Why I’m supporting Mitt Romney for president
June 27th, 2007A couple of days ago I received an e-mail from my friend Jim Edwards (who was my college journalism professor) explaining why he had decided to support Mitt Romney for president. A Washington insider, Jim articulated the matter eloquently and cogently, and I share his e-mail here with his permission.
Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,
I wanted to share with you that I’ve made my choice of a presidential candidate for 2008. I’m supporting Mitt Romney, former governor of Massachusetts. I hope you’ll give him serious consideration, as well.
In the announcement below, you’ll see that I’ve been named to the Romney Faith and Values Steering Committee. This is a real honor. Below that is an article about Gov. Romney’s prolife position.
Here’s how I arrived at this decision.
I have heard Gov. Romney give three major speeches. Last fall, he spoke at the Values Voter Conference, and he favorably impressed me with a genuine-sounding, well-reasoned, traditional-values message that put strong emphasis on those (Judeo-Christian) values that are at the base of our nation’s success. In January, he spoke at a conservative conference, and for the first time in years, I actually heard someone I could vote FOR and have enthusiasm for, rather than regard as the lesser evil among the viable choices. He spoke with passion about our country, our nation’s flag, and told about his involvement with the Boy Scouts. That message was nothing other than Reaganesque. Then the Governor spoke at CPAC. That speech confirmed that my judgment was firmly founded.
I must add that his disposition, everywhere I’ve seen him (including at the January conference we both attended), is calm, upbeat, optimistic, and genuine. I was a panelist at that conference, and he came in and sat there as just another attendee at the session — taking it in, listening to the Q&A, unassuming, humble. He strikes me as much in the same vein as my former boss, Rep. Ed Bryant, and as Ronald Reagan.
Now, as a Christian, I had to consider the fact that Gov. Romney is a Mormon.
When I worked for Sen. Strom Thurmond, the theologian and leader of L’Abri, Francis Schaeffer, would meet when in Washington with us Capitol Hill types. A Christian congressional staffer asked him if we shouldn’t elect more Christians. His answer was yes, if that Christian candidate would vote right. He said an unbeliever who would vote for the right policies was
better to have in public office than a Christian who would vote wrong!Schaeffer’s remark has stayed with me. So, I thought of how through our history, some of our public officials have advanced horrible policies, while identifying themselves as Christians, yet others have governed well though not Christians themselves. I thought of Reagan, who apparently was a Christian but not a very frequent church attender, who was supportive of traditional faith and values in the public square, yet tolerant of his wife’s occultic superstitions. I thought, in contrast, of Jimmy Carter, who was very forthright about his Christianity, but a terrible president and whose administration even worked at cross purposes with conservative Christianity in the public square. I thought of Rep. Jim McDermott, a Wheaton graduate, who is a rabid left-winger.
By contrast, why should I prefer a nominal Episcopalian, a nominal, proabortion Catholic, a nominal, proabortion Methodist, or a nominal, proabortion Church of Christ member? (That’s McCain, Guiliani, Clinton, Obama.)
So, if Gov. Romney lives his life, public and private, from the same general moral and political framework as I, then why should his Mormon faith lead him to advance policies at odds with my Christianity or Christianity’s traditional role in America’s civic life (I’ve never known any Mormons who were less than upstanding citizens, very moral people.)? Mr. Romney has been married to the same woman for nearly four decades, has apparently well-reared children and a brood of grandchildren, all very close-knit. There has been no hint of any libertine skeletons in his closet, and he’s been well vetted by press scrutiny in U.S. Senate, gubernatorial, and now
presidential campaigns.Politically, he succeeded as a principled conservative, but realistic Republican governor in a blue state. If you’d told me I would be drawn to support a Massachusetts governor, I’d have laughed. Well, now I’m laughing about that because the joke’s on me — Mitt Romney is no Mike Dukakis or Teddy Kennedy. He’s a capable leader who, as his state’s chief executive, worked with the Democratic legislature to get things done. He didn’t hesitate to veto their excesses, he worked within the appropriate channels to stand up against gay marriage, he displayed a record of law and order (including on immigration), and he even achieved a bipartisan health care plan, which generally brought market-based principles to bear to get all state citizens health coverage.
So, I hope you see that I am actually FOR Mitt Romney. But I also am AGAINST a few others, so much so that a chief goal is to ensure that Sen. McCain or Rudy Guiliani don’t get the GOP nomination. It is CRITICAL to the nation that neither of these men assume the presidency, or even the nomination.
McCain deserves credit for his service to the nation, particularly in the Navy and as a POW in Vietnam. But he shouldn’t be president. He supports mass amnesty of illegal aliens and authored the anti-First Amendment McCain-Feingold campaign finance restriction law, among other misguided policies. Guiliani favors abortion, and having a prodeath GOP nominee would be nailing the conservative-leaning party’s coffin. Guiliani is bad on homosexuality issues, as well.
I respect Sen. Brownback, but certainly don’t want him as president. He’s libertarian, not conservative, and wrong on amnesty, “free trade uber alles,” and open borders.
Former Sen. Thompson is a good guy, a credible candidate, and I could support his candidacy if he won the nomination. But my preference in the primary remains Gov. Romney. For one thing, being governor has proven the better training ground for effective presidents than has the U.S. Senate.
There are other good candidates, and I like several of them. But none of them I could support stands much of a chance. First priority is picking a viable, first-tier candidate who has the wherewithal to block out both McCain and Guiliani. Romney is the only person in the race who can do that. And given his strong organization and building momentum in the key primary states of Iowa and New Hampshire (and elsewhere), he’s proving that to be so. In addition, I am FOR Romney, making being against others secondary.
Thank you for allowing me to share my thoughts on the presidential campaign and my reasons for backing Gov. Romney. I trust this is helpful to you as you size up and pray about the campaign.
“There are other good candidates, and I like several of them. But none of them I could support stands much of a chance. First priority is picking a viable, first-tier candidate who has the wherewithal to block out both McCain and Guiliani.”
I used to think that way too–pick the guy who has the best shot to defeat the candidates you do not want in office. But I think that concept is part of the problem. Until we start getting behind other candidates and truly opening these elections up I think we do a disservice to ourselves.
Of course, if you are truly behind a candidate all I said is moot.
If I was off to the polls right now I’d be casting my vote for Ron Paul. For your consideration: some juxtapositioning of the views of Romney and Paul.
http://paul4prez.blogspot.com/2007/06/ron-paul-vs-mitt-romney.html
Where to begin with this. I guess first of all I’d have to ask what ‘faith’ this man will be supporting as a member of the ‘Faith and Values Steering Committee’. Certainly not the Christian faith. Does he believe that ‘faith’ is somehow a stand alone concept or does he not realize that ‘faith’ is only as good as the object in which it is placed? Which ‘faith’ is Mr. Romney’s committee designed to promote?
Secondly, all the glowing recommendations this guy has for Romney are just so much fluff. He loves the flag, he loves the Boy Scouts, he reminds me of Reagan, so what? Does he love the Constitution enough to actually insist that it be adhered to, to drastically curtail the federal government’s involvement in local issues, drastically cut government spending, etc.? The fact that Romney thinks the government should be involved in providing health care is a clue to the answer to those questions by the way.
However, in the end I think our FIRST consideration rather than our last (as appears to be the case here) should be his Mormon ‘faith’. The man serves a false God. If he’s elected, he will be promising before a false god to uphold and defend the Constitution. God ordained three human institutions according to scripture, the family, the civil government and the church. We would not even consider calling a Mormon pastor or making a Mormon the guardian of our children should something happen to us. Why would we consider making one the ‘guardian’ of our entire country? When a heretic is the best choice we have, I say don’t choose (or choose a third party candidate). We’re called to submit to the civil government even if it is run by the godless. However, we’re NOT called to help put the godless in power. Christians have been kicked in the teeth by the Republican Party for 20 years and yet we still go back for more. We need to stop being their lab dog. Support for Romney will only solidify the belief that Christians will ‘settle’ as long as the candidate’s walls are whitewashed to our liking (i.e. he’s pro-life and anti-homosexual marriage) and lessen the chance that a truly Godly man a man committed to the original intent of our Founders will ever rule over us again.
I should add that the title for this post was the subject of the e-mail I quoted. Though I’m leaning towards voting for Romney, I’m not 100 percent certain just yet.
Very interesting arguments. Thanks for posting this.
“…the original intent of our Founders…”
Separation of Church and State?
“Christians have been kicked in the teeth by the Republican Party for 20 years and yet we still go back for more.”
I agree with this. I think the religious right is being used by the Republican party and Karl Rove for votes. The Republican party panders to the religious right by draping their candidates in the American flag and religious fervor. They throw out bones such as pro-life sentiment and anti-gay rhetoric, thinking that will be enough to placate evangelicals. This strategy has worked well so far and there is no reason to think otherwise in the future. Evangelicals will vote Republican in 2008, no matter what.
As far as Romney is concerned, I don’t care what faith he is. I just want someone reasonable and intelligent in office. Romney would be a huge improvement over G.W. Bush who evangelicals put in office and re-elected in the first place. IMO, W. has done great harm to our country with his policies and anti-intellectualism.
This is kind of an aside, but, I find the arguments of Larry above to sound very similar to the Jehovah’s Witnesses arguments about not participating in politics at all. If you take them to their logical conclusion, I think that is where you end up. I mean gosh, I would never support a man as my leader over God, so, why vote?
Cineaste, who are the smart people voting for next year and what flag(s) will be draped on them?
Tourian
I AGREE ZONER! RON PAUL IS DA MAN! In all honesty I don’t think Jesus would vote for Romney. I think voting for a member of cult is voting for the devil himself. My honest opinion is no Christian should feel comfortable voting for a member of cult. Joseph Smith is to the Mormons what Mohomet is to the Muslims. They are both BADNEWS!
I’m with Jeremy/Tourian. I’d like somebody to tell me a couple of things:
1) Who are the smart people voting for?
2) How many anti-intellectuals graduate from Yale and get their MBA from Harvard?
Who are the smart people?
You rang, Newman?
I’m surprised more evangelical journalists haven’t commented on this interview with Judith Dushku about Mitt’s historical abortion stances
Here’s just a small excerpt:
=================
Judy Dushku: …Then in 1994, when Romney was running for the Senate, he came out in favor of choice for women — which was surprising to me. I was pleased and called, asking to see him. I told him I suspected that we had our differences, but that maybe I could work with him if he’d come to a really good position on women and childbirth.
And he said – Yes, come to my office.
I went to his office and I congratulated him on taking a pro-choice position. And his response was – Well they told me in Salt Lake City I could take this position, and in fact I probably had to in order to win in a liberal state like Massachusetts.
Suzan Mazur: Who’s “THEY”?
Judy Dushku: I asked him the same question. And he said “the Brethren” in Salt Lake City.
=============
Now as a pro-life Republican, I might be tempted to look at the hyperbole of this interview’s title and discount out of hand anything said by a “radical Democrat”, but if Ms. Dushku’s memory of the conversation is accurate, this seems to me like a smoking gun indicating that Salt Lake City has in fact previously dictated policy for Romney.
Sorry, forgot the article link:
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0706/S00066.htm
I guess I’ll have to always include my last name since those previous posts appear to be from a different Jim.
After reading the anti-Mitt replies, I came to the conclusion that the causes of all these are ignorance, fear, prejudice, bias and hatred. Did any of you have a sincere effort to study Mitt’s religion completely and from the right sources? Did any of you ever attend a Mormon Church service? Did any of you ever prayed and fasted with a sincere heart and humility before the Lord to get your own personal answer from God? And last, if you didn’t get an answer yet, would you be willing to do this even if it will take a year or more?
Every presidential have done some flip-flipping before. At least Mitt acknowledged his change of heart.
And stop pointing a finger but clean your own house first. I will vote for Mitt not because of his religion but he’s got the tools to be the next president of this great nation. Some people wrote that Mitt is too perfect or that his family is too good. Well, is it better to strive for the best than the worst?
Someone said that he would rather believe in God and found out there’s none than to believe there’s none and found out later there is a God in the next life.
Please, appreciate, not hate.
Jim,
As a Mormon myself, I believe what Romney is speaking concerning “The Brethren” is that he simply asked for their advice…. It doesn’t mean Romney HAS to take it.
Newman,
I wish you would issue an apology for the things you’ve said about Mormonism. You’ve been providing false facts about my religion and spreading the ignorance, and I’m tired of people like you telling everyone else what Mormons “really” believe. I can speak for myself when I say that Mormonism is not a cult, I do NOT put my faith in Joseph Smith, but in my Savior, Jesus Christ.
Furthermore, “Larry,” who are you to judge whether my faith is the “right” faith? I know for myself the God whom I put my trust in. He knows me and I know Him. I am not perfect, but I am committed to a loving FAther in HEaven. So please stop the ignorant comments and find another source of information about Mormons other than the people who hate them. AFter all, is Hate a Christian quality? Not in my church. And I doubt it is in yours either.
Did any of you have a sincere effort to study Mitt’s religion completely and from the right sources?
Yes. I don’t agree with his religion and I think it to be founded on false premises of twisted truth, but that does not mean that I would not vote for him if he was the best candidate for the job. Right now I am not convinced that he is so I don’t think I will vote for Romney if Fred Thompson is the man I think he is. Of course, my mind will not be made up until close to election day… you never know what will come up.
j razz
“…no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”
United States Constitution
Article VI, section 3
Mormon, Evangelical, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Pagan, Atheist… it’s irrelevant. It seems some here are judging candidates not by the “content of their character” but by their religion. This seems rather bigoted.
big·ot (bĭg’ət) Pronunciation Key
n. One who is strongly partial to one’s own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
j razz,
I respect your decision not to vote for Mitt Romney based on his religion. I’m doing the same, and so are my other “Mormon” friends. I’m gathering the facts about each candidate– in terms of how their issues stack up with my beliefs…. and I can’t understand WHY Guiliani and McCain were such strong front runners for the Republican party…. as opposed to the Democratic Party.
On the flip side, I’m thankful for their service to their country (9/11, Vietnam). In like manner, I think Fred Thompson is getting the nomination more because he’s famous or “popular” rather than on his merits.
Thompson’s notoriously lazy (said even by people who like him), and very few people even know where he stands on anything… except did you know he’s very similar to McCain? I believe it’s wise for him to wait to enter the race. Once he’s in, his record will blow HIMSELF out of the water.
I just want to remind Republicans that we’re not voting for our new “Prom King” or Religious Leader. We’re voting for someone to uphold the Constitution which I believe God Himself has had a hand in creating, and does not want altered terrifically. Mitt Romney will do that, in my opinion. He’ll finish what Bush started, but be smart about managing…. because lets face it, that’s the part Bush didn’t get right, even though I’m a supporter of him.
j razz,
I need to clarify my first comment; (lol) I meant that I’M GLAD THAT WETHER YOU CHOOSE TO VOTE FOR ROMNEY OR NOT, YOUR DECISION WON’T BE BASED ON HIS RELIGION.
That’s what I meant to say (sorry). And as a Mormon, I’m not making my choice based on his religion either. If I did that I’d have to vote for Harry Reid, whom I COULD NEVER do, based on his beliefs.
Take Care:)
Sorry for the confusion!
Whew! Let the bigotry fly, people! “By their fruits ye shall know them. . .” Are you really saying, Mr. Romney’s got a great family, honors marital commitments, is honest in his dealings, capable and competent AND moral, professes have faith in God but God plays no part in his life. At least not the REAL God. Good grief, let’s engage our brains for just a moment. Let’s act like Christians maybe. Having said that, I appreciated the sincere and well-thought out piece by Mr. Jim Edwards.
Larry F:
If “Christians” share your sentiments, then you guys scare the heck out of me. I’m a conservative and share most of the values espoused here by Tim and others and know many find “Christian” friends. But the agenda you describe makes me hope to “God” that we never see a “Christian” of the type you describe in office. No wonder the left are rabid about your type. It is not the president’s job to advance any religious agenda - Mormon, “Christian” or otherwise - but to lead with honor and integrity. I’d rather see a Mormon, or a Buddhist or a Jew or a Muslim who had good values than someone who is so narrow-minded and intollerant as you seem to represent the “Christians” as being.
If Mormon leaders are dictating policy positions to Mormon politicians, as Jim seems to think, there must be some crossed wires somewhere. Harry Reid plainly isn’t getting the same instructions that Mitt Romney is.
The delicious irony to this election is that evagelicals christians have to confront their religious bigotry and choose between a “moral” mormon who is right on the issues or another candidate, whose personal lives have been less than exemplary (Fred Thompson, Rudy and McCain) or they are just flat wrong on the issues (Rudy and McCain). By the latest polls, it appears as though skirt chasing Fred Thompson, whose never governed anything in life, is the darling of the “moral” majority.
“Did any of you ever prayed and fasted with a sincere heart and humility before the Lord to get your own personal answer from God?”
What God has to tell us He’s told us through the scriptures. He doesn’t give ‘personal’ answers to individuals. Though that is how a Mormon would tell you they ‘know’ the Book of Mormon is scripture. Because of a ‘warming in their bosom’ that god gave them or some such nonesense.
And yes, I’ve studied a great deal about the Mormon cult. It contradicts the Word of God at every turn and is leading countless thousands into Hell. That’s not from ‘hate’ but from love and concern for the souls of these people.
BTW, Savea, even though you see it done all the time on TV and in the media (chiefly by homosexual activists), saying someone ‘hates’ you simply because they disagree with you is a sign of a weak argument. It’s borne of a desire to shut down discussion because the person making the accusation has no case.
Cineaste, I agree with you wholeheartedly. If evangelical Christians don’t vote for Romney solely because of his religion, they have no right to object when others choose not to vote for an evangelical Christian because of his or her religion.
Some of these posts are VERY short-sighted, in my opinion. I’m a Romney fan, not because he is Mormon, but because his political views are the same as mine. (Harry Reid is Mormon also, and in my opinion, he is an embarassment to the church. I would NEVER vote for him.)
What I see here with some is the message that they would sooner NOT vote for Romney who is a *gasp* MORMON, choosing instead to cast their ballot for someone few have heard of and thus possibly paving the way for some pro-abortion liberal type to get into the White House. USE YOUR HEADS, PEOPLE! If you choose not to like Romney solely because he is Mormon, that is your business, but at least consider the values he stands for and compare them with the other major candidates. I think you will find that Romney comes out ahead in every case.
Personally, I don’t care what religion the person who runs the country happens to be as long as their values line up with mine.
Voting for a sure-fire loser doesn’t make much sense, otherwise Huckabee would be my man. But right now, the reality is that a vote for Huckabee is the same as a vote for Clinton and I can’t imagine going there. In the political game, everyone makes promises they think will get them elected and we voters hope they will keep them. That’s why Thompson (who isn’t really the NYC DA) and Romney are my front runners. The presidency is about the Supreme Court ultimately and these are the only two I trust to put a conservative forward.
All that said, I think we all need reminding now and then of Pauls advice to young Timothy. 2 Timothy 2:4. “No one engaged in warfare entangles himself with the affairs of this life, that he may please him who enlisted him as a soldier.” Dare I say, when we try to live “our best life now,” we tend to forget that the best is not to be found here, but at the feet of the Master.
Well “Ophelia” who are you to say ‘who are you’? In doing so you make a judgment as well. Why is your judgment better than mine??
BTW, one does not need to go to anit-Mormons to know that their views contradict scripture. Just read writings by Mormons themselves.
James White has some excellent examples of this today at www.aomin.org.
I disagree with those who say that they will not vote for Romney because he is a Mormon. The point was made that we as Christians would not want a Mormon preaching in our church or raising our kids and that the family, church, and government are all instituted by God.
That is true, but I don’t think that because a man is not qualified for leadership in one of those areas that he should be automatically disqualified from leadership in all of them. There are some first-rate Christian fathers who would not be qualified to be church leaders. King David would get my vote for president but I wouldn’t want him to raise my kids (if I had kids) in the event of my death because of his poor record as a father. Luther could preach in my church any day, but would we want to send him to the White House? Luther?? He would offend every world leader there is and have us at war with everyone.
I don’t vote for someone because I want them to get the government to do the church’s job. I vote for candidates primarily on the basis of whether or not they will take a stand against the evils in our country. If a man who is a Mormon will do that I have no problem giving him my vote.
Why are Christian people so afraid of voting for Romney? Do we think that if he is elected the Book of Mormon will become required reading for first graders? Now, if we were electing an absolute dictator for life I would not want to vote for him, but we are electing a president and there is a limit to his powers.
Having said all that let me add that my Christian brothers here who are opposed to Romney because he is a Mormon are following their consciences and I certainly respect that. I disagree with them, but in no way do I believe that they are rushing to judgment about what Mormonism is.
It is a false religion, and it is not necessary for us to do as Savea suggested and attend a Mormon church or ask God to give us insight as to whether or not it’s true. Mormonism clearly contradicts the written Word of God and we don’t need God to tell us what to think about anything that denies His Word.
Well said Brutha!
I can speak for myself when I say that Mormonism is not a cult, I do NOT put my faith in Joseph Smith, but in my Savior, Jesus Christ.
Ophelia,
Please read this. According to Mormon Doctrine, Joseph Smith is seen as the justifier and through him you shall enter heaven.
j razz
I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for over 35 years. I am raising my family, including my wife of 22 years and 3 great children, according to its teachings. I can say unequivocally that my marriage, personal life, family life and the lives of my children are better because of our striving to live by the teachings of the Church. Our church’s focus in all its teachings is centered on Jesus Christ, the Son of God. Our sunday school text this year is the New Testament of the King James Version of the Holy Bible. As I look back over the past 35 years and think of all the good, upstanding, humble people with whom I have associated, served with and who have taught me and my children, I am truly humbled and grateful. They are, by and large, good solid people who are trying their best to live a Christ-like life. In following much of the discussion about Mitt Romney, I have been quite surprised at how many self-proclaimed “Christians” have flat out said that all Mormons are going to Hell because of our beliefs. My response is simply “by their fruits ye shall know them.” And, honestly, if my family and I are consigned to Hell with all the good Latter-day Saints that I have known over the years - GOOD! I would much rather spend my eternity in Hell with those good humble people than with those self-righteous souls who have passed such a harsh judgement on members of my Church simply because we are “Mormons” and believe differently than them. However, I am not worried about that fate. I am perfectly happy to continue to live my life and religion the best I can according to my own conscience and let the ultimate judge, Jesus Christ, sort out my eternal destiny.
Bigotry. Bigotry. Bigotry. This is a breach against the commandment to not bear false witness against thy neighbor.
Romney has lived an exemplary life of devotion to God, family, and his community/state/nation/world (see the current series “The Making of Mitt Romney” in the Boston Globe). In addition, he is the most qualified and capable candidate with the set of skills now needed in Washington and in the world.
To deny a vote and disregard all that he brings to offer in public service on the basis of the fact that he happens to go to a different church that stills worships the Lord Jesus; this is called bigotry. To allow bigotry to get in the way of Romney’s needed service at this time would be a tragedy for this country.
I’m sorry “concerned” but an accusation is not an argument. What specifically is the false witness being been borne here?
“Concerned” does your Bible teach that Jesus is not God, that He is in fact a created being who is the brother of Satan? If so, then the Jesus you serve is the same as the Mormon Jesus. If not, you’d better think twice before calling the Mormon Jesus ‘Lord’.
The false witness is in the caricatures of the Mormon church and then using that as a supposedly “valid” reason for not voting for an extraordinary candidate. Not only is this type of caricature of the Mormon people not nice, it is an un-Christian act.
Dear Larry F., you are probably assuming that just because I advocate Christian principles in behalf of Mormon people, that somehow I am a member of that church. Wrong assumption. I am simply a Christian who does not think that vilification of Mitt Romney or Mormon people in general is a Christian thing to do. The Bible teaches me as Christian to practice charity, even with those I may disagree with on doctrinal points, particularly when they have lived extraordinary lives and are now offering their services to the nation (e.g. Romney).
I have been quite surprised at how many self-proclaimed “Christians” have flat out said that all Mormons are going to Hell because of our beliefs. My response is simply “by their fruits ye shall know them.” And, honestly, if my family and I are consigned to Hell with all the good Latter-day Saints that I have known over the years - GOOD! I would much rather spend my eternity in Hell with those good humble people than with those self-righteous souls who have passed such a harsh judgement on members of my Church simply because we are “Mormons” and believe differently than them.
Charlie,
Biblically defined belief in the Jesus of scripture is what saves you. If your beliefs do not line up with scripture then it is scripture which places judgement on you, not self-righteous Christians.
The Church of Latter-day Saints does not hold belief in Hell. If I am wrong (as a Protestant Christian) and you are right as a Mormon, then I just go to a lesser level of Heaven where I can fellowship but never become a god myself. If you are wrong as a Mormon and I am right as a Protestant Christian, then you go to Hell and your words will be the same as the rich man speaking to Abraham concerning Lazarus (Luke 16). Make no mistake, you will not enjoy your eternity. If I am wrong, then my eternity will still be pleasant.
j razz
“Voting for a sure-fire loser doesn’t make much sense, otherwise Huckabee would be my man. ”
It makes plenty of sense. We need to start voting for and getting behind the candidates we really believe in, not what the 2 big parties give to us.
J Razz
“What God has to tell us He’s told us through the scriptures. He doesn’t give ‘personal’ answers to individuals.”
I don’t want to turn this a religious forum, but this is simply incorrect–an extrabiblical assumption given us courtesy of the Reformation. NONE of the Biblical apostles believed this doctrine. Peter experienced otherwise in Matthew 16, James counsels otherwise in James 1, Paul counsels otherwise in 1 Cor. 12:3, the entire Pentecostal experience insists otherwise in Acts 2. Paul received such individualized instruction on the Road to Damascus, Peter, in Acts 10, and other examples abound (Christ speaks of the Holy Spirit’s abillity to guide in John 14:26, indeed the ENTIRE premise of religion is so that we can have a personal experience with God as did all the O.T. Prophets and N.T. apostles–otherwise, we’re believing in “another gospel,” which Paul warns us vehemently against.)
And on this outrageous idea of “Joseph the justifier,” I’m surprised that made it into a master’s thesis–must have been submitted to a school for religious propaganda. As a well-educated Mormon, I know of CHrist’s instruction to the Twelve in the N.T. that they would judge the TWelve Tribes of Israel (Matt. 19:28). This is very similar in concept to what Mormons claim. OF COURSE, we focus–even stridently so–on Christ’s atoning sacrifice. However, as Christ himself notes, there will be others involved the judgment (not justification process).
j razz,
Thank you for your reference to Luke 16. From your comment, I assume you are referring to the parable beginning in verse 19. As I understand this parable, Jesus explains that the “rich man” was consigned to Hell because he had ignored the beggar Lazarus by not offering him food from his table. This scripture actually brings me comfort, because I strive as an individual and as a member of my Church to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and otherwise serve those less fortunate than I am. I render this service quietly and without receiving or needing any fanfare from the world. I trust in the words of Jesus Christ that I read in verse 15 of this same chapter of Luke: “but God knoweth your hearts.” I choose to live my life according to my beliefs as a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I am striving to follow Jesus and live His teachings. Again, I will leave the judgement of my life and beliefs and my eternal destiny to Jesus Christ, in whom I put my faith.
J Razz
“What God has to tell us He’s told us through the scriptures. He doesn’t give ‘personal’ answers to individuals.”
I did not say that.
I would say though that if that personal revelation contradicts scripture then it is false. It never is to supercede Biblical revelation enclosed in scripture.
And on this outrageous idea of “Joseph the justifier…”
It is not my doctrine, it is yours. If you would look, the sources are straight from first hand sources (i.e. Mormon). They have not been taken out of context or misconstrued as I attempted to deal as fairly and accurately as possible with the material. If I have misrepresented the idea, please show me how.
How would you deal with the internal contradictions of teachings by several of the prophets of LDS and with “Holy, Inspired, Inerrant” writtings put forth by LDS such as the teachings put forth in The Doctrine and Covenants and The Pearl of Great Price and The Book of Mormon? Basically, how would you answer the questions put forth in the paper?
This scripture actually brings me comfort, because I strive as an individual and as a member of my Church to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and otherwise serve those less fortunate than I am.
Charlie,
That is a really good thing that you do that, but let me exhort you with this: I can be a very good hearted person seeking other’s good above my own, but if I do not know the Christ of scripture, it is all for naught as my final residency shall be Hell. Good works does not save. Christ saves, but not any Christ; only the Christ of scripture: The Biblical Jesus. Good works never saved anyone as the Law was sent as a Tutor to point to our need for Christ and that Christ has come: Jesus. Do not be comforted in a verse taken out of context. Instead, make your comfort sure in knowing the Jesus of the Bible and in Him knowing you. The Jesus of Mormonism is a far cry from the Jesus of the Bible. I would exhort you to look into this matter before taking comfort. I say this with all sincerety.
j razz
A wonderful way to learn about the Mormon church is to do a Google search. Search for “why I left the Mormon church” hundreds of personal accounts about the church!
http://scriptures.lds.org/
You could read this. I ask myself what is this Pearl of Great Price?
j razz, you are very mistaken about mormon doctine if you think you are not going to hell.
As a democrat, I love this infighting among republicans. Romneyis the only candidate whom we democrats fear. And I am certain he won’t be elected because, well, because of people like the ones who have posted here. You guys will make sure Fred Thompson, another know-nothing southerner, is the candidate, and President Hillary or President Obama will coast to victory. Thank you. The country will finally make the final turn toward enlightenment and liberalism that it is destined to make, and the sweet irony it is that the so-called religous right’s bigotry is what will make that turn possible. I think God himself probably grins at the irony of His so-called followers who draw near to Him with their words but whose hearts are far from Him.
Concerned:
I’m assuming no such thing. You flat out said Romney worshipped the ‘Lord Jesus’. In point of fact, he does not, not the Jesus of the Bible. That’s a simple fact, not ‘hate’, not a ‘caricature’, not ‘vilification’. This is not a ‘doctrinal’ dispute over non-essentials in which charity is called for. Mormonism is heresy.
If you think pointing out false doctrine is un-Christian you should read your Bible more carefully. It is in fact our DUTY to do so as believers. Try Jude or II Peter for starters.
How does Galatians 1:8 apply to this lively discussion?
If the vehicle in this particular case was (allegedly) an angel named Moroni or (Gabriel in Islam’s case) then is the whole cult that arose from his words cursed? If so, does that apply to the cult’s adherents? Or am I taking the text out of context?
I wonder if the backlash against Mitt would be greater if he was a Jehovah Witness?
If we don’t recieve answers to our prayers, how do we know that biblical scripture is correct? Are we only following Jesus because we are afraid of Hell, as j razz’s posts seem to suggest?
j razz,
Thank you for your exhortation - I am sure you are sincere. I study the scriptures daily, and try to live my life accordingly. I seek to know and better understand Jesus Christ and to try to become more like Him. The Jesus Christ that I have come to know, worship, and love is merciful and just. He will not consign anyone to Hell because they are sincerely trying to live their lives the best they can and to pattern their lives after Him, just because they may not “believe” a certain way. Again, I’ll leave the judgement to Jesus Christ.
Tim:
Thank you for posting this well-articulated opinion on Romney.
I, too, think Romney’s strong stance on traditional marriage and family values (which is so obvious from the the family he has reared over the last 4 decades) is more closely aligned with what we as Christians stand for than any other candidate.
I truly believe Romney is the next Reagan and I also believe America is too great for such religious bigotry to prevent a true leader (the likes of which we have never seen) from becoming our next president.
Those at http://www.evangelicalsformitt.org/why.php have also articulated why we as Christians can rest assured that (despite our theological differences with Mitt) he is a very solid candidate who will stand for the same values we uphold and that he will do so more strongly than any other candidate.
Charlie:
“Again, I’ll leave the judgement to Jesus Christ.”
Well said. I wish all churches (mine included) could abide by this principle.
“He will not consign anyone to Hell because they are sincerely trying to live their lives the best they can and to pattern their lives after Him, just because they may not “believe” a certain way.”
Actually, Hell will be filled with people like this. I can live clean as a bean and try hard to be like Christ. But if I do not accept His sacrificial death as payment for my sins, then Hell awaits.
It’s said some people miss Heaven by 18 inches–from their head to their heart.
This is not directed at you Charlie, merely commenting on your post.
j razz, you are very mistaken about mormon doctine if you think you are not going to hell.
cyri,
Show me where I have made my mistep. It is Mormon Doctrine that teaches this. No?
LDS President Joseph Fielding Smith stated the following: “The Lord will judge each individual case and will assign transgressor to that degree to which each is entitled according to his works. If a man only merits a place in the telestial, that will be his reward; if it should be the terrestrial, then he shall be admitted to that kingdom. In order to enter the celestial a man must be true and faithful to the end, observing all things which the Lord has commanded, otherwise he shall be assigned to some other kingdom, or to outer darkness if his sins so merit”.
Doctrines of Salvation 3:310
Would my sin of not following the teachings of Joseph Smith warrant me a place in the “outer darkness”? According to Mormon teaching, that is reserved for Satan and his angels and the extremely wicked.
The vague concept of Hell in LDS doctrine is that of “outer darkness”. Even that is disputed as John Widtsoe states there is no such thing as Hell. Joseph Smith, Seeker After Truth, p. 178
Apostle George Cannon allows for one to move from outer darkness to the telestial kingdom when he said, “Those who are unfaithful, those who will listen to Satan, who will lend a willing ear to his blandishments and to his allurements, when they go from this state of existence, they go into a condition where they are subject to his power. They will dwell in darkness, and according to their sins their punishment will be. Some will be consigned to ‘outer darkness,’ where there is weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth; and they will remain in that condition until they will be visited by some servant of God to unlock the prison doors to them and to preach to them again the Gospel of salvation, through repentance and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ…They will remain in that condition, according to the enormity of their offenses, until punishment will be meted out to them sufficiently to bring them to a condition that they will receive the Gospel of salvation. That Gospel which is taught to us will be taught to them, and they will have an opportunity of obeying it in their damned condition and through repentance will receive salvation”
Gospel Truth 1:78-79
So, how would I find myself in Hell according to Mormon beliefs?
j razz
“What God has to tell us He’s told us through the scriptures. He doesn’t give ‘personal’ answers to individuals”
I misread the author; I copied it from Larry F. My apologies.
In any case, I (and our leaders–the ones supposedly brainwashing all of us) agree with your assessment about the balance that must exist between revelation via scripture and direct revelation through the Spirit. In fact, an oft-quoted axiom in our faith is: “If you want to talk to God, pray; if you want God to talk to you, read the scriptures.” That’s from Henry B. Eyring, one of the apostles–pretty orthodox.
And re: the Joseph the Justifier teaching, I am QUITE familiar with the claims and with the sources involved. Mormons simply do not accept this teaching as it was portrayed in the paper cited. While I believe Joseph Smith will play a role in the judgment, I DO NOT–repeat–DO NOT believe him to have any role in the atoning sacrifice. None. And the quotes do not suggest that either; they simply highlight his role in the judgment process, much like the Twelve Apostles of N.T. times–interesting that you bypassed the references cited I admit; they are a little unusual given both mine and your background (that Joseph plays any role in judgment has almost never been discussed in my theological upbringing–except for the occasional academic discussion). But you and I would do will reexamine your own theological tendencies in light of them
Re: your question about our view towards the Word of God. It is good to avoid being simplistic about Mormonism just as with any intellectual inquiry. We believe what the Bible says about itself–that is, that “all scripture is [indeed] inspired of God (2 Tim.) The statement that the LDS Church “does not hold the Bible in its present form to be true” is factually incorrect. Right now, our Sunday School class focuses almost entirely on the N.T. As far as taking Orson Pratt at face value, I believe that we must be judicious in taking ANY one statement as an all-encompassing description of doctrine–any more than we would take just one verse of the New Testament to be. And it is further quite interesting to see how this paper cites “the Creeds” as being anything definitive. The Athanasian Creed esp. engages in speculation FAR BEYOND what the Biblical text states concerning the Divine Sonship. Be careful not to call the kettle black. In any case, I side with Igantius of Antioch from the 2nd century Christianity: “The archives are not to be preferred to the SPirit.” The most recent discussion of the Bible (which places the Bible on a very high pedastool indeed–by any standard) can be found in M. Russell Ballard’s most recent conference address–look in lds.org.
Furthermore, I believe Pratt was taken far out of context: he himself stated that many of the doctrines of the gospel he learned from the Bible far more clearly than he had from the BOM. I would have more references for you, but my access to a key website has just gone belly-up. Another day, eh?
But I need not recite the vast scholarship on the many books that are not in the KJV bible but were considered scriptures by early Christians (the Shepherd of Hermas, the Epistle of Barnabas, and many others). Certainly I do not need to recite the vast changes that HAVE changed (1 Col. 2:2 being an excellent example with its numerous textual variants with SUBSTANTIVE meanings). And the “scribes were meticulous” argument won’t fly by me; Dr. Emmanuel Tov–hardly a Mormon–disagrees, noting that one of the Dead Sea Scroll scribes for the “Great Isaiah Scroll” was a TERRIBLE scribe. He made mistakes every few words.
To sum, be careful to avoid making a simplistic assessment of these things. Mormons ARE aware of their own teachings, do know how to have a civil dialogue on theology, and simply are not the naive fools that many evangelicals believe us to be. Talk to an educated MOrmon sometime (one who is familiar with the source material preferably). Like in many faiths, Mormons are not all universally scriptorians, though almost all of them are devoted to the scriptures. By talking to those more familiar with these things, you can still disagree, but at least you can do so based on real rather than imagined differences.
Larry F:
I’m sorry to post so much, but there is plenty of misinformation out there to get cleared up.
I know how it is to be told bad information. I’m a history grad. student–my CAREER is based on correcting misinformation.
“You flat out said Romney worshipped the ‘Lord Jesus’. In point of fact, he does not, not the Jesus of the Bible.”
I cannot speak for another’s deeply held beliefs; all I can speak for is Romney’s claimed tenets and my core beliefs. Actually read the Book of Mormon–for the sake of education if nothing else. Tell me if it ever speaks of Jesus in ANYTHING but the most Christian of terms. I point to Mosiah 3:7, I point 2 Nephi chpt. 25, 2 Nephi chpt. 2, chpt 9. I point to Moroni 10:32. Be sure to look at Alma 36-38. Don’t forget Helaman 5:12. I could continue, but I think you get the point. If the idea of the Lord having a body bothers you, see Luke 24:36-39.
I am reading the New Testament vigorously right now. I love the writings of Paul on the Savior. Beautiful explications of the atoning sacrifice (I just read 2 Corinthians–great stuff).
For more modern works, you can read Talmage, Jesus the Christ or HOlland’s Christ and the New Covenant. Read ANYTHING by Neal A. Maxwell.
To say that we do not believe in the Lord Jesus of the New Testament is simply INCORRECT. HOw this belief has spread, I don’t know. As with ANY CHRISTIAN denomination (Catholic, Episcopalian, UCC), there are theological distinctions with other Christian faiths. But for your own sake, get educated so you can stop sounding uninformed about Mormon doctrine.
Tim, interesting discussion, thanks for the thoughtful post.
Much of the posting seems to be going in the predictable direction, i.e., doctrinal differences. Regardless of the merit (or lack thereof) of what’s been said concerning mormon theology, it is largely irrelevant to the fuction of the Presidency.
Zoner,
You have made an assumption that I (and other Latter-day Saints) do not accept “His sacrificial death as payment for my sins.” That could not be further from the truth. I know what I believe. I believe that Jesus Christ atoned for our sins through his suffering in Gethsemene and also upon the Cross at Calvary. He voluntarily suffered and gave up His life on our behalf when he died on the cross. He also lived his life as an example for all(the perfect example) and taught that we should strive to become like Him. I am trying to follow His example.
Searce this site http://www.fairlds.org/ to balence the bias driven site the other blogger put up.
Below says it all about Romney by someone who
worked with him many years:
“I worked with Mitt Romney on several projects when I lived in Boston in the late 70s and early 80s. I found him consistent, professional, and disciplined in all aspects of his life. His focus was always on making things work better. His desire for excellence included making himself better too.
He knew well how to balance all the responsibilities in his life and was never an extremist. Respectful of others and open to different points of view, he was always willing to listen and learn from divergent sources. He never forced his faith on anyone, but there was no question that his many strengths came from his strong core values. Central to these values was “doing.” He lived the principle that knowledge only has value when used at the right time, in the right place, and for the right reason.
His effective leadership style fostered the learning and development of others, such that others became self-motivated, independent, and productive. He was neither arbitrary nor myopic. Yes, family and faith were central to his life, but always without hypocrisy, self-righteousness, or condescension.
By the way, his zest for learning has been misunderstood. Learning implies change, which means that as more knowledge and information become available, then positions need revision too. This is not “flip flopping,” as others sometime accuse. Rather, it demonstrates the ability to find better solutions. Unlike many others, he neither pretends to know everything nor fears change. Frankly, I would fear any politician who was unwilling to learn and to change.
Those who honestly take a closer look at Mitt Romney will find good fruit coming from a good tree. Judge him by that first.”
Briefly, I wonder if Cineaste can point to the section of the Constitution that contains the phrase “separation of church and state,” and I also wonder if he/she grasps that Article VI, Section 3 prohibits laws that impose religious tests on candidates but says nothing about voters who choose to factor in religion in their decisions about whom to support.
And I wonder if Savea spent a year or more, fasting and praying so that a deity would tell him/her definitively whether to believe Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism, or Shintoism; animism, ancestor worship, pantheism, or voodoo; or the ancient Egyptian, Greek, Roman, or Norse mythological systems. Did this person give all these alternative belief systems equal time?
Allright Russell so clear me up on all this misunderstanding. Answer these questions please:
Is Jesus Christ both fully God and Fully man?
Is there a literal Hell where those who reject Christ will spend eternity?
Was Jesus Christ the Creator or one of the created?
Those will be good for starters.
Larry, r jazz, Charlie, and Russell:
No offense, but please take the religious debate elsewhere. This is a discussion board on Mitt Romney and y’all are way off track.
Larry F.:
I’m going to bring up something you said much earlier in this thread which caught my interest.
Does he love the Constitution enough to actually insist that it be adhered to, to drastically curtail the federal government’s involvement in local issues, drastically cut government spending, etc.? The fact that Romney thinks the government should be involved in providing health care is a clue to the answer…
1. Adhering to the Constitution: Are you familiar with Romney’s efforts over the last few years to fight the Gay Marriage ruling from the MA Supreme Court? He has led the traditional marriage movement in some of the most inhospitable terrain in the country, and he often speaks about the dangers of activist judges legislating from the bench.
2. Cutting Govt Spending: In his first year as Governor, Romney led a comprehensive review of every single state program. Through streamlining, closing loopholes, and ending govt subsidization of public services, he cut spending in MA by 7%. He took a $3B budget shortfall and turned it into a $700M surplus in his first year. He cut the costs of his administration by over 20% in four years, and under his leadership MA cut more state jobs than any state in the nation. In 3 of his 4 years in office he submitted a budget which reduced the income tax, he reversed a $250M retroactive capital gains tax, he offered tax breaks to manufacturing companies, made the investment tax credit permanent, created sales tax holidays, balanced every budget, and vetoed hundreds of millions of dollars of legislature appropriations every single year in office.
3. Universal Health Care: Many people have the appropriate knee-jerk reaction to this phrase…namely, “No way hozay!”. But Romney’s program is not a government take-over. The existing law in MA required hospitals to treat uninsured patients who showed up at the ER, even if those same patients had enough money to buy insurance. That money was taken from a $1B+ state fund, and passed on to the rest of MA in the form of higher taxes and insurance premiums.
Romney, through tax incentives and penalties, made it mandatory for everyone to buy their own private insurance policy. This means no more free coverage for everyone who could afford their own medical expenses but preferred to milk the system. For people too poor, they get subsidized from the money previously used to pay for ER visits. There still exists an opt-out option for those people rich enough to self-insure who don’t want insurance.
As a result of the reforms, hospital emergency rooms are unclogged, people pay for their own insurance instead of free-loading, and costs for the average basic coverage are down from $400 to $175 per month. The plan has been so successful that models of it are already being tested in over half the rest of the States.
Charlie,
I did not intend to make that assumption about LDS at all. I was merely commenting on your post, not directing it at anyone in particular.
I must say I am curious why LDS, or at least some of them, think Joseph Smith will have a hand in the judgment.
A lot of the points made here today seem to contradict some of the doctrinal statements I have found here: http://www.carm.org/lds/lds_doctrines.htm
I’m especially disturbed by #15 and 18.
Let me make clear that I find the good work many Mormons do commendable, and that they and I share many values when it comes to family issues. What these things have to do with doctrinal issues is quite beyond me, and it appears that some Mormons posting here want to emphasize the common ground they share with Christians.
“I am reading the New Testament vigorously right now. I love the writings of Paul on the Savior. Beautiful explications of the atoning sacrifice (I just read 2 Corinthians–great stuff)…. To say that we do not believe in the Lord Jesus of the New Testament is simply INCORRECT.” — Russell
Is that so? Well then, let’s see if Mormons are willing to drop the Book of Mormon and their other authoritative texts. After all, they believe in “the Lord Jesus of the New Testament”, so surely they can derive all that one needs to know about Him from the New Testament, right?
If Jesus as I know Him from the Bible is the same as the Jesus that you know from the Bible plus the Mormon texts, then — logically — those texts are redundant and can be ignored.
It seems to me that some here are trying to have their cake and eat it, too: they want to elevate other texts to the authoritative status of the Bible while insisting that nothing significant is changed in their beliefs by doing so. Unless those texts are redundant, this position is untenable.
Bravo Bubba.
Bubba,
I’m really not interested in getting into the doctrinal stuff. But you really need to tighten up your logical arguments a bit.
That is equivalent to saying that if the God spoken of in the New Testament and Old Testament is the same God, then the two texts are redundant and ignorable.
If we don’t recieve answers to our prayers, how do we know that biblical scripture is correct?
I would ask you, how do we know the answers to our prayers are correct if we can’t stand on scripture? I would further state that your premise is incorrect: we do recieve answers to our prayers, but all answered prayer must be in agreement with scripture.
Are we only following Jesus because we are afraid of Hell, as j razz’s posts seem to suggest?
I am not suggesting that. Christians follow Jesus because He has effectively called us and we have effectively responded to that gospel call.
j razz
Zoner (and all),
My main point, in all of my posts, has been to say that I (and most Latter-day Saints) strive diligently to learn about, worship, and follow the example of Jesus Christ. There is much misinformation out there about the Church and our beliefs. The point is that we know what we believe (we don’t need someone else to define it for us) and we generally strive to live our lives according to our beliefs. Generally, when a person does try to live according to the tenets of the LDS Church, putting their Christian faith into action, they are good, solid, upstanding citizens and neighbors. The way we live our lives aligns very much with the ideals espoused by the rest of the Christian world. Hence, my underlying message in all of this is that it does not make sense to automatically disqualify a “Mormon” presidential candidate simply because he is a “Mormon,” in particular when he has repeatedly demonstrated through his personal, professional, and political life that he “walks the talk.” And, my other point is that it seems to be quite un-Christlike for someone to say all the members of an entire Church denomination (over 13 million living today by the way - over 6 million in the USA, the fourth largest US denomination) will go to Hell because we are “Mormons.” I do not have time (I have to get back to work!) nor do I desire to get into trying to explain “Mormon beliefs” that have been written by authors who are clearly anti-Mormon. It is not productive. Again, the point is that a “Mormon” who is otherwise extremely qualified should not be excluded from serving as president of the US just because he is “Mormon.” How does his life (personal, professional, political record) line up with the other candidates - democrat or republican? Which candidate more closely advocates (through word and deed) your desired political objectives? By all means, vote for that person. But, please do not give him or her a “religious test.”
…I believe Pratt was taken far out of context…
Russell,
Can you show me what the proper context is? [no sarcasm intended] I read your remark above several times but I see no source as to where he clarifies his position on the matter. As a matter of fact, the context surrounding the quote in the paper on page 16 gives no evidence of any other context other than that the Bible in its current form is not trustworthy according to Orson Pratt.
Thanks for the respectful dialogue above.
j razz
Larry, r jazz, Charlie, and Russell:
No offense, but please take the religious debate elsewhere. This is a discussion board on Mitt Romney and y’all are way off track.
Actually, Holy Man, I’m the one who decides for this blog what is on track and what isn’t. While I’m not going to let the Mormonism vs. Evangelical Christianity debate go on forever, I’m fine with letting it proceed for now. When I’m ready for the discussion to go another direction, I’ll be sure to say so.
Here’s what I find so ironic.
Many Protestants find many Catholic doctrines heretical. Eastern Orthodox doctrines as well.
Certain Protestant doctrines have been branded as heretical by Catholics.
Protestants have branded other Protestant doctrines as heretical. In history, I think immediately of the issues the Puritans had in the early colonies with competing Christian ideas. Or the Northern and Southern Baptists in the Civil War. But this continues today with all sorts of denominations.
So we have Christians haggling over doctrines as they have since the Nicean creed and before. Christians labelling each other heretics. Sometimes stoking their hate enough to slaughter those under the influence of “the Devil.”
I really don’t see an end to this squabbling. The Mormon issue is just another in a long line of disputes over doctrinal points.
Some here seem to suggest that if Romney were elected, he’d be leading the nation under the inspiration of the Devil.
What!?
Let’s see: what devilish policy would he enact? The promotion of abortions? The promotion of infidelity by word or example? A rejection of the 10 commandments? Nope, he’s lived a life that would resist that.
Humm. Oh, I know: Legistation that all people must listen to 6 hours of Mormon Missionary lessons before they get their tax refunds.
Come on, folks.
What deviltry will he lead us into?
I think the heart of the matter is this. People who think Romney’s Mormonism is THE issue to consider about him hold an underlying premise that good can only be done by and God can only work through a person who espouses two or three specific creedal doctrines.
In my estimation, experience and examples from the Bible defy this notion. Good is done by and God works through those with imperfect ideas and imperfect lives of all stripes all the time.
The real issue here is whether Mitt Romney is going to stand for and do the right things politically, regardless of his theology.
What is ridiculous about this whole sequence of posts is that the good initial post from Tim was about his political position of supporting Mitt Romney as a presidential candidate. The conversation has instead turned into a dispute about religious beliefs WHICH HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH WHETHER MITT ROMNEY IS A GREAT CANDIDATE OR NOT.
I think Hugh Hewitt is right. If bigotry by other Christians on account of Romney’s faith prevails, the social conservative movement (and the nation and world?) will suffer tremendously for years to come. Mr. Romney is clearly the most capable, most moral, most experienced, hardest-working candidate that anyone has seen in many years, maybe even decades. We need him in the White House to lead our country in the right direction.
This will be HUGE, so prepare yourselves.
1. Is Jesus Christ both fully God and fully man?
I’m familiar with the premises of this question, spec. that Christ is the paragon of the Hypostatic Union as promulgated by Apollinarius–that is, that both the divine and mortal natures combined into an indistinguishable essence.
Put into non-Latter Day Saint terms (as we must for this conversation), we lean more in the direction that Christ’s divine and mortal natures coexisted simultaneously. I believe Hebrews 5:8-9 describes Christ’s nature well (though I’m fully aware of Martin Luther’s admonition about Hebrews being of a lesser quality than other epistles). Also, Phil. 2:6 (”thought it not robbery to be equal with God”). As the chief heir of the Father, Christ therefore has the fulness of God in him bodily. Being perfect, the Son of Deity and yet born of a woman, Christ did indeed have a dual nature. In Colossians, Paul tells us that in him dwells the fulness of God bodily. Indeed, the Book of MOrmon, in several instances, states it in trinitarian terms, that the Father, Son, and HOly Ghost are ONE God. While John 17 clearly questions the trinitarian implications here, LDS doctrine clearly accepts that Christ received the fulness of the Father and thus enables us to receive the Father’s fulness as well (see Romans 8:16 for this).
2. Is there a literal Hell where those who reject Christ will spend eternity?
The Bible does indeed refer to a hell, as in the case of Lazarus where, “in hell” he looked and saw the beggar in Abraham’s bosom. I believe that this concept is best understood in the context of what Jerome said (quoting Origen Letter 124:7, in NPNF 2, 6:240-241.) “Hellfire, moreover, and the torments with which holy scripture threatens sinners he explains not as external punishments but as the pangs of guilty consciences when by God’s power the memory of our transgressions is set before our eyes. ‘The whole crop of our sins grows up afresh from seeds which remain in the soul, and all our dishonourable and undutiful acts are again pictured before our gaze. Thus it is the fire of conscience and the stings of remorse which torture the mind as it looks back on former self-indulgence’ ” Origen also concurred, stating that spirits could, “though the punishments[,] cease in the course of the completion of the expiation and purification of each one.”
There are indeed two locations for our souls in the afterlife–paradise and prison. This associates well (though not perfectly, given the missionary element in the afterlife) with traditional catholic doctrine about heaven and purgatory. As far as this goes, Mormon doctrine is well in accord with historical Christianity.
Also, the question of “rejecting Christ” is a sticky and almost simplistic question; would a person who has been taught false doctrine their entire life, indeed, who has never heard of Christ be punished simply because when a caucasian comes to them, teaches them of a God entirely foreign to them, their lifestyle, even their society, they proceed to reject that god? I think Christ is far more merciful and loving than that. The dogmatism that accompanies other schools of thought are absent from the Jesus Christ of the Bible, the Jesus who refused to associate the beggar’s blindness with sin (John 9), the Jesus who says that those who are not against him are with him for their part (Mark 9:40).
Joseph Smith taught something similar, discussing how all the spirits in the afterlife would be in one place and that (as noted in Alma 40), the spirits would be in separate states, whether in paradise or in, as Tertullian put it “in Hades, in its (the spirit’s) prison or lodging.” AFter this time, the three degrees element comes into play. We are resurrected with the just (John 5:29) and are judged according to our works and the intents of our hearts (Revelations 22–and don’t even pull the vs. 18-19 business on me–oldest one in the book :). Then we are assigned to the various glories (see D&C section 76 for this). The vague notion of “outer darkness” is not so vague; those who have willfully and knowingly rejected the gospel of Christ (it is compared in Mormon thought to looking at the sun and declaring that it is midnight) will have a very unpleasant time at that judgment.
4. Was Jesus Christ the Creator or one of the created?
This question comes straight from the councils, sp. the Nicean council–Arius, the “great conservative middle party” (see J.N.D. Kelly), and the Nicene faction–headed by Athanasius. The problem with the question is that is based on neo-Platonic assumptions about “the One”–the divine essence, that Christ was simply a “scoop” out of the ocean of divinity. ALl of this was based on the idea that divinity was simply an amorphous part of the universe that was utterly separate from mortality. Given such ideas, Christ could hardly be mortal and suffer death and pain (which the N.T. thoroughly disputes).
If we start out on the right foot, things come together nicely, essentially cutting a Gordian knot. We believe that the Father has a body, that while the divide between the divine and the mortal is not as “unbridgable” as much of Christianity claims. True, this earth is fallen and suffers from the effects of the fall; however, our elements are not fundamentally different from the divine. View in the context of the family; the SOn, being the direct offspring from the Father, inherits all the Father has, even being much like the Father himself. I wouldn’t call Christ “created” since that assumes an inferiority to God beyond that required by the text (Christ does say the Father is greater than he, however–and other scholars argue that subordinationism was “pre-Nicene orthodoxy”, see Urban, Bettenson)
Basically, Mormon thought accepts Christ as a separate being from the Father without diving into this manufactured Gnostic-borne “created/uncreated” false dichotomy. Now did Christ create the world and everything therein? Absolutely–for scripture tells us so (John 1:1-5 or so). Given the falseness of the “created/uncreated” dichotomy (Mormons believe that the earth was organized from pre-existing elements), we need not worry ourselves over whether anything was “created” per se. The Hebrew word for Bara is better translated (ask any good Hebrew scholar) as “organize.” Joseph argued it and I believe it is scripturally and linguistically sound.
There is some food for thought. Responses are welcome. Hopefully, it clears the air somewhat about how Mormons view themselves.
Sorry, Tim. I would have stopped earlier, but you wrote your post before I wrote mine. You can erase it if you would like.
Tim & ConcernedChristian,
Agreed - the posts got off the original target. I tried to steer it back in my last one (before I saw both of your latest posts).
This is my last post (I really do have to get back to work!) - to simply say that Mitt Romney, or any other candidate, should not be disqualified / or “voted against” simply because he is a “Mormon.” We should look at his life and record (professional and political) and if it aligns with our political objectives, then vote for him. If not, then vote for the candidate whose life record better aligns with your political objectives. No religious test is necessary.
Russell and Charlie,
You guys are fine. No apologies necessary. I said I’m OK with the conversation continuing in this direction for the time being. I’ll let you know when that stops being the case.
“Again, I’ll leave the judgement to Jesus Christ.”
Well said. I wish all churches (mine included) could abide by this principle.
holy man, I wanted to come back to this statement of yours. Most of the time when people use a line about how we should leave everyone’s eternal destinies up to Christ it is a reaction against someone who is simply affirming what the Bible teaches about these things (as if that person is trying to assume the role of God simply because he states what is found in God’s Word).
I just wanted to ask you to clarify what you mean by wishing your church would abide by that principle? Are you suggesting that your church should not affirm what Scripture clearly teaches about who will inherit eternal life and who will not?
Well, while I still can…
Bubba,
Your argument does not exactly hold water. You approach the question with an a priori assumption that the N.T. is THE proof text and that the BOM is simply extraneous. You’re essentially accepting God on YOUR terms, not his. That does not exactly jive with anything of Biblical Christianity (ironically enough–I point to Prov. 3:5-6 and the numerous other That’s not the proper way to approach ANY intellectual question. It is deductive logic gone bad. I repeat as Ignatius said (and if you want to reject Ignatius as an abominable member of the Catholics, you can): the archives ought not to be preferred to the spirit. This establishment of a cannon as the foundation of a religion is, ironically, quite unbiblical. I challenge you to find such claims in the Bible (and sorry, 2 Tim. 3:16 won’t work–I already believe that, so it can’t exactly indict my faith).
The Jesus of the Bible offers a true perspective of him but, as with anything of this import (God, man, our relationship to him), I want to find all the information I kind.
This logic delegitimizes EVERY vision that took place after the fall of Adam. Since God stays consistent throughout our human history, every indivudal who received a revelation/vision of the Lord could say, “Well, he’s the same as when Moses/Abraham/Peter/Paul saw him–therefore, I can reject what I just saw.” That is outrageous logic. What would have happened if Christians said that to Peter, when he received the revelation about taking the gospel to the Gentiles? How about Paul, when he saw Jesus on the Road to Damascus? He might have said: “Well, this Jesus is not the Jehovah of the Old Testament, so I reject him.” He obviously could not say, as you claim I should say: “Well, since he is the same as Jehovah, I can therefore REJECT THIS VISION?” That’s outrageous logic. It is simplistic (dare I say, “knuckle-dragging”) of us to limit the ways we find God. That does not play well into the hands of our secular critics.
Bubba, I would suggest that you allow yourself to accept more of Biblical teachings in all their nuanes and less of your construction of Biblical teachings.
…would a person who has been taught false doctrine their entire life, indeed, who has never heard of Christ be punished simply because when a caucasian comes to them, teaches them of a God entirely foreign to them, their lifestyle, even their society, they proceed to reject that god?
I would answer yes. I would further answer that had they not heard of Christ at all ever they would still be destined to Hell if they did not see a need for redemption and hope in God for that (Not any different than Abraham).
I would answer yes because scripture affirms that no one comes to the Father save through [Christ]. That Christ I would argue is the Jesus as put forth in scripture (the Bible). One cannot say that they believe in Jesus and expect salvation if their Jesus is vastly different than the Jesus as put forth by scripture. To bring it in closer to this discussion it would be like me saying that I am going to fully support Romney and vote for him, but the Romney I am supporting is the for abortion and for gay marriage and for amnesty for illegals but he is the same one that is running for president who is Mormon. You would say to me that he is not the Romney you know, but I would say he is. Only one of us is right on the issue. He cannot be one and the same and in the same way the Jesus of Mormonism is not the same as the Jesus of Christianity. They are distinctly different.
As for the protestant dissagreements, yeah they are there, but mostly on things that are not salvific in nature; mainly in application or administration. Just like the Reformed Church of Latter Day Saints and the Church of Latter Day Saints or those who still practice polygyny.
j razz
J razz,
I concur with you on one point–that is, that Jesus is “the way, the truth, and the life and no man cometh to the Father but by him.” However, I know too many good people whose ancestors DEFINITELY were isolated from Christianity (the Hmong people). Their paradigms were distorted through false traditions, they did not even recognize Jesus from another bearded man.
The Mormon answer to this (see 1 Cor. 15:29–let’s avoid all the debates on the Greek prepositions here) is, of course, allowing those who have deceased the opportunity to accept Christ in the afterlife. It is not vicarious salvation–they are the ones who must exercise faith.
“Only one of us is right on the issue.”
I disagree; I believe we share more in common than you perhaps want to admit. I’ve cited numerous scriptures on how we view the Savior–I will not repeat them here. While it is true that we have some differences, that is how history goes–we still view him within the same fundamental role, as the unqualified, unmitigated Savior of the World and the only hope for mankind. If there’s no Jesus, then Joseph Smith drops quickly out of the picture (as would Peter, Paul, and others). No Jesus? Then I couldn’t care less about Joseph Smith. He really would be another schmo talking religion.
Our differences, while real, are not as expansive as you think. I have a sound understanding of the basic tenets of Christian denominations and world religions and it would be difficult to imagine how our doctrine could be more focused on Jesus Christ as the SOn of God.
Sorry Tim…I got carried away.
Cineaste, who are the smart people supporting and what flag(s) will be draped on them?
Tim, I think some are confused by your bold quote above
Russell,
I do think our differences are more expansive than you would care to admit. To prove otherwise you would have to answer the arguments brought up in the paper that show stark contrast between Christianity and Mormonism as well as answer as to why Moromons have converted to Christianity and Christians converted to Mormonism.
j razz
Murphy:
I’m really not interested in getting into the doctrinal stuff. But you really need to tighten up your logical arguments a bit.
That is equivalent to saying that if the God spoken of in the New Testament and Old Testament is the same God, then the two texts are redundant and ignorable.
The problem with this “equivalence” is that, while Mormons insist that they’re just another Christian denomination, Christians aren’t going around telling people that they’re Jews.
We don’t do that because we believe that the New Testament has new things to say, the fulfillment and revelation of what was promised and anticipated in the Old Testament. The OT was the first covenant, the NT is the new covenant. Those under the New are different than those under the Old: we worship on a different day of the week, have different rituals (baptism and communion) and do not adhere to kosher regulations. This, we do not deny.
But a couple Mormons here want to insist that they’re just like the rest of us in what we believe. If that’s true, then just what was the point of the Book of Mormon? Did Smith have all those visions just to have the millenia-old gospel reaffirmed?
This has become a theology post, not a political post. I guess I’ll put my two cents in. First, to the mormons on this post, I will say that Mormonism is a Cult. I say that as a Southern Baptist who will be voting for Romney. Indeed, this summer I may be working for his campaign. Why? Because I believe in Article VI of the Constitution. However, please realize that I still think that Mormonism is a cult.
I also am angered by how we who call it a cult are immediately branded “bigots.” Is “Cult” the PC word of today? Frank Pastore wrote a column about this very thing:
“I won’t vote for a X for President” is bigoted if the X is “female,” “black,” “Jew,” or “Mormon.” But what if the X is: “Democrat,” “liberal,” “socialist,” “abortionist,” “drug dealer,” “pornographer,” or “anti-war activist”? Is this bigotry or is it just voting as a conservative Republican? What if the X were: “polygamist,” “racist,” or “heretic?” What about the statement, “I won’t vote for a slanderer of Christianity for President?” Is this bigotry or is it voting as a Bible-believing Christian?
I would advise you to read the entire article at townhall.com.
The reality of it is that I am completely against Romney Theologically. But on politics and values (that are similar to my Christian Faith) we are on the same page. That is why I am voting fo him. But make no mistake, Mormonism is a cult, heresy, and a religion that sends people to hell.
Lets start a topic on Ron Paul. I want to know what people think of him.
John Brown writes:
I think the heart of the matter is this. People who think Romney’s Mormonism is THE issue to consider about him hold an underlying premise that good can only be done by and God can only work through a person who espouses two or three specific creedal doctrines.
I can speak for no one else, but I don’t think that Mitt Romney is incapable of doing good things as President. I’m just very reluctant to believe that the good he could do outweighs the harm of having a man who affirms serious heresy — heresy wrapped in the trappings of Biblical Christianity — elevated to such a high office. Mormonism should not be granted that degree of credibility.
Russell:
I’m not sure I see the credibility of an argument that teaches that the Bible isn’t authoritative because the Bible says so. Anyway, I John 4 teaches us to test every spirit, but I can find no analogue about testing every passage of Scripture, and isn’t funny how often the Gospels record Jesus appealing to Scripture as the final word? “It is written” and its many variants is a common refrain of His.
But let me see if I can restate what I wrote to convey what I mean.
The question is not whether Mormons worship the same deity as Christians, it’s whether they all believe the same things about the deity that is being worshipped.
I MOST CERTAINLY affirm the idea of progressive revelation. First, through revelation to Moses and Isaiah and the other prophets, God initiated the first covenant and promised a new covenant. In Christ, God initiated the new covenant, and then through revelation to the Apostles He explained the meaning and the consequences of that new covenant.
Jews adhere to the OT and believe one thing, specifically that we’re still waiting for the Messiah and the new covenant.
Christians adhere to the OT and NT and believe another thing, that the Messiah has already come and initiated the new covenent and that He’ll return again.
Mormons adhere to the OT and NT and other texts. Do they thus hold to a third set of beliefs?
If they do, then perhaps they should drop this nonsense that they’re just another Christian denomination.
If they don’t, then aren’t those other texts largely redundant?