I’ll just leave this here…
Before a defense of any kind of religious discrimination, one ought to make all of the necessary disclaimers: of course I oppose government-sponsored discrimination, and I certainly would not support the kind of absurd treatment described by Steven Reinhart in his piece featured below. That being said, there is a legitimate case to be made for judging any candidate for office by his religious convictions.
In late 2007, Mitt Romney made his somewhat-famous speech on religion, where he spoke the following words:
“Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom. Freedom opens the windows of the soul so that man can discover his most profound beliefs and commune with God. Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone.”
Similarly, Romney has stated: “I believe in my Mormon faith and I endeavor to live by it…my faith is the faith of my fathers. I will be true to them and to my beliefs.”
If freedom requires religion, if his Mormon faith sustains his life and he will be true to those practices, then I’m at an utter loss as to why we should ignore Romney’s religious beliefs when evaluating his fitness for the White House.
We ask plenty of questions of any Evangelical Christian candidate: what do his beliefs about the nature of God, the nature of the cosmos, and the meaning of man’s life mean for his potential tenure in office? But for whatever reason, these questions are looked at as unnecessarily piercing and prejudiced when asked of a member of a minority faith.
When Sarah Palin gave her fumbling answer about Israel’s settlements, several commentators jumped on her faith, wondering whether she subscribed to the bizarre but potent sect of modern Christianity that believes in the imminence of the End Times. Will anyone ask Mitt Romney about the oddities of the dogma of the Mormon Church? There are plenty of Mormon doctrines that may strike people as a bit odd — and rightly so. It is established in the church that the devout can reach the upper echelons of heaven and eventually become gods themselves, able to create their own universes and govern them as they see fit (all while supervised by the One True God). Why is it that when I bring this up to Romney fans, I am dismissed as a bigot?
As an atheist, I both understand and accept that in a predominantly Christian society, my thoughts on religion are necessarily going to open me up to questions. If I were to ever run for office (don’t count on that, by the way), I would not expect my supporters would try to ward off any questions about my atheism with the victim-card of discrimination. One’s philosophy of religion contributes profoundly to his worldview and thus is a completely valid criterion by which to partially evaluate a candidate’s fitness for office.
I view all religions as equally bizarre and irrational. But mainstream Christianity is often adopted as a cultural guise, meant for purposes of assimilation with the majority. Probe most self-described Christians and you’ll find plenty of deviation from standard dogma. Devotion to Mormonism, which is completely outside of the American mainstream, requires a certain level of commitment. To what extent will Romney’s faith influence his decision-making? I ask that question of devoted Evangelicals and judge them accordingly, and I will do the same of a Mormon. And I am not going to apologize for that.
Talk to Alex Knepper at apkkib@aol.com
November 30th, 2009 at 6:13 pm
I say faith can be taken into account on the basis of how it influences how the believers act. In the case of Mormonism, they are very much in the mainstream of American life. Mormons are productive, self-reliant family oriented individuals who commit much less crimes than the US national average.
In other words, one can conclude that Mormonism is a net plus for those who believe.
Now, if their faith led them to commit acts of terrosrism…
By the way, I am Roman Catholic.
November 30th, 2009 at 6:14 pm
Alex,
I don’t ask plenty of questions about a candidate’s faith.
There is nothing in Mormon doctrine that would prevent Romney from living his faith, and upholding the Constitution and executing the duties of the presidency at the same time.
I honestly don’t know why you are posting this.
November 30th, 2009 at 6:17 pm
“…Mormonism, which is completely outside of the American mainstream…”
how so? Where was Mormonism imported from?
November 30th, 2009 at 6:17 pm
Um… I think we all know why Alex would post this.
November 30th, 2009 at 6:18 pm
““Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom.”
This is true – and no different from anything the founding fathers would have said. I left my copy of the Founder’s Almanac at home, but there are more than a few quotes from those who wrote our founding documents that make it clear that they believed – as does Romney – that moral guidance (which comes from God) is essential to the health of a free society.
Notice that communist countries around the world – China, Cuba, USSR, North Korea, etc. are all officially atheist? Notice the shockingly low number of countries that have both a dictator and a strong religious faith?
Belief in an ultimate right and wrong, on which we will all eventually be judged, and in a higher power, is the enemy of dictatorship.
—
Yes, I suppose its fair to use generic faith itself – the belief in a higher power, adherance to religious text, etc – as something on which to judge a candidate for office.
But the issue really comes when people start focusing on mormonism as a denomination of a larger faith aas disqualifying someone from office.
Basically, if you honestly believe that there is no God, that we’re better without religion, and that we should be a country run by godless individuals, then that is fine – you can disqualify Romney, but then you also have to disqualify about 90% of the GOP – including virtually all of Romney’s competitors – and even most of the DNC from political office.
November 30th, 2009 at 6:21 pm
Vote for me because I AM a Mormon.
November 30th, 2009 at 6:22 pm
and we have a new troll on board.
November 30th, 2009 at 6:22 pm
Alex, if you plan to scrutinized Romney’s faith, you had better do it honestly, by asking honest questions from the source, not from people who despise the LDS Church. If people did an honest investigation about the Church’s practices and beliefs, they would be less concerned about the religion. But people like to sensationalize it and gossip about it and present it in the worst possible light.
So what about what Mormons believe about the afterlife? They are striving to live honest and decent lives. They aren’t out to ‘get’ the “infidel” like other religions do, and they don’t go around slandering other religious like many so-called Christian groups.
November 30th, 2009 at 6:24 pm
#6. I don’t recall Romney ever saying that but on the other hand I do recall another politician saying that about his baptist faith… hum.
November 30th, 2009 at 6:25 pm
I could care less about a candidate’s religion.
Atheist, wiccan, satanist what the heck do I care.
I want to know that they share my priorities on the issues. I’d prefer a wise like-minded Satanist as President to a foolish Christian.
November 30th, 2009 at 6:26 pm
I don’t care about Romney’s religion any more than I care about Bobby Jindal’s. I think all religions are nuts.
I evaluate all candidates’ religious beliefs on an individual level — for better or for worse.
November 30th, 2009 at 6:27 pm
10 – What kind of Satanism? LaVeyan Satanism or deistic Satanism? LaVeyan Satanism is awesome.
November 30th, 2009 at 6:29 pm
But the question remains. Does the Mormon church condemn other religious systems?
The answer is definitely, “Yes.”
Let’s look at Mormon writers and see what they have said.
Joseph Smith said . . .
(Regarding Joseph Smith’s alleged first vision where celestial personages appeared to him.) . . .) “My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right — and which I should join. I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong, and the personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in His sight: that those professors were all corrupt . . .” (Joseph Smith, History of the Church, vol. 1, p. 5-6).
“What is it that inspires professors of Christianity generally with a hope of salvation? It is that smooth, sophisticated influence of the devil, by which he deceives the whole world,” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, compiled by Joseph Fielding Smith, p. 270.)
(In questions directed to Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism. . .)
First — “Do you believe the Bible?”
If we do, we are the only people under heaven that do, for there are none of the religious sects of the day that do.”
Third — “Will everybody be damned, but Mormons?”
Yes, and a great portion of them, unless they repent, and work righteousness.” (Teachings, page 119.)
Brigham Young said. . .
“But He did send His angel to this same obscure person, Joseph Smith jun., who afterwards became a Prophet, Seer, and Revelator, and informed him that he should not join any of the religious sects of the day, for they were all wrong,” (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 2, 1855, p. 171).
November 30th, 2009 at 6:29 pm
“I think all religions are nuts.”
The problem with that is the inability of anyone to propose a credible alternative to the origin of the universe. You can walk all through evolution, the big bang theory, etc. and not find an answer to the ultimate question of how we all got here.
November 30th, 2009 at 6:30 pm
WSU, no I don’t think it’s a new troll. I am pretty sure that it is Sarabee/Huckabee-Pawlenty/HuckRubber…
November 30th, 2009 at 6:30 pm
There is an all out media blitz today on that very question. Strange isn’t it, some odd Ko-in-ci-dense. Maybe a meeting sometime recently and a decided joint media blitz. I enjoyed asking the ‘honest questions’ Fredrick mentioned, but asking an honest question might not get one an honest answer back. Copy and paste if clicking on the site doesn’t work, and it gives techniques on less than honest answers.
http://1857massacre.com/MMM/lyingforthelord.htm
Yes, Romney faith does need to be examined, and it if fine for people to make a judgment to like or not. Making judgment calls is what being an adult is all about.
November 30th, 2009 at 6:32 pm
“we really aren’t obligated to answer every question………”
http://1857massacre.com/MMM/lyingforthelord.htm
so, much for honest answers.
November 30th, 2009 at 6:32 pm
The best way to consider a persons religion when it comes to holding higher office is this,
Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar and unto god that which is gods.
In other words, if you find something in Mormon religion that would cause you a concern as it would effect your life if he was elected President, that is a legitimate issue. If you disqualify all Members of a Certain religion simple because of that Reason that is bigotry.
So, in other words, a Person religion should only be an issue as it relates to how they would act in the capacity of their office. Otherwise, the republican party is doomed since the vast majority belong to some religion.
For instance, as a Mormon, I would have no problem voting for a Catholic, a Evangelical, or any other religion as long as their dogma would not effect me in my personal and religious life.
So, I would ask this, what is there in Romney’s religion you would find that would effect you if he was elected President? If you object merely because of his Religion, you are a religious bigot, but if you can justify it by how it would effect his ability to govern, then you would be justified.
November 30th, 2009 at 6:32 pm
The Book of Mormon says. . .
“And he said unto me: Behold there are save two churches only; the one is the church of the Lamb of God, and the other is the church of the devil; wherefore, whoso belongeth not to the church of the Lamb of God belongeth to that great church which is the mother of abominations; and she is the whore of all the earth” (1 Nephi 14:10).
“And when the day cometh that the wrath of God is poured out upon the mother of harlots, which is the great and abominable church of all the earth, whose foundation is the devil, then, at that day, the work of the Father shall commence. . .” (1 Nephi. 14:17).
November 30th, 2009 at 6:33 pm
The problem with that is the inability of anyone to propose a credible alternative to the origin of the universe.
1) Even if we accept that, that still only leads to deism, not religion.
2) I am content not to know. But naturalism is the default position, since we have immediate, indisputable evidence for the natural realm. If one submits evidence to me for a supernatural realm, then I’ll take that into consideration, but I have been given no such evidence. (The default position for anything is lack of belief, by the way. If I tell you that your wife has been cheating on you, you would say “No she hasn’t,” not that you can’t know for sure and that you won’t make a judgment “either way.” Tell your wife that at the dinner table and see how she responds.)
November 30th, 2009 at 6:34 pm
There are plenty of reasons to vote against Romney. More than I can count.
But his religious faith is not one of them.
November 30th, 2009 at 6:35 pm
So, I would ask this, what is there in Romney’s religion you would find that would effect you if he was elected President? If you object merely because of his Religion, you are a religious bigot, but if you can justify it by how it would effect his ability to govern, then you would be justified.
That’s essentially my position.
I didn’t say that I disqualify Romney because of his religion. I just said that I judge him by it.
November 30th, 2009 at 6:37 pm
Mormons have some very unique beliefs about God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, biblical history, heaven, the church, and prophets.
In one way they are typically American. Mormons are one of the most pietistic religions in America. In that sense Mormons are more in the American mainstream than my tribe.
November 30th, 2009 at 6:39 pm
Reply to 13: All religions must in some ways belief they are the correct religion or they are frauds.
Here are the LDS (Mormon’s) Articles of Faith, which one of them do you find so objectionably?
November 30th, 2009 at 6:39 pm
#12 Doesn’t matter. I vote on policies and priorities. If the Satanist agrees with me on the essential issues I really don’t care about his religion.
November 30th, 2009 at 6:40 pm
I just wanted to see if you knew what LaVeyanism Satanism is.
November 30th, 2009 at 6:42 pm
24. Joseph Fielding Smith said . . .
“Again, following the death of his apostles, apostasy once more set in, and again the saving principles and ordinances of the gospel were changed to suit the conveniences and notions of the people. Doctrines were corrupted, authority lost, and a false order of religion took the place of the gospel of Jesus Christ, just as it had been the case in former dispensations, and the people were left in spiritual darkness,” (Doctrines of Salvation, page 266).
November 30th, 2009 at 6:42 pm
I actually don’t have a problem with that, as I don’t disqualify others based on their religion (unless it interference with my life should they get elected).
November 30th, 2009 at 6:42 pm
The Mormon church believes the founding fathers were inspired by God, that the constitution is God-sanctioned, and that our system of government (one that promotes religious liberty) is the best ever created by man. Whatever Romney’s views of the afterlife or the nature of the soul, if he believes the US system of government was divinely inspired, I’m pretty sure he’ll try to govern not too different than the founding fathers, who thought the same.
November 30th, 2009 at 6:43 pm
John Taylor said . . .
“We talk about Christianity, but it is a perfect pack of nonsense…. Myself and hundreds of the Elders around me have seen its pomp, parade, and glory; and what is it? It is a sounding brass and a tinkling symbol; it is as corrupt as hell; and the Devil could not invent a better engine to spread his work than the Christianity of the nineteenth century,” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 6, 1858, p. 167).
“Where shall we look for the true order or authority of God? It cannot be found in any nation of Christendom,” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 10, 1863, p. 127).
November 30th, 2009 at 6:44 pm
“But if you can justify it by how it would effect his ability to govern, then you would be justified.” Well said, the effect on his ability is precisely the concern, and Jeff Foli learned the hard way. “Lying for the Lord” raises another concern, viewing the edited and well as unedited versions are excellent. The Unedited is in black type, and links to the unedited speech.
http://blogs4brownback.wordpress.com/2008/02/19/jeff-foli-update
November 30th, 2009 at 6:47 pm
#24
Politically I don’t care but I’ll enumerate the ones that are offensive personally.
2, 3, 4, 8, 9, 10
November 30th, 2009 at 6:51 pm
Ok Alex, you ignorant atheist…
I apologize for RomneyCare. Ok?
TARP and $50 abortions, too.
Should I go on…?
Sorry I called you ignorant. You’re not by any means.
November 30th, 2009 at 6:52 pm
Mitt will likely see his religious denomination as a strength this time around rather than a weakness. Today, more and more evangelicals and Protestants are accepting Mormons into the traditional fold of Christendom and recognizing them as true Christians no different than any other mainline denomination. The “Americaness” of Mormonism appeals to many Americans who see other faith traditions as being too Eurocentric – Mormonism represents a Patriotic faith that believes that the Constitution is the inspired Word of God and that many of the significant biblical events occurred and will occur on domestic soil. America likes firsts, and seeing the first President sworn in on the Book of Mormon will inspire many. It was not long ago that the Mormon faith was persecuted in the U.S., today it is the fastest growing denomination and commands respect and prestige – the Presidency could be a sign to some that the faith has truly arrived.
November 30th, 2009 at 6:52 pm
The poster on here with the name “Romney” is good at bashing a religion he clearly despises and engages in juvenile commentary (see #6). Unfortunately, he gets his propaganda from the typical anti-Mormon sites which he has bought into hook line and sinker, rather than coming up with anything on his own. We saw a lot of that during 2008.
There are a few candidates that wear their religion on their sleeve. Mitt was not one of them. The only reason he gave that religion speech was because of the hysteria coming from certain elements of the far right who have fine-tuned Mormon bashing into an art.
Feel free to criticize Mitt for his religion if that’s what makes you happy. But don’t cry about being criticized for your own silly analytical approach despite plenty of past real-life evidence of how his religion influenced (or didn’t) his business and government career.
November 30th, 2009 at 6:53 pm
Reply to 31: Do you have a point? You have an individual who may be ex-commuted from the Church for basically preaching against the church. If a person doesn’t want to abide by the agreements they make when becoming a member of the church, then they should be willing to leave. This is not like the Church was out to take away his property or his liberty. He had basically left the church on his own, and the church was simply making it official. This person has an axe to grind.
November 30th, 2009 at 6:57 pm
35, This one was especially for whiners like you:
“We talk about Christianity, but it is a perfect pack of nonsense…. Myself and hundreds of the Elders around me have seen its pomp, parade, and glory; and what is it? It is a sounding brass and a tinkling symbol; it is as corrupt as hell; and the Devil could not invent a better engine to spread his work than the Christianity of the nineteenth century,” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 6, 1858, p. 167).
November 30th, 2009 at 6:57 pm
I agree. We should question based on religion, but it should be on the area where policies/politics and faith intersect. Posing questions outside that area maybe interesting but has little value or bearing. I think a useless question would be “Tell me about your garments”. A valuable question would be “would you support putting the interests of Isreal ahead of America, since America is not mentioned in the Bible but Isreal is.” Oh wait, Evangelicals don’t get asked that question. I may have to rethink this….It wouldn’t be fair to put a Mormon through a double standard….Hmmm…maybe there is something as a person’s history and his cultures history. Mormons aren’t nuts trying to blow up planes and neither are Evangelicals, so these questions about one’s religion should be tempered by their record and personal history.
Now a professor from Bob Jones University should be put through the ringer if he ran for president.
November 30th, 2009 at 7:04 pm
This is a sad story about a man named Mike – http://hotair.com/archives/2009/11/30/video-clemency-2/
November 30th, 2009 at 7:05 pm
37. Thanks for proving my point again.
November 30th, 2009 at 7:06 pm
#37.
Wow, going back 150 years. Let’s see how silly this gets in regards to politics.
I see your 150 years and go with just 103 years ago. This man was a Southern Baptist. Not that matters to me.
“Republicanism means Negro equality, while the Democratic Party means that the white man is supreme. That is why we Southerners are all Democrats.”
–Sen. Ben Tillman (D., S.C.), 1906
Chairman, Committee on Naval Affairs, 1913-19
November 30th, 2009 at 7:11 pm
We ask plenty of [religious] questions of any Evangelical Christian candidate:
Err… wait, what??
November 30th, 2009 at 7:11 pm
I have a million of these quotes. Again, I believe in politics of the individual is the standard, but if you want to play the religion game and their political views, then here is another from a Southern Baptist. Maybe all Southern Baptists should be question about their religion if in the past they have come up with such views?
“I am opposed to the practice of having colored policemen in the District [of Columbia]. It is a source of danger by constantly engendering racial friction, and is offensive to thousands of Southern white people who make their homes here.”
–Sen. Hoke Smith (D., Ga.), 1912
November 30th, 2009 at 7:11 pm
Thunder,
“Here are the LDS (Mormon’s) Articles of Faith, which one of them do you find so objectionably?”
2- sort of
4
5
6
8
9
10
November 30th, 2009 at 7:15 pm
“We are opposed to the admission of Asiatic immigrants who can not be amalgamated with our population, or whose presence among us would raise a race issue and involve us in diplomatic controversies with Oriental powers.”
–Platform of the Democratic Party, 1908
Which religion and their beliefs informed this platform? Come on let’s play this game. It will be too easy.
November 30th, 2009 at 7:16 pm
JA Pruce, where do you get the idea that a Mormon president would swear in on the Book of Mormon? I can’t see that ever being the case, and I don’t see why any Mormon would overturn tradition to do so either.
November 30th, 2009 at 7:18 pm
“Slavery among the whites was an improvement over independence in Africa. The very progress that the blacks have made, when–and only when–brought into contact with the whites, ought to be a sufficient argument in support of white supremacy–it ought to be sufficient to convince even the blacks themselves.”
–William Jennings Bryan, 1923
———————————
Omigosh, but William Jennings Bryan had the correct faith, right? Bueller, Bueller, Bueller…. Now which idiot wants to argue that somehow Mormons are disqualified from office when we have had 200+ years of this blatant idiocy going on from non-Mormons?
November 30th, 2009 at 7:18 pm
nowandlater,
In fairness, those quotes are from men who happened to be Southern Baptist. They are not considered divine revelation.
Are the quotes from Smith and Young considered divine revelation?
November 30th, 2009 at 7:18 pm
So, from a political point of view, how does any of these effect you personally, after all we are not debating religion, if we were, I would ask why so many think that babies who are die before they are baptized are damned when they did nothing wrong?
November 30th, 2009 at 7:20 pm
Thunder,
“So, from a political point of view, how does any of these effect you personally”
In Romney’s case, I’d say not at all.
November 30th, 2009 at 7:21 pm
More idiocy and it aint a Mormon.
“Mr. President, the crime of lynching . . . is not of sufficient importance to justify this legislation.”
–Sen. Claude Pepper (D., Fla.), 1938
Spoken while engaged in a six-hour speech against the antilynching bill
November 30th, 2009 at 7:23 pm
Alex,
Look, maybe us Mormons do believe in crazy stories that make absolutely no sense, and maybe Joseph Smith did make it all up, but I have a great life. and a great family, and I have the Book of Mormon to thank for that. The truth is, I don’t care if Joseph Smith made it all up, because what the church teaches now is loving your family, being nice and helping people. And even though people on this site might think that’s stupid, I still choose to believe in it.
November 30th, 2009 at 7:24 pm
Yes, yes, let’s make every candidate interpret every passage of scripture and eliminate those who interpret Bible passages differently than us. Oh, and no atheists, most people believe in God, so atheists shouldn’t be allowed to hold ANY public offices or positions of any kind.
November 30th, 2009 at 7:25 pm
nowandlater,
In fairness, those quotes are from men who happened to be Southern Baptist. They are not considered divine revelation.
Are the quotes from Smith and Young considered divine revelation?
——————-
Good point, are the quotes from Peter revelation? Should women not speak in church or maybe not run for office? Does the leadership of the Pope infallible? Could the leadership of Presbytarian church determine who should get married in their church?
Same difference, but different players. We just want to hype up our points of views based on our religous preferences.
Some argument, different players.
November 30th, 2009 at 7:27 pm
Romney Says is a lovely person or a freaking nut. Now go away.
November 30th, 2009 at 7:29 pm
#46, Well, the Mormons have four books of scripture to choose from, the Bible being just one. Since most Mormon Governors are sworn in using a Bible anyway, why rock the boat?
Would a Jewish President swear on the Old Testament but not the New? Would that be considered a scandal? Would a Muslim President swear on the Koran? Would an Atheist President swear on a copy of “Origin of the Species”?
Why would any President to be sworn in on anything he doesn’t hold sacred or even holds in contempt? I can’t imagine any President wanting to start out his term offending a huge swath of his countrymen. Anybody that foolish should never have been elected President in the first place.
Better to do away with the book swearing altogether than that.
November 30th, 2009 at 7:31 pm
nowandlater,
#54.
I don’t think I really followed that.
November 30th, 2009 at 7:31 pm
I love South Park:
Singers: Martin went home to his wife
Dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb
And showed her pages from the Book of Mormon
Dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb
Harris: A-and so Joseph Smith put his head into a hat, a-and read to me what the golden plates said. I wrote it all down and we’re gonna publish it into a book.
Mrs. Harris: Martin, how do you know he isn’t just making stuff up and pretending he’s translating off golden plates?
Singers: Lucy Harris smart smart smart
Smart smart smart smart smart
Harris: Why would he make it up?
Singers: Martin Harris dumb dadumb-
Lucy: All right, here. I’m gonna hide these pages. [puts them in a drawer at the bottom end of an armoir] If Joseph Smith really is translating off of golden plates, then he’ll be able to do it again. But if Joseph Smith is making it all up, then the new translations will be different from these.
Harris: Okay, fine. I bet he’ll have no problem. [puts on his coat and heads out]
Singers: Lucy Harris smart smart smart
Martin Harris dumb.
So Martin went on back to Smith
Said the pages had gone away
Smith got mad and told Martin
He needed to go pray
Dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb
Harris: [upon Smith's return] Look, ah I’m sorry about losin’ the pages we worked on, Joe, but I’m ready to write it all down again if you translate from the plates.
Smith: I would love to, Martin, except, I just had a vision. And the Lord said he’s very angry with me for letting you take those pages.
Harris: [gasps] He is??
Singers: Dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb
Smith: Yes. He is so mad that he will never let me translate from the plate of Lehi again. He’s… we must now translate from the plate of Nephi. So it will be the same basic story, but written a little differently.
Harris: Wow! If God got angry with you, then you must be tellin’ the truth.
Singers: Dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb.
Harris: All right, Martin. Let’s get to work! [Smith reads from the hat again and dictates to Harris, who writes it all down]
November 30th, 2009 at 7:34 pm
MWS,
“In fairness, those quotes are from men who happened to be Southern Baptist. They are not considered divine revelation.
“Are the quotes from Smith and Young considered divine revelation?”
No. Not everything spoken/written by a prophet is prophetic or divinely inspired.
November 30th, 2009 at 7:36 pm
South Park http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4MyRvDF6z10
November 30th, 2009 at 7:37 pm
“Romney” is obsessed.
November 30th, 2009 at 7:39 pm
Yes, many of the quotes from Smith and Young are divine revelation. However, there is a tradition, and a verifiable history of our doctrine which is ultimately guided by our current leadership. First and foremost, the prophet and the 12 apostles are the guardians of our doctrine and how it is applied. When you hear their talks their is nothing controversial from a political point of view in mainstream conservatism.
I see that opposite in many Faiths. Jeremiah Wright’s church was off the rails. Mine is not. Many liberal churches are crazy in its social advocacy. Mine is not. But hey, lets go with a double standard, just because one doesn’t like the origins of my Faith. Forget the golden rule by golly because it is a Mormon or a Samaritan!
November 30th, 2009 at 7:40 pm
I think MWS is confusing the Prophet with the infallible Pope in Rome. The only time the Prophet is considered to be be speaking for the Lord is when he is speaking for the Lord. Otherwise, he is just speaking for himself.
Take Nathan in the Old Testament as an example. Nathan was the chief prophet in the days of King David. David told him he wanted to build a temple. Nathan told him to go for it, the Lord was with him. Then Nathan went home that night and the Lord set him straight. So Nathan had to go back and tell David that he had misspoke. (1 Chron 17:1-15)
There are other examples from the Bible of prophets misspeaking and having the Lord set them straight.
November 30th, 2009 at 7:40 pm
Just vote for me. Don’t think.
November 30th, 2009 at 7:46 pm
For those of us hoping to discuss the issues of the day, I can’t tell you how disappointed I was to see this post from Alex. We understand why you have an ax to grind with the LDS church. The subject was debated almost exclusively in 2007. For someone hoping the party will be more inclusive with regards to social issues, you seem to have no problem making statements that will be interpreted (correctly, I think) as showing us LDS folks the door. On one of the biggest news days for the biggest religious bigot in the party, you’ve chosen to lob a bomb and invite all the trolls to repeat their criticisms at our faith. Why is this suddenly relevant, especially on this of all days?
November 30th, 2009 at 7:48 pm
marK, I believe the Roman Catholic understanding of papal infallibility is actually pretty similar to the LDS understanding of prophetic infallibility.
November 30th, 2009 at 7:49 pm
The Romney troll reminds me allot of my son. He keeps trying to interupt me when I’m having adult conversations. But what do you do? His brain is not yet fully developed.
November 30th, 2009 at 7:50 pm
Freds,
Is there a knowledgeable Catholic around to answer that? Or do they have the good sense not to get involved on this thread?
November 30th, 2009 at 7:55 pm
#68 Ha ha, good sense in a religious thread on a political blog?
I think MWS and Doug Forrester are knowledgeable Catholics
November 30th, 2009 at 8:01 pm
L. Ron Hubbard once said, “All mankind lives and each man strives by codes of conduct mutually agreed.” We need to embrace ecumenicalism especially in politics.
November 30th, 2009 at 8:06 pm
With MNF about to start, I have to wonder whether candidates should be vetted on the basis of which team they are fans of. I happen to live closest to one of the teams playing tonight (go Saints!). For example, could it be said that anyone who is a Browns fan is delusional and cannot possess the common sense needed for the office?
November 30th, 2009 at 8:08 pm
You’re right, I’m an ex-Mormon that is just bitter now.
November 30th, 2009 at 8:08 pm
Freds,
I’m Catholic. Doug is Lutheran. I don’t know much about Mormon theology, but here is the quick and dirty on Papal Infallibility.
The Pope is infallible when speaking on matters essential to faith and morals in a definitive manner that he intends to make binding. Now there are many truths which the Pope declares which are not, by definition, infallible. There are also rules the Holy Father makes that are binding, but not infallible. Revelation is considered closed (meaning there is no new public revelation after the Apostles). Ecumenical Councils and Popes refine, define, and clarify revelation when infallible, but they do not receive new revelation, as I understand Mormons believe about their prophets. Since infallible statements are-by definition- binding for all time, they cannot contradict any revealed truth.
Typically, an infallible statement from the Pope will read something like this, “As the successor of St. Peter, we declare, define, and proclaim, that……” or something like that.
But most statements from the Pope are authoritative, true, and/or binding, without rising to the definition of infallibility. Some are just his opinion as a theologian.
For more on the topic, read here:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm
November 30th, 2009 at 8:10 pm
marK,
“The only time the Prophet is considered to be be speaking for the Lord is when he is speaking for the Lord.”
How do you know when he is speaking for the Lord?
Also, are the quotes above ascribed to Smith considered divine revelation?
November 30th, 2009 at 8:12 pm
Yessss, Hamaca
Go Saints! Go Reggie Bush!
November 30th, 2009 at 8:14 pm
8:08 PM – That post was an imposter!!!
There is only one Romney. Period.
(72. is a faker)
November 30th, 2009 at 8:16 pm
WOW! I wonder if an article on the Muslim faith would be permitted to be so biassed and completely untrue as this “There are plenty of Mormon doctrines that may strike people as a bit odd — and rightly so.” WHICH ARTICLES ?? No specific referrences, just alot of paranoid finger pointing. You really should check the FACTS before you call yourself a “repoter”! I’m not a mormon, but I can tell by the stupidity of this article that I know waaaay more about the LDS faith that the guy who wrote this crap. Honestly, do your homework before you put pen to paper, you sound like a Mcarthy clone. No problems with Obama’s obvious preferrence to Islam ? That IS a proven violent terrorist CULT! Alex Knepper, you are hiding behind your first ammendment while at the same time openly engaging in libel against one of the finest candidates we have to save this country, you unamerican pig!
November 30th, 2009 at 8:17 pm
“Also, are the quotes above ascribed to Smith considered divine revelation?”
Yes, however, the most correct Prophet is our current Prophet and although materially correct, even he is not perfect. He is accountable but not infallible. It is up to each member to find out the truth through communicating with the Holy Ghost/Spirit. For some members this is a trial of faith to figure it out and some never get it and just leave. We don’t control anyone.
Our knowledge of God is improving over time….
9 We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.
Brigham Young said you should never follow your leader/Bishop to hell.
November 30th, 2009 at 8:26 pm
Mr Kneppler,
Devotion to atheism is actually the highest order of faith there is since the entire basis of your disbelief is grounded in faith alone. You have no evidene that disproves God. You have no proof of the miracle of life, nor the origin of the universe. Devotion to atheism is a strange committment to Chance above all else. To the random. This breed of devotion should always signal to the mainstream (religious, (non)secular, diests, the spiritual of any stripe) that not just religion but reason, logic, philosophy, and yes, science have been evidence the atheist has either failed to realize or refuses to acknowledge. By your own standard, the mainstream should adjust and judge you accordingly.
All religion is mankind’s attempt to reach out to God. I doubt God looks approvingly at any follower of any faith belittling those of others in attempts to disqualify their validity. As Thomas Paine wrote, any religion that teaches man to be good is good. To offer man’s most And so, from my episcopalian observations, the general moral conditioning of the average mormon is a positive force for the human condition and thereby a valuable expression of faith and worship and moreover proof to the effect and purpose of tradition.
Insofar as a the impact a president’s religion might play on his secular judgment concerning the affairs of the nation, this article should be written under a Thanksgiving that rapist/murder-releasing Mike Huckabee isn’t our President, as he’s a public figure whose judgment should be questioned no matter his religion.
And this is too the case for President Obama, who, among myriad other mistakes, has been exhibiting horrendous judgment in regard to our military. Obama is likely a pretty secular guy, can we agree? Fixing Afghanistan was cornerstone to his campaign. Failing to meet with the commander he put in place of the in-his-view valid theatre for the war on terror is terrible judgment, no matter how it is cut. No matter whom he prays to or doesn’t. Reviewing instead reports in 6 academic meetings with no military personel, yet with David Axelrod at the table, with no discussion of troop levels in a single of those meetings, is a mark of a man who doesn’t know what he’s doing, just as is pardoning more than twice the number of convicts than your 3 predecessors combined. No matter whom he prays to or doesn’t. Especially, especially since what Obama is going to do tomorrow is give General McChrystal (the man whom Obama ignored until media reported the negligence) everything he asked for minus one. What President Obama should’ve done was heeded the advice and decided yesterday to give the General what he asked for plus one. No matter whom he prays to or doesn’t.
Religion can be important in the composition of anyone’s character, but it is not an aspect that ushers in good or bad judgment, just as atheism doesn’t mean you’re of some higher order of intellectual evolution. No apologies.
November 30th, 2009 at 8:28 pm
nowandlater,
To clarify, this is a religious discussion for me, not a political one……
How do you get “more correct” than what has been divinely revealed? Does that mean that Jospeh Smith or the Holy Spirit (or whoever revealed it to him) got it wrong?
Also, if it is up to each individual to figure it out, what is the purpose in having prophets and apostles? Is the Book of Mormon infallible?
November 30th, 2009 at 8:34 pm
I am my own imposter…. I feel so schizophrenic and like a compulsive liar. Somebody, please point me to a place where I can get some help!!!
November 30th, 2009 at 8:34 pm
It could mean the Holy Spirit got it wrong, MWS. The existence of the New Testament is proof to believers that God got his own will wrong in his first Bible, the Old Testament.
November 30th, 2009 at 8:42 pm
DS,
Not at all. God cannot be perfect if He “gets things wrong.” God is perfect, and does not get things wrong. The OT was mainly about God’s former covenant with the Jews- an intentionally incomplete revelation that prepared the way for the fulness of His revelation in His Son. The imperfect old covenant of the OT was but a foreshadowing of God’s perfect covenant with His Church.
November 30th, 2009 at 8:43 pm
“The only time the Prophet is considered to be be speaking for the Lord is when he is speaking for the Lord.”
How do you know when he is speaking for the Lord?
Also, are the quotes above ascribed to Smith considered divine revelation?
A ha! Now there you will find differing opinions among Mormons themselves. Largely, though, we would agree that it is the role of the Holy Spirit to testify of truth, and that is how someone can know whether a claim is from God or not (as nowandlater explained).
How do you get “more correct” than what has been divinely revealed? Does that mean that Jospeh Smith or the Holy Spirit (or whoever revealed it to him) got it wrong?
Man’s (including prophets’) understanding of God is imperfect and incomplete. “We see but a poor reflection as in a mirror“, and because of this, Joseph Smith can indeed get something wrong.
November 30th, 2009 at 8:47 pm
fwiw, I believe that a prophet’s understanding of science, cultural background, or language limitations can influence the revelation that comes through him, and so it’s not that God is imperfect or that he gets things wrong, it’s the human doing it. You might question what’s the point of a prophet if he can get things wrong, but he still has to act by faith as much as anyone else, and he’s not merely a puppet in God’s hands.
November 30th, 2009 at 8:47 pm
So God remains perfect despite having (purposely or not) made an imperfect covenant with one race of human beings just to pave the way for a perfect covenant later, with some other race of human beings?
November 30th, 2009 at 8:49 pm
Kavon, you need to take this thread down and not allow any such thing to be posted again. It is extremely offensive and devisive. I can’t believe you would allow these things to be said about any other religion, and we all know there is PLENTY that can be dug up.
November 30th, 2009 at 8:49 pm
Freds,
“Largely, though, we would agree that it is the role of the Holy Spirit to testify of truth, and that is how someone can know whether a claim is from God or not ”
But now you have the same problem as Huck and his evangelical brethren (because they contend essentially the same thing about the Holy Spirit). How can you know when the Spirit is testifying?
If two sincere, earnest, and holy people are pursuing the Spirit, and come to different conclusions, how do we discern in which one (if either) the Spirit is working in? Is it a feeling? A hunch? Is it whatever you think of when you pray? And why wouldn’t the Spirit then reveal to BOTH, if He operates through random individuals in such a way. Does He deny earnest, sincere, and pious people? Does he lie to them?
November 30th, 2009 at 8:51 pm
ConRep,
Have you read the comments? I think (with the exception of a couple specific commentators) this has been a respectful and informative discussion.
November 30th, 2009 at 8:51 pm
Also, if it is up to each individual to figure it out, what is the purpose in having prophets and apostles? Is the Book of Mormon infallible?
It is indeed up to each individual to work out his/her own salvation. Prophets and apostles are there to provide a supportive framework, and for when God has something to say to the Church as a whole.
November 30th, 2009 at 8:51 pm
nowandlater,
To clarify, this is a religious discussion for me, not a political one……
How do you get “more correct” than what has been divinely revealed? Does that mean that Jospeh Smith or the Holy Spirit (or whoever revealed it to him) got it wrong?
I can’t get give you a percentage, but somethings were Joseph Smith’s opinion, but materially that which was divinely revealed and confirmed as such through the Holy Spirit was divine. Dare I say 95% was divine?
However, in modern times, for instance there are new challenges. Joseph Smith wasn’t revealing things about Pornography or illicit drugs. So my current Prophet is more correct for my life, not Joseph Smith although very essential and valuable.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Also, if it is up to each individual to figure it out, what is the purpose in having prophets and apostles? Is the Book of Mormon infallible?
That is the strenghth of Mormonism unlike Creedals. We don’t believe in Sola Scripture (scriptute only above all else). We believe in Sola Holy Ghost (a personaly witness of the Holy Ghost above all else).
However, the Holy Ghost doesn’t operate in a vacuum, it needs things that are tangible to confirm or witness that are true and are the guide posts of our lives. In my view, the strongest witness that the Holy Ghost has given me is of Jesus Christs’ love for me. Then under that falls many of the truths that I have discovered for myself by the power of the Holy Ghost.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The Book of Mormon is not infallible, but materially as a spiritual guide post it is the most simple/correct book, especially the section where Jesus Christ gives the same teachings he taught on the Sermon on the Mount. No letters from Paul or James giving different views of Faith and Works, but teachings straight from Jesus Christ.
November 30th, 2009 at 8:52 pm
DS (#82) – I am Mormon so my perspective comes from that background. The fact that the NT contains different laws than the OT doesn’t necessarily mean that He got it wrong the first time. Rather, an interpretation that I like is that God has brought mankind through a series of steps and morphed His church over time to fit His plan for us. The Mosaic law was the right law for most of the OT times, then in the NT, Jesus fulfilled the Mosaic law (eye for an eye) and ushered in a new law (turn the other cheek). Following the NT, I also believe that the Reformation (with Martin Luther, et al.), Restoration (with Joseph Smith, et al.), and our current living Prophet are all extensions of this same principle of improvement and continued revelation – that God continues to adapt and refine His Church as we continue to progress in all aspects as human beings.
November 30th, 2009 at 8:54 pm
Many Huckabee people tried to deny an anti-Mormon climate on pro Huckabee sites, now they have no comments about it being plastered all over this thread…..it’s as if they haven’t noticed it and that it’s ok, just like the Huck sites before when they seemed to not remember that either. Utterly dispicable and no place for it on this respected site.
November 30th, 2009 at 8:54 pm
Alex, do you not see the Pandora’s box you open when alluding to such ridiculous matters such as, examining one’s religion? Do you REALLY think this sort of thing is beneficial to our party. It’s one divisive. What a candidate chooses as their faith needs to be left out of the political discussion. Talk about their morals and values, if you would. Leave their faith out of it!
November 30th, 2009 at 8:55 pm
DS,
“So God remains perfect despite having (purposely or not) made an imperfect covenant with one race of human beings just to pave the way for a perfect covenant later, with some other race of human beings?”
First off, God’s covenant with the Church has nothing to do with race. We are “catholic” (meaning universal). Secondly, let me clarify what I meant by “imperfect.” By that I did not mean that God failed and had to try again, or that it did not accomplish what God intended. On the contrary, it did what God intended, and lasted just as long as God meant it to. God is not imperfect just because a day or a season does not last forever. It is what he means it to be, so in that sense it was perfect. But it was never intended to be the fulness of His revelation, nor the means by which He would reconcile sinners. In that sense it was imperfect.
November 30th, 2009 at 8:55 pm
But now you have the same problem as Huck and his evangelical brethren (because they contend essentially the same thing about the Holy Spirit). How can you know when the Spirit is testifying?
If two sincere, earnest, and holy people are pursuing the Spirit, and come to different conclusions, how do we discern in which one (if either) the Spirit is working in? Is it a feeling? A hunch? Is it whatever you think of when you pray? And why wouldn’t the Spirit then reveal to BOTH, if He operates through random individuals in such a way. Does He deny earnest, sincere, and pious people? Does he lie to them?
I can’t answer for anyone else. If someone sincerely discerns a spiritual experience that is in opposition to my own, I have no more right to declare theirs false or incorrect than they have to declare mine false. And there are plenty of cases when people sincerely felt God wants them to leave the LDS Church, just as there are plenty of cases when people sincerely feel God wants them to join it. It’s a paradox, for sure.
To apply this question to you, how do you know God exists? Or that His complete truth is found in your church?
November 30th, 2009 at 9:13 pm
Regardless of background I believe all churches possess some truth. Martin Luther once said [paraphrasing] that the kingdom of god is like a city that is besieged by all sides from wickedness. Every man has their place and cannot leave. But that doesn’t mean we can’t yell encouraging words to each other
i hate to think that religions turn on each other when we can join together on so many other noble causes.
November 30th, 2009 at 9:18 pm
Knepper–
Your view on this is so completely off-base that I do not even know where to start. I just want to say that my respect for your intellectual prowess (and for that matter, your intellectual integrity) has just plummeted; although I’m sure you care very little about what I think of you.
-Gov. Rick Perry
November 30th, 2009 at 9:20 pm
God is way bigger than my church. That’s for sure. However, I found my spiritual witness here and I feel it is true. But for me to confine God here is laughable. Personally, I think others fall short, but there is no value in me beating that point again and again, but rather I found more value in explaining my perspective.
Do I have a missionary zeal? Yes. Am I overbearing? No. I will diligently fight for another person’s point of view in religous matters and I will always honor another persons decisions.
Mormons are nowhere in the neighbor of Muslims. Plus, we find it extremely unpleasurable to slander another’s Faith. Even if it is outside of politics. There is very little if any railing against Catholics, and Evagelicals at our pulpits. Sure doctrinally, we declare others are wrong, but slander is a big no no.
November 30th, 2009 at 9:21 pm
Freds,
“To apply this question to you, how do you know God exists? Or that His complete truth is found in your church?”
I think you are driving at two different issues there (and I’m writing as a 2nd rate arm-chair theologian here). One is the gift of faith, which I am free to accept or reject, nurture or starve. That is the prompting to turn to God to begin with, to understand that there is something wrong with me and our human condition, and to set out to make it right. The second issue is HOW we are to know, understand, and do these things. Did God leave it up to each of us, as an island, to figure it out on our own? Does he randomly send His Spirit? To my mind, those specific issues- WHAT am I to believe and to do- are revealed to ALL of us though His Church (specifically, the Roman Catholic Church). That is the marker which has stood the test of time and faithfully borne witness to the Gospel since Christ walked this Earth. I do not believe that God left us orphans, to thrash around with a book and a series of hunches and feelings. I believe he gave us living, breathing guides, just as in Apostolic times (though the bishops are not apostles). I don’t think such things are left to chance, or human effort. I believe God has faithfully revealed Himself to all generations.
In short, I came to the Catholic Church (I’m a convert from evangelicalism) because I came to understand that without the Catholic Church, Christianity fails, and Christianity already made too much sense, moved me too deeply, and was too convincing to me to cast aside. But I truly believe that if Christianity is true, then the Catholic Faith must be true.
November 30th, 2009 at 9:25 pm
#100
That is an honest forthright spiritual conclusion. I can respect that.
November 30th, 2009 at 9:25 pm
MWS, how did you come to pick the Roman Catholic church over, say, the Orthodox Catholic church?
November 30th, 2009 at 9:40 pm
Hah. Someone at FreeRepublic approves: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2397313/posts
November 30th, 2009 at 9:48 pm
Kavon, you need to take this thread down and not allow any such thing to be posted again. It is extremely offensive and devisive. I can’t believe you would allow these things to be said about any other religion, and we all know there is PLENTY that can be dug up. – ConRep
Your view on this is so completely off-base that I do not even know where to start. I just want to say that my respect for your intellectual prowess (and for that matter, your intellectual integrity) has just plummeted; although I’m sure you care very little about what I think of you. – Rick Perry
Can you two identify which statements are offensive rather than running around like chickens with their heads cut off?
November 30th, 2009 at 9:50 pm
104. What is your point with this post, Alex? Certainly, this topic has been exhausted, and there were far more important issues on the table today.
November 30th, 2009 at 9:53 pm
I dunno Alex. Let’s turn it on you.
I think we should question your right to post as a front pager because your are an atheist. But then again, I think earth warming believers are nuts too so I am not picking on atheists. And think everyone should Alex’s ability to make rational posts.
November 30th, 2009 at 10:00 pm
Freds,
” how did you come to pick the Roman Catholic church over, say, the Orthodox Catholic church?”
By that I assume you mean the Eastern Orthodox (such as the Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, etc…..).
In large measure, because I believe in the institution of the Papacy as understood by the Roman Catholic Church. There were probably some more ancillary issues that don’t spring immediately to mind (this was about 15 years ago).
November 30th, 2009 at 10:01 pm
105 – Get good discussion flowing. Offer an interesting, little-heard perspective on the matter. Too much about Mike Huckabee. Thought we needed a post criticizing Romney since I just was hatin’ on Palin and the entire page is filled with anti-Huck stuff.
106 – Lol shut up
November 30th, 2009 at 10:02 pm
Alex, you know that moratorium on Reagan you’re pining for? Well, I’d like one on religious discussions at race. They are irrelevant, and boring.
November 30th, 2009 at 10:08 pm
106
Shut up? Ok, shut up back at you.
That’s probably the appropriate. Ignore and move on.
November 30th, 2009 at 10:25 pm
JohnM, 92 — That’s a logical explanation of the evolution, of sorts, of God’s plan to fit the progression of mankind, our knowledge, society or civilization. But upon reading it, the question of restoration comes to mind precisely because those who speak of it typically do so claiming their church is the right, true or best one to restore the church to what God intended it to be all along.
Though I still think God would most likely have a single, unwavering standard for behavior for ever rather than a sliding scale, I will consider the theory due simply to the notion’s rationale parallel to the fact that parents uphold varied degrees of acceptability for their children based on their capabilities.
But central to my at-times deistic idea of God is the question of why God would choose revelation to shape man rather than instilling the inherent truth that he simply is, based on the existence of life, the universe and all the things man cannot pervert or mimic as we do with the written word.
November 30th, 2009 at 10:37 pm
Wow. What a worthless post. Wow. What worthless responses. How is this related to his policies? I’m okay with posts ragging on Palin, but why are we trying to pick on a candidate who is actually able? It’s not like the GOP is writhing in its own vomit, with no direction, just embittered, polarizing wind bags trying to announce its presence while leading it ten different wrong directions. Really, if we want any kind of conservative hope, we want to pick on the weak candidates: ones who are just full of fluff. We want to save RELEVANT discussion for the policies of those who have real experience and substance.
I think I can safely say that I will rarely visit this blog again, if this is the caliber of posts and comments.
November 30th, 2009 at 10:46 pm
109 – Off-topic threads can be interesting sometimes. I thought this was pretty interesting. Clean up a few of the commenters (like the one spouting religious mockery), and it’s a pretty good, even non-divisive thread. Look at the back-and-forth between MWS, nowandlater, FredsFighter, DS, etc. It’s a lot less divisive than some other threads, like the recent threads on Huckabee.
November 30th, 2009 at 10:49 pm
Some posts were fine, but far too many were anti-Mormon hatred and should not be tolerated on this fine site. I would have thought Alex would have scrubbed them.
November 30th, 2009 at 10:51 pm
112 – I’m okay with posts ragging on Palin, but why are we trying to pick on a candidate who is actually able? It’s not like the GOP is writhing in its own vomit, with no direction, just embittered, polarizing wind bags trying to announce its presence while leading it ten different wrong directions. Really, if we want any kind of conservative hope, we want to pick on the weak candidates: ones who are just full of fluff. We want to save RELEVANT discussion for the policies of those who have real experience and substance.
Did you really just argue that some candidates are off-limits for criticism, and others aren’t? Holy cow.
Yeah, let’s only criticize the candidates I don’t like. Or not. This isn’t Hucksarmy.com, coMITTed to Romney.com, or Conservatives4Palin.
Wow. What a worthless post.
Yeah, thanks for describing your own post.
November 30th, 2009 at 10:58 pm
Alex,
““Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom. Freedom opens the windows of the soul so that man can discover his most profound beliefs and commune with God. Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone.””
It was John Adams who said this and Romney was quoting him. Freedom does require religion, whether that religion be Christian, Atheism….whatever, because religion is Freedom to worship and freedom to practice whatever it is one wants to practice. Without religion, freedom would perish. Without religion, there would not be enough folks like yourself, Alex, to uphold the values of freedom the constitution offers us.
Atheism without a God conscience would lose its moral compass, generally, and would leave unique Atheists such as yourself standing alone.
November 30th, 2009 at 11:00 pm
Matt Y,
Welcome aboard to Race, BTW!
I appreciated your thoughts on the other thread. I hope you enjoy it here. It can certainly get “interesting,” but you will also get some good insights from some really good people.
Some of us get pissy from time to time (and I’m pointing at myself here too), some of us are just crazy as bat____, but all in all, I love it.
November 30th, 2009 at 11:02 pm
Thanks, MWS. I’ve been a lurker for months, and have posted just a few comments previously.
November 30th, 2009 at 11:03 pm
115 — you completely missed the point. I said lets save RELEVANT discussion for the worthwhile candidates. Feel free to criticize Romney, like his unhelpful immigration policies, but this post on religion is ridiculous. Criticize him for his policy. I say for those candidates who have something to talk about, let’s talk about them.
For those candidates or pundits who have little substance, just gimmicks, go ahead and have your tabloid chatter, if you really feel like garbage like this is necessary.
Please read more carefully.
November 30th, 2009 at 11:06 pm
Matt,
I’m way to much of a smart-mouthed know-it-all to lurk anywhere without spouting off.
November 30th, 2009 at 11:08 pm
cobalt,
If you don’t like this thread, there’s a whole bunch more you can comment on.
November 30th, 2009 at 11:18 pm
Matt Y,
So why don’t you tell us a little about yourself……
November 30th, 2009 at 11:32 pm
Alex:
If you’re interested in a clear and objective view on how Romney would govern according to his Mormonism, then begin with his tenure as Governor. I don’t think you’ll find anything strange or bizarre in how he governed that was informed by his Mormonism.
As a philosophy, Mormonism rejects immateriality, creation ex nihilo, the mystery of the Trinity, original sin, and many other traditional Christian views on existence.
Because of Mormonism, Romney believes both in a divine creator and a 4.6 billion year old earth and the evidence in the geologic record for evolution.
Mormonism informs Romney that all of mankind are literal brothers and sisters in the family of God whether they believe in Jesus Christ or not. Mormonism teaches Romney that God will hold him accountable for how he treats his fellow “family” members whether they are Mormon or not.
Mormonism informs Romney that everyone who is not Mormon (atheists included) are not doomed to burn in hell eternally.
The president of the Mormon Church speaks for Mormonism and does not speak for the United States. There is nothing in Mormonism that would require Romney to obey the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints contrary to the duties, obligations and responsibilities of the office of the President of the United States.
Mormonism recognizes and honors the line between Church and State (although many people outside Utah misunderstand how this works in Utah, where a majority of citizens are of a particular faith.)
As a philosophy, Mormonism is founded upon the primacy of existence, rather than the primacy of consciousness, and therefore, is directly connected to reality in unique ways (when comparing other world religions)
Mormonism is not threatened by the writings or arguments of Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Stephen Hawkings, Steven Weinberg, Carl Sagan, or David Wilson.
November 30th, 2009 at 11:35 pm
Thomas,
“As a philosophy, Mormonism rejects…. creation ex nihilo”
So what was there before creation?
November 30th, 2009 at 11:46 pm
“So what was there before creation”? Depending on your understanding of cosmological science, it could be either a) a singularity teeming with energy/matter b) some kind of environment that had matter and energy potential (which is certainly something, rather than nothing) or c) an environment unlike any environment that can substantively interact in such a way as to unleash unrealized material and energetic potential…again something rather than nothing….
what does this have to do with Romney?
November 30th, 2009 at 11:47 pm
MWS:
I am going to assume you meant the creation of the universe.
Mormonism teaches that the process/work of organizing universes, galaxies, planets, etc has always existed. Mormonism is founded upon the axiom that matter and energy are eternal.
November 30th, 2009 at 11:49 pm
121 — thank you. I will look around, before rashly dismissing anything.
125 — “what does this have to do with Romney?” my parting words.
December 1st, 2009 at 12:11 am
Back off you Romney haters. Cower and cringe before his greatness.
December 1st, 2009 at 12:15 am
Atheism is a religion to you? So what, for you, isn’t a religion? And how is the formula “freedom requires religion” meaningful at all if you count among the practitioners of any religion those who explicitly deny the premises of any religion?
December 1st, 2009 at 12:19 am
Amen, fellow believer. May the infidels who fail to jump down on their knobby knees and acknowledge the Divine Right of Romney be cast into outer darkness. May the 7th angle of the apocalypse roll up the sky like a newspaper and swat them with it.
December 1st, 2009 at 12:20 am
Well, duh. And that’s a bad thing why, precisely?
December 1st, 2009 at 12:25 am
Alright, MWS.
I view Sarah Palin, Rick Santorum, John Thune, and Tom Coburn very favorably. Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty, Gary Johnson, Paul Ryan, Mike Pence, Mitch Daniels, and Eric Cantor I view favorably. Rudy Giuliani I view neutrally. Newt Gingrich I view unfavorably.
I’m social conservative, abortion the #1 issue; opposed to gay marriage, but not passionately; ambivalent about civil unions. Conservative on spending, pro-small government, not sure what I think about taxes but more concerned about the deficit, so I’ll say moderate. Moderate on immigration. Conservative on Israel (support), Afghanistan and Iraq (pro-surge). Pragmatic on candidates, generally; I’m not even sure that beating Crist with Rubio would be the right move. But I think Palin and Pawlenty were right to support Hoffman over Scozzafava.
I’m 24 and single. I’m also from Ohio and should get to bed.
December 1st, 2009 at 12:35 am
For whoever digressed this topic into who your favorites are for 2012 thank you. This daily pro/anti romney/huckabee trend of race42012 is getting really tedious. Its almost becoming like WWE.
December 1st, 2009 at 12:41 am
Does Palin believe in a 4.6 billion year old earth or that there are fossilized remains in the geologic layers of the earth that span millions of years?
How about distant galaxies, do conservative Christian candidates believe that God only makes it appear that the light travel millions of years to reach us or the galaxies literally that old?
December 1st, 2009 at 12:43 am
#123 — Mormonism informs Romney that everyone who is not Mormon (atheists included) are not doomed to burn in hell eternally.
EXCUSE ME!?! But there is NOTHING in Mormon Doctrine that states this. Quite to the contrary I might add, but it is too long to explain. Mormons NEVER preach that anyone will “burn in hell” period. if anything, Mormons believe everyone will receive a degree of glory. This is the kind of sickening nonsense Mormons are sick and tired of — people trashing and misrepresenting their religion.
This is why is whole “does Romney’s religion matter” B.S. NEEDS TO STOP!!! It invites gossip and slander and divisiveness amongst our party.
If you want to represent Mormonism, start learning it from its source. Otherwise KNOCK IT OFF!!!!
December 1st, 2009 at 12:45 am
My guess is God is the only one who can set the record straight. Does he appear to men? Does he answer prayer? Does he care about us at all?
“Men convinced against their will are of the same opinion still.”
Good night everyone, you are all probably pretty moral people
December 1st, 2009 at 12:53 am
Yes. That’s right. You have to be a non-Mormon to get to heaven according to Mormon doctrine, because that’s what “quite the contrary” would mean in this context. Glad I learned it from “the source.”
December 1st, 2009 at 1:01 am
Fred:
Go back and look again. I said that Mormonism does NOT preach that everyone who is not Mormon will burn in hell as opposed to fundamentalist Christians who believe that Muslims, Atheists and Mormons will all burn in hell.
This is important because a President Romney does not view other nations and faiths as either 1) automatic candidates for heaven or 2) automatic candidates for hell.
Romney’s Mormonism teaches him to view people of other faiths and other nations differently than traditional Christianity.
This distinction is important.
December 1st, 2009 at 1:10 am
As a Mormon and a chaplain in the Army I have had the strange and sad experience of having other people, badly misinformed, negatively biased, tell me what I believe based on the 10 strangest quotes someone dug up from some LDS leader or other from some decade or century past. Absolutely no faith could ever survive the giggle test if this methodology were applied across the board. The author of this article has scant knowledge of LDS doctrine, and no knowledge of the Bible, which I will paraphrase: “Eye hath not seen, and ear hath not heard the things God has prepared for the faithful.” My experience has been that doctrinally defensive, militantly self-righteous, self-appointed experts cannot be educated. They can only be pitied. But it’s frustrating.
December 1st, 2009 at 1:23 am
I recommend the following site for a soothing balm to the feelings respresented in this thread.
THE CLEMENCY ISSUE . . .
Over at First Things, Joe Carter — who worked for the Huckabee campaign — has posted some interesting thoughts on the clemency controversy. For me, the most notable part is where Carter says that the “experiences and intuitions that served [Huckabee] well as a minister of the gospel were not always applicable” when it came to governing.
Here Carter hits upon one of the main issues of recent presidential campaigns — namely, that there’s a difference between what you look for in a pastor and a president. You may be wondering why I say that’s one of the main issues, since I’m sure you’ve never seen a Hannity feature on it. My answer: Because this is a distinction many (most?) politically engaged evangelicals do not fully grasp. And we miss it at our peril.
If you ask me, we spent the 2008 campaign fighting over at least a couple of things, way out of proportion to their actual importance. The first was theology — because the simple truth is evangelicals get uncomfortable voting for a president they would not let teach their Sunday school. I say this because I get uncomfortable too, not because I’m better than the rest. But the truth is, the president won’t be teaching your kids about the Trinity, the virgin birth, or heaven. He’ll be making decisions that will impact whether your kids live in freedom, sure. And if you’re fortunate, he’ll be teaching your kids (mainly by example) about public service and having an intact family. But that’s it.
The second has nothing to do with the present fracas, but I’ll mention it anyway. And it’s (get ready) policy positions. Yes, I said it. I don’t think policy positions are as important as the 2008 campaign might have led you to believe. Why? Because there are lots of politicians who agree with me on anything, but they can’t argue — much less govern — their way out of a paper bag. They are ideologues, but not leaders. They are people of conviction, but unable to produce in others a conversion.
What’s my point? Basically that we evangelicals basically think, whether we admit it or not, that if we elect someone who agrees with us on everything (including theology), that’s what matters most. Or, to really drill down on what’s at issue here, that someone we’d choose to be our pastor would also make a good president.
I’m not saying that’s why Carter supported Gov. Huckabee last time around. But I am saying that he’s hit on something critical here. He seems largely to be talking about Huckabee’s compassion, which is laudable, not to mention something I lack; I think there’s a lot more there, regardless of this specific candidate or that specific virtue. The more comfortable I get with that, the more convinced I get (and as you can tell from the name of this website, I’m pretty convinced!) that I made the right choice for 2008, and now for 2012.
Why? Because Mitt Romney is not just a man whose governing I think would make it more likely that my kids will live in a peaceful, prosperous world (although he is that, in spades); he’s also a man whose family I’d like my kids to watch. And you know what? I think he’ll keep his mouth shut about the Trinity.
Posted by Charles Mitchell at 08:27 PM on November 30, 2009
December 1st, 2009 at 1:24 am
Sorry….I forgot to give the link
http://www.evangelicalsformitt.org/
December 1st, 2009 at 2:58 am
Alex:
You wrote:
“We ask plenty of questions of any Evangelical Christian candidate: what do his beliefs about the nature of God, the nature of the cosmos, and the meaning of man’s life mean for his potential tenure in office?”
1. Mormonism teaches that God the Father and Jesus Christ are beings of light, energy, and matter: self-existing beings of spirit matter who have incorruptible bodies of flesh and bone.
2. Mormonism teaches that the nature of the cosmos is eternal matter and energy that was neither created or destroyed but that can be organized.
3. Mormonism teaches that the purpose of man is to have joy. The gospel of salvation and exaltation is the means to provide man with a fullness of joy for eternity.
4. Mormonism teaches that life (particularly human life) is the standard of value, that God is the standard of perfection, and existence is the standard of reality.
You also wrote:
“It is established in the church that the devout can reach the upper echelons of heaven and eventually become gods themselves, able to create their own universes and govern them as they see fit (all while supervised by the One True God). Why is it that when I bring this up to Romney fans, I am dismissed as a bigot?”
Mormonism teaches that every human being has the potential to become like God (perfect) and to participate with him in the kind of life God lives. (This includes organizing worlds and providing more of mankind the opportunity to experience “earthlife” in the eternities.) The governing as “they” see fit concept is not accurate. For Mormonism, truth is objective and therefore, on a macro level, governance is according to an objective standard, of which we are not fully aware.
Now, how do these teachings inform a President Romney?
* Romney will be in favor of the views extolling the grand potential of the human race.
* Romney will value human life.
* Romney will view science in a positive light recognizing that all things are a valuable part of God’s work, including evolution.
* Romney will be in favor of earth and space exploration.
* Romney will be in favor of preserving the earth.
* Romney will be in favor of all peoples to have the freedom to choose their own destinies according to the laws the people choose.
Mormonism’s worldview is uniquely based on the primacy of existence.
December 1st, 2009 at 6:11 am
“If I am fortunate to become your president, I will serve no one religion, no one group, no one cause, and no one interest. A president must serve only the common cause of the people of the US.” ~ Mitt Romney in his Faith speech 12/6/07
That says enough that it should satisfy any Christian, and most atheists.
The full speech/program: http://bit.ly/8hpIfG
December 1st, 2009 at 8:05 am
Alex,
As an avowed atheist, what the hell are you asking ANY questions about faith for ?
December 1st, 2009 at 8:42 am
144 – Because I live in a society with other people?
December 1st, 2009 at 8:44 am
“Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom. Freedom opens the windows of the soul so that man can discover his most profound beliefs and commune with God. Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone.”
Alex, you have been told several times now that this paragraph was expanded upon in Mitt’s Becket speech a short time after his speech on faith. By you continually thereafter citing the above without sharing his subsequent words shows either that you refused to listen to the Becket speech, or that you are intentionally withholding pertinent words that help explain what Mitt meant by the above.
December 1st, 2009 at 8:49 am
Matt Y,
Thanks. I’m with ya’ on most of those issues, though a little more neutral in the whole Israel/Palestinian thing.
December 1st, 2009 at 8:50 am
#145
LOL!
December 1st, 2009 at 8:54 am
BTW, religion does not require freedom, contra Mitt. The martyrs proved that.
One could argue that freedom requires religion. The officially atheist states made the state and ideology the new religion, to murderous ends. All of western Europe is at least mostly free (though some do prosecute “thought crimes”), while mostly secular, if not militantly atheist.
December 1st, 2009 at 9:00 am
I am assuming you didn’t listen to the Becket speech either MWS. Did you even listen to his speech on faith?
December 1st, 2009 at 9:09 am
Because no one else believes that anything exists? Mormons discovered objectivity? That’s quite an accomplishment. I didn’t know the rest of us were all Berkeley phenomenalists.
December 1st, 2009 at 9:30 am
Yes. Amen. Let Romney be our shiny blinking beacon of only-barely-tolerable goodness in a world gone mad.
Whisper his name for solace. Dwell upon his stately image for comfort. He’s more excellent than we are, more perfect in every way. He’s taller, thinner, better groomed, and certainly better dressed. He made lots of money by banishing from our shores those evil manufacturers who corrupted us with their wealth, and he brought a blue state to its knees with botched policies and misguided priorities, which is what those arrogant blue staters deserve.
Romney defended a woman’s “right to choose” with perfect integrity of heart just like he’ll now defend a fetus’s right to not get its head vacuumed out by a surgeon. He’ll defend your right to own a gun as vigorously as he defended Massachusetts’ right to take them. He’ll defend us from state-run health care as aggressively as he imposed it on the hapless children and seniors of Massachusetts whose care is now delayed or denied at the whim of accountants and actuaries employed by the state. To lesser mortals these may seem like contradictions, but there are no contradictions in the person of Willard Romney. Romney is one as we will be one, one in the service of Romney!
Fall on your faces and snivel before his radiant majesty, you people who are not Romney.
December 1st, 2009 at 9:39 am
The trolls are going to ruin this site if left to spread their anti-mormon anti-Romney venom.
December 1st, 2009 at 9:48 am
Yes. Amen. How dare anyone disrespect by failing to acknowledge the awesomeness of our faith and our candidate who proudly proclaims that faith. Let us share in that awesomeness together and take Romney as our example. I wonder what shampoo he uses. Does he use a leave-in conditioner? How does he refine his pores? How can we properly emulate the perfection that is Willard Romney without these vital facts?
December 1st, 2009 at 10:27 am
# MWS Says:
November 30th, 2009 at 7:18 pm
nowandlater,
In fairness, those quotes are from men who happened to be Southern Baptist. They are not considered divine revelation.
Are the quotes from Smith and Young considered divine revelation?
MWS, you are falling victim to a very common misconception. As opposed to the Catholic Church (for example) where the Pope is considered infallible, the LDS Church does not consider its Prophet (or Apostles, for that matter) to be infallible. We do, however, consider them to be divinely inspired (and here’s the key) insofar as their leading the Church is concerned. This does not, by any stretch of the imagination, cover every utterance they make. Nor does it cover ANY utterances they may have made before they were sustained as Prophet.
I’m certain you didn’t want to continue on in your misconception.
December 1st, 2009 at 10:36 am
#154 I can only assume you are a Huckabee supporter, unless you prove me otherwise. Your rhetoric is in line with much of what I’ve heard and continue to hear his supporters say.
I know you’ve found an opportune time to display your antipathy for mormons and that’s fine. I hope you realize that your efforts just further divide and deteriorate our party and even the conservative movement. Your quips and sarcasm should have no place and a party that is trying to rebuild. Go after mormons all you want, just pick a different venue to do it.
December 1st, 2009 at 10:38 am
Irish,
Thanks. What about the Book of Mormon? Is it infallible?
December 1st, 2009 at 11:04 am
You can judge candidates by anything you like, including their hairstyles. I think Romney should have said freedom requires freedom to believe in some religion or none at all but he was already being constantly attacked by the “Christian” right for not being “Christian” enough. The ironic thing is that Romney would have been a much better candidate and president than any of the other Republicans running but the “Christian” right would rather have a pro-abortion pro-gay marriage anti-religion candidate win than a Mormon whose political beliefs are the same as their own. It’s their own fault that they are shooting themselves in the foot by their prejudices which, I believe, stem from their pastors spreading false anti-Mormon propaganda for the sole purpose of protecting their market share of believers. They get what they deserve.
December 1st, 2009 at 11:21 am
#154/Scozzafava-Romney
You wrote:
“Because no one else believes that anything exists? Mormons discovered objectivity? That’s quite an accomplishment. I didn’t know the rest of us were all Berkeley phenomenalists.”
As a religious philosophy, traditional Christianity is based on the primacy of consciousness, from which immateriality, creation ex nihilo, and other doctrines arise. These doctrines impose a necessary worldview which clashes with existence.
For example, the interpretation of a literal 6-day creation, 6000 years ago. The axioms of Christian belief and philosophy require and impose this literal view. This view requires that an immaterial God created everything (heavens and earth) out of thing, instantaneously (according to Augustine) because of God’s unlimited power.
However, this interpretation of the cosmos is not consistent with existence. Existence shows that the earth was created over billions of years in a universe that was formed even billions of years earlier. A long and slow process that involved millions of stages in its development during which evolution was clearly a process, locked in geologic time.
Regardless of dating practices or techniques, existence shows that the creation process was not 6 days and didn’t start 6000 years ago.
Mormonism informs Romney that this is not a “trick” that God has played on the world to see if mankind will “really” believe in spite of the evidence of existence.
How does Mormonism inform Romney? In the 1830s, Joseph Smith claimed that God told him to reject immateriality and creation ex nihilo and provided other “scripture” that taught Joseph Smith that the earth was created not in 6 days but 6 long periods of time and that this “earth” was not the first creation but one of the billions of creations that God had already formed in our space.
Therefore, Mormonism informs its adherents that we must account for existence because it IS a real “world” that is not going to suddenly disappear because of the whim or mood of an immateriality God. Why? Because trillions+ of God’s children live in this universe too.
Mormonism is unique because it is objectively centered on existence; no other religious philosophy has that foundation.
December 1st, 2009 at 11:29 am
157 MWS–I’ve enjoyed watching this particular sidebar and have especially appreciated your comments and insight. I know you didn’t ask me the question, but I thought I’d offer my two cents and others can certainly correct me if I’m wrong.
The term “infallible” is not used in the Mormon religion–it’s not part of their religious vernacular. Your question is a good one and I’m interested in what the response will be. However, what you’re asking is for a definition in a sense of a Mormon tenet, but within Catholic terms–might be a bit tricky.
The answer might be as simple as looking back at post #24 and the eighth point. Mormons look at both the Bible and the Book of Mormon as the word of God. If you define the Bible as infallible, I think that may give you the answer to your question.
December 1st, 2009 at 11:29 am
I wish this ‘Alex’ character knew what he was talking about. What Mormons/Catholics/Muslims/Atheists believe about the eternal destiny of man’s soul should have nothing to do with their eligibility to run for President. Look at the man’s resume – you cannot refute that he a very impressive background. Republicans would be stupid to pass up somebody that smart twice.
Regarding his Mormon faith – people need to go and watch the speech and listen to Romney’s own words. View it here: http://mittromneycentral.com/speeches/faith-in-america/
He has already held public of, people. He did not abolish coffee in Massachusetts. He did not require a Book of Mormon to be placed in all Boston hotel rooms. In a corrupt state, he fought for family values and promoted good business. His service as President would be no different.
Romney: “As governor, I tried to do the right as best I knew it, serving the law and answering to the Constitution. I did not confuse the particular teachings of my church with the obligations of the office and of the Constitution — and of course, I would not do so as president. I will put no doctrine of any church above the plain duties of the office and the sovereign authority of the law……There are some who would have a presidential candidate describe and explain his church’s distinctive doctrines. To do so would enable the very religious test the founders prohibited in the Constitution. No candidate should become the spokesman for his faith. For if he becomes president he will need the prayers of the people of all faiths.”
*Religious tests are prohibited in the Constitution! Get over your petty concerns and start supporting the man the is most qualified to lead our Country!
December 1st, 2009 at 11:32 am
MWS:
In Mormonism, there is lineal priesthood authority but not infallibility. In order words, there are binding laws and covenants but these do not arise out of an infallible or inerrant collection of writings. In Mormonism, priesthood authority was first given to Joseph Smith by those who have priesthood authority.
In fallibility and inerrancy are relatively new doctrines in recent Christian history arising our of the Protestant Reformation.
Joseph Smith called the Book of Mormon, the most correct book; referring to the principles and truths taught for man to receive a fullness of joy, but not universal perfect grammar or universal perfect human action. The Book of Mormon is a 2nd witness that Jesus Christ is a literal resurrected being.
Mormonism informs Romney that the Bible and the Book of Mormon are valuable sources for God’s principles and truths but contain stories of the errors mankind has made over centuries of time.
December 1st, 2009 at 11:32 am
*I meant to write ‘he has already held public office’.
December 1st, 2009 at 11:42 am
Alex, you are very misguided in this. Holding a man’s religion against him undermines religious liberty and is an obvious assault on the constitution and the freedom of us all. Are we not free to worship as we please. While such a judgment against a minority religion seems permissible to you now, there are those who would just as soon hold any one of any faith up to the same scrutiny. It is wrong and errodes our freedom of religion.
We should accept that one’s faith is private. We should promote the right to religious freedom. You have set yourself up as not only opposing Mormonism but in this you have also opposed the precious religions liberty of all.
Judging someone by the doctrines of their religion is outside our constitution and is an extremist view and I am disappointed that my fellow citizen would rationalize such discrimination.
December 1st, 2009 at 12:29 pm
hamaca,
Thanks. The Catholic Church teaches that the Bible is inerrant (infallible) in all matters of faith and morals. That does not mean it is 100% literal, however. So for instance, God created the heavens and the Earth (infallible). He may or may not have done this is 6 days (probably not meant to be literal).
Would that square with the Mormon understanding of the Bible and the Book of Mormon?
December 1st, 2009 at 12:33 pm
Thomas,
“In fallibility and inerrancy are relatively new doctrines in recent Christian history arising our of the Protestant Reformation”
That is not accurate. While the infallibility of the Pope was not formally defined until the First Vatican Council, the Church has always understood herself (and the Pope) to be infallible when defining matters essential to faith and morals.
Here is a rundown on the issue from a Catholic perspective, including a little history on the issue:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm
December 1st, 2009 at 12:34 pm
Thomas,
“In order words, there are binding laws and covenants but these do not arise out of an infallible or inerrant collection of writings. In Mormonism, priesthood authority was first given to Joseph Smith by those who have priesthood authority.”
That is helpful. Thanks.
But who were “those who have priesthood authority” that conferred it on Joseph Smith?
December 1st, 2009 at 12:44 pm
MWS:
Thank you for the link. There are certainly variations of this theme within the Christian tradition. I was referring to infallibility of the Bible or the inerrancy of all of the words contained in the Bible, including Catholic or Protestant interpretations of it.
It is my opinion that until a doctrine is formally defined, it is cannot be an entity with purpose or cause.
December 1st, 2009 at 12:45 pm
MWS – Answer to an honest question. http://mormon.org/mormonorg/eng/basic-beliefs/the-restoration-of-truth/the-restoration-of-the-priesthood
December 1st, 2009 at 1:03 pm
MWS:
You wrote:
“Thanks. The Catholic Church teaches that the Bible is inerrant (infallible) in all matters of faith and morals. That does not mean it is 100% literal, however. So for instance, God created the heavens and the Earth (infallible). He may or may not have done this is 6 days (probably not meant to be literal). Would that square with the Mormon understanding of the Bible and the Book of Mormon?”
Mormonism provides a different starting point and uses different terms which are more particular to avoid abstracts that can be floating or confused.
Mormonism teaches that truth is knowledge of things as they were, as the are, and as they are to come. So, we would say that the Bible is both a history of events and a collection of writings of men who were inspired by the Holy Spirit and received knowledge of things as they were, as they are, or as they are to come, according to the understand of mankind at that time. At the time of the transmission they were pure. However, because men are fallible, there is the chance of transmission errors, translation errors, scribal errors etc.
Mormonism does not claim that the Bible, the Book of Mormon or other scriptures contain all truth. That there is yet many important truths that will be revealed concerning our eternal destinies. However, we believe that we have sufficient knowledge or instruction to have and exercise faith in Jesus Christ unto repentance, baptism and willing and informed obedience.
Mormonism departs from traditional religious philosophy and completely rejects immateriality and all of its necessary implications and propositions. It is a remarkable restoration of the Christian faith, consistent with the New Testament and consistent with existence, the history of the earth, universe, matter and energy.
For example, Mormons would cite, among other things, the insistence of the Pope and Catholic authorities of a geocentric universe, based no a Bible interpretation, during the time of Galileo, that the Pope and Catholic authority are fallible.
However, Mormonism teaches that the good of Catholics, in trying to emulate Christ through the teachings of the New Testament will be counted for their good and are not doomed to burn in hell because of errors of Popes or authorities.
December 1st, 2009 at 1:07 pm
MWS:
The link posted by Nate G. is an excellent source to answer your priesthood question.
December 1st, 2009 at 1:50 pm
Mormons don’t believe in infallible anything other than G-d. Period. Mormons believe in literalism, but only so far as literalism can be determined and not simply expected. This creates a dynamic religion not held strictly to the past for interpretations, theology, or meaning. We live in a fallen world as fallen individuals. Therefore, G-d has to work within that system unless He decided to somehow change the conditions that would in the end destroy His plan. This comes from another religious assumption other Christians don’t have, that G-d meant it to be this way. It makes it possible to live by faith and grow by our own mistakes and even misunderstandings.
Again, how this has to do with Romney as President is irrelevant.
December 1st, 2009 at 4:14 pm
I suppose what would make voteing much easier if across the board, the religion, or lack there of, should be put next to each candidates name. Taht way, if we feel ofther faiths are nutters, we can choose not to vote for good people, based on where they go to church on Sunday. Seems fair, eith?
December 1st, 2009 at 5:37 pm
LGF: Why I Parted Ways With The Right
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/35243_Why_I_Parted_Ways_With_The_Right
December 1st, 2009 at 9:17 pm
Mike Huckabee: I Take Full Responsibility
December 1st, 2009
From Mike Huckabee:
Mike Huckabee: I Take Full Responsibility
The nation was stunned by the senseless and savage cold-blooded murders of 4 young police officers in Lakewood, Washington. Whenever a police officer or soldier is killed, I feel the loss is even more profound for they are the ones who stand between our freedom and anarchy.
At the time I write these words, police are still searching for Maurice Clemmons who is believed to be the one committing these unspeakable acts. Nine years ago, that name crossed my desk. I commuted his sentence from 108 years to 47 years. Many news reports, talk show hosts, and bloggers have erroneously said that he was granted a “pardon.” Others speak of me “setting him free.” As one who now hosts a talk show and who does daily radio commentaries, I can attest to how easy commentary is compared to actually governing. I am not seeking to justify or defend my actions of nine years ago, but it’s important that I answer for my actions and give some explanation as to how and why his sentence was commuted.
I take full responsibility for my actions of nine years ago. I acted on the facts presented to me in 2000. If I could have possibly known what Clemmons would do nine years later, I obviously would have made a different decision. But if the same file was presented to me today, I would have likely made the same decision.
Each state is different, but in Arkansas, a governor doesn’t initiate a parole—the Post Prison Transfer Board does after it conducts a thorough review of an inmate’s file and request. The board then makes a recommendation to the governor, who decides to grant or deny.
If the decision is made to grant any form of clemency (the broad term for a commutation or a full pardon), the governor gives notice of intent and the file is sent to the prosecutor, judge, law enforcement officials, the Attorney General, and the Secretary of State as well as to the news media. A period of 30 days is then started for there to be public input as well as response from the above named officials. At the end of the public response period, the final decision is rendered.
Between 1,000 and 1,200 requests for some form of clemency came to my desk each and every one of the 10 ½ years I was governor. Ninety-two percent of the time, I denied the requests. When I did grant them, it was usually based on the recommendation of at least five of the members of the PPTB, with consideration given to the input from public officials.
Maurice Clemmons was 16 years old when he was charged with burglary and robbery. He was sentenced to a total of 108 years based on the way in which the sentences were stacked. For the crimes he committed and the age at which he committed the crimes, it was dramatically outside the norm for sentencing. The PPTB recommended in 2000 by a 5-0 vote for his sentence to be commuted.
He had served 11 years of his sentence. A pardon would have set him free and cleared his record. A commutation to “time served” would have set him free and released him from any parole reporting. As per the recommendation, I commuted his sentence to the term of 47 years, still a long sentence for the type of crime he had committed, but it would make him parole eligible. It would not parole him, as governors do not have that power in Arkansas. He would have to separately apply for parole and meet the criteria for that.
Despite news reports to the contrary, the only record of public response to the notice to commute was from the trial judge, who recommended the commendation in concert with the board. There were letters of support, but no record of letters of opposition.
Following the commutation, he met the criteria for parole and was paroled to supervision in late 2000. When he violated terms of his parole by participating in additional crimes, he was returned to prison and should have stayed there. For reasons only the prosecutor can explain, charges were not brought forth in a timely way and the prosecutor ended up dropping the charges, allowing him to leave prison and return to supervised parole.
He moved to Washington state and had intermittent criminal activity that increased in violence and frequency. He was allowed to post bail in Washington state and while on bail from there committed the unspeakable acts of murdering four valiant police officers. I can’t explain why he wasn’t prosecuted properly for the parole violations or why he was allowed to make bail in Washington state and not incarcerated earlier for crimes committed there.
I wish his file had never crossed my desk, but it did. The decision I made is one that I now wish were different, but I could only look backwards at his case, not forward. None of this is of any comfort to the families of these police officers nor should it be. Their loss is senseless. No words or deeds by anyone will bring them back to their loved ones. Our system is not perfect and neither are those responsible for administering it.
The system and those of us who are supposed to make sure it works sometimes fail. In this case, we clearly did.
December 1st, 2009 at 9:50 pm
Mike Huckabee is done with nominations and elections.
December 2nd, 2009 at 10:15 am
Alex:
Where did you go? You made some very specific demands of Mormons and I believe I have provided honest and straight forward answers to those questions.
December 2nd, 2009 at 12:35 pm
I think Mike Huckabee is very much alive, although not well, politically. He will continue to have his core supporters no matter what because he is presented as “The True Christian Candidate” and that goes well with many. It doesn’t matter what he does so long as he continues with this label. He won’t win and doesn’t care to win. He is only in it for the fame and influence. Personally I see very little difference between Huck and Obama even politically.