t need your vote that much.
July 19th, 2009 at 9:39 pm
This is the thing. Intellectually and logically, the Doug-types know they are on shaky ground. Their heads say so, but their hearts just can’t give up the prejudice.
July 19th, 2009 at 9:50 pm
Theological motivation will be present in politics. However I don’t think that should be expressed in sectarian language.
For the most part Romney has been appropriate in this area. I think if he started running around the nation saying “Mormonism is Christianity” he would lose votes and cause a backlash.
Occasionally Romney has flirted with that line and I think that hasn’t helped him.
July 19th, 2009 at 9:54 pm
Martha,
So are you okay with me defining Mormonism for myself?
July 19th, 2009 at 9:59 pm
220. No, he really hasn’t. Huck forced Romney to defend his faith, otherwise Romney would have never said anything.
Do you have a problem with Huck basing his whole campaign on religion-baiting? I do. He’s the one we need to worry about, not Romney.
July 19th, 2009 at 10:00 pm
MWS. I don’t feel the necessity to define your faith, and I really do wonder why so many people feel the need to define mine.
July 19th, 2009 at 10:07 pm
Martha,
“I don’t feel the necessity to define your faith”
When you insist that polytheists can be Christian, you are. You demand relativism when it comes to Christianity- no standards, everyone can define it for himself. I was wondering if you are so laissez faire when it comes to defining Mormonism. Can I hold myself out as a Trinitarian Mormon who prays to saints?
July 19th, 2009 at 10:07 pm
I am fine voting for somebody who doesn’t think I’m a Christian. They are even free to express that opinion in public, as long as they don’t start using government’s power to descriminate or exclude Latter-day Saints from public life.
July 19th, 2009 at 10:07 pm
Martha “Just so we’re clear, Doug. Romney can admit to being a Mormon (shudder) as long as he makes it clear he’s not a Christian? Is that it?”
Jupiter’s Balls how clear can I make it before you understand. Mitt Romney can do whatever he likes. He’ll lose votes if he makes controversial sectarian statements though.
July 19th, 2009 at 10:09 pm
Joseph,
#225. Fair enough.
July 19th, 2009 at 10:13 pm
#225, You’d really be fine with that?
Hmmm.
July 19th, 2009 at 10:15 pm
Joseph,
Although the larger point I’m driving at is whether it is wrong to demand a standard for what it means to be Christian on the one hand, but okay to demand a standard for what it means to be Mormon on the other. Some here say that anyone who claims to be Christian should be considered Christian, and go on to imply anyone who doesn’t consider them Christian is a bigot.
I’m wondering if the same loose and relativistic standards apply to defining Mormonism. Can anyone who believes anything call themselves a Mormon and demand to be treated as such?
July 19th, 2009 at 10:17 pm
Controversial sectarian statements? You mean like testifying of his faith in the Lord Jesus Christ when pressed upon to do so by other candidates and the press?
July 19th, 2009 at 10:25 pm
MWS, forgetting for a moment about the term Christian. Do you believe that Methodists, Southern Baptists, Presbyterians, Lutheran’s etc will go to heaven if they stay their current CHRISTIAN religion?
You guys are so hung up on the term, maybe its more important whether or not you believe someone will make it to heaven or not.
July 19th, 2009 at 10:42 pm
Illinoisguy:
“MWS, forgetting for a moment about the term Christian. Do you believe that Methodists, Southern Baptists, Presbyterians, Lutheran’s etc will go to heaven if they stay their current CHRISTIAN religion?”
I know you’re speaking to MWS but what does that have to do with anything.
Illinoisguy:
“You guys are so hung up on the term, maybe its more important whether or not you believe someone will make it to heaven or not.”
I don’t believe someone will make it to heaven or not based on anything they do on this earth so the question is moot.
July 19th, 2009 at 10:42 pm
226. Doug, you are the one who isn’t getting it. Romney considers himself a Christian. If he says so, that’s not a “controversial sectarian statement”. Sheesh!
To you, Mormonism in and of itself is controversial. Time to get over it.
July 19th, 2009 at 10:43 pm
Illinois,
“Do you believe that Methodists, Southern Baptists, Presbyterians, Lutheran’s etc will go to heaven if they stay their current CHRISTIAN religion?”
Don’t know. That’s up to God. He will judge them individually.
July 19th, 2009 at 10:49 pm
lol.. cop out!!!! Unbelievable, MWS had no opinion.
July 19th, 2009 at 10:50 pm
Doug, so was it all predestined in your belief?
July 19th, 2009 at 10:52 pm
#233 Romney can consider himself a concert pianist or a space alien for all I care. However I would prefer he keeps from suggesting that Christianity is henotheistic. That is controversial.
So far Romney has seemed to be more aware of the dangers of pushing sectarian beliefs in politics than you do, Martha.
July 19th, 2009 at 11:03 pm
#236 Well I’m not sure anyone’s interested.
I believe Christ knows his own. Those who belong to Christ are linked with him in eternity because of his atonement.
I believe that is the teaching of Paul in his Epistles.
July 19th, 2009 at 11:04 pm
I prefer understanding and clarity to agreement. If somebody is going to claim that I am not a Christian then they should qualify it. After we go through the old calumnies then we eventually get to something that we agree on (usually it’s my rejection of those incomprehensible creeds).
Therefore, I’m fine saying “No, I’m not a Nicene or Constantine Christian”. The problem is that people have to be intellectually honest and of good will for us to reach this conclusion.
#228
Doug, I have some very good friends who are clear that they don’t think I’m Christian. I’d vote for them. On a personal level, however, I expect people to back up their statements with intelligent and clear arguments.
July 19th, 2009 at 11:04 pm
237. You would prefer he keep his religious beliefs a secret or lie about them, then. But you would not require it of any other candidate, just Mormons.
BTW, Doug. In the year or so that I’ve been here at race, I’ve hardly ever said anything about my faith. In my memory, I’ve never talked about Mormon doctrine before today. I prefer religion to stay the heck out of political discussions. I’ve only tried to defend Mormonism when the occasion calls for it, like today with you.
A month or so ago, you made a snide comment to be about Mormonism. What gives with you, Doug? You clearly have an issue with Mormonism and are not able to separate it from politics. People like you are the problem, not me or Romney.
You really are the perfect example of a Huck fan. It’s not a distinction I would want.
July 19th, 2009 at 11:06 pm
“A month or so ago, you made a snide comment to be about Mormonism.”
I don’t recall that and I’d be surprised if you were remembering correctly.
July 19th, 2009 at 11:12 pm
Doug, just to be clear, so ones destiny is all predetermined?
July 19th, 2009 at 11:13 pm
He apparently has an issue with needing to obey the commandments too Martha! Its all automatic!
July 19th, 2009 at 11:16 pm
#242 I think that’s a gross simplification and distortion of how God works. The more specific I get in answering your question the more certain I will to be allowing error to creep in because of my own human limitations.
I take what the Epistles say on faith but I don’t expect to comprehend fully the works of a being who is beyond time until I enter eternity.
July 19th, 2009 at 11:22 pm
I haven’t met a lot of predestinarans before, but I am aware of their doctrine. Just to play it safe, you might want to obey a few of those commandments too!
Ok, enough for tonight. Good discussion! Romney will continue to play the faith issue correctly, as he always has.
July 19th, 2009 at 11:26 pm
Gal. 2:21
Eph. 2:8, 9