By Dan Gilgoff
When Mitt Romney stands before the nation tomorrow to deliver his much-anticipated “religion speech,” evangelical Christians will be listening particularly intently. Though polls show that one in four Americans feel squeamish about voting for a Mormon president, an even higher proportion of evangelicals–more than one in three–feel uncomfortable doing so. They view the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, as Mormons are formally known, as a cultish offshoot of “true” Christianity.
And a Mormon president? For many of them, the idea is beyond the pale.
Yet for Romney, winning evangelicals is a must. They constitute the base of the Republican party and are beginning to turn toward former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, a Baptist pastor, as their candidate. Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani’s appeal to more moderate Republicans makes conservative evangelicals even more vital in Romney’s battle for the Republican nomination.
The speech, to be given at the George Bush Presidential Library in College Station, Texas, will be the most important of his candidacy. The site is less than 100 miles from where John F. Kennedy delivered his famous 1960 speech about his Catholicism, in which he vowed to keep a high wall of separation between his faith and his politics. Romney’s speech is billed as his most public attempt yet to explain how his Mormon faith would influence him as president.
The big question for evangelicals: Will he own up to the distinctions between Mormonism and traditional Christianity, even as he argues that members of both traditions share many political values? Some evangelicals say that Romney’s refusal to do so up to this point has alienated Christian conservatives who might otherwise support him. They also say that his attempts to paper over differences between Mormons and other Christians have exacerbated his broader authenticity problem, due largely to Romney’s reversal on hot button social issues. While Romney was pro-choice and pro-gay rights as recently as a few years ago, he is now adamantly opposed to both.
But the bigger problem for some evangelicals is that they say Romney has tried to pass himself off as a traditional Christian. “In the few times he’s addressed the [religion] issue, he talks about the importance of religious values and dips into evangelical language, and neither of those is very impressive to evangelicals,” says Richard Mouw, president of Fuller Theological Seminary. “Evangelicals aren’t very reassured when he’s saying something that makes him sound like us when he really isn’t like us…. it borders on deception.”
The risk for Romney giving a Mormon speech, however, is that owning up to his religion’s distinct beliefs–for instance, that Jesus will return both to Jerusalem and Jackson County, Missouri–could scare off evangelicals and other conservative Christians. “Evangelicals want reassurance that Mormonism is not a cult and that his beliefs are things they’d accept, and by avoiding Mormon theology he won’t be able to give that assurance,” says Alan Wolfe, a religion sociologist at Boston College. “But it’s suicidal for any candidate to start talking theology, and Mormons have that problem more than others because their theology is so widely distrusted.”
On the campaign trail, Romney has called Jesus Christ his personal savior, a line common among evangelicals but almost never uttered among Mormons. When Romney was asked at last week’s Republican presidential debate whether he believed every word of the Bible, he answered, “I believe the Bible is the word of God, absolutely.” But Mormons also believe that the Bible contains errors. And Romney glossed over the Mormon belief that books outside the Bible, such as the Book of Mormon, are Holy Scriptures.
Mormon scholar Richard Bushman says that, while Romney hasn’t lied about his Mormonism, he has given it a “different twist.”
But the strategy seemed to backfire with the recent emergence of Huckabee as a serious Republican contender for the White House. In Iowa, home of the first presidential caucuses, polls show that Huckabee has dislodged Romney as the GOP’s frontrunner. For many Iowa evangelicals–who account for roughly half of the state’s Republican caucus goers–Huckabee’s Christian credentials are much more solid than Romney’s.
“Romney was trying to be the same kind of Christian as [evangelicals] were, and then came along someone who’s been a Baptist minister saying You want a Christian? Here I am,” says Bushman, author of the Joseph Smith biography Rough Stone Rolling. “Romney took it too far in that he was unwilling to admit there was even a tiny gap between the two, and that’s what got him into trouble.”
Romney’s aides deny that he has attempted to blur the line between Mormonism and evangelical Christianity. And they say his speech tomorrow is aimed to all voters, not just evangelicals. “This is a big picture question that’s historical in scope and it would be dangerous to minimize it,” by focusing solely on how it affects evangelicals, says a senior Romney advisor.
Romney himself lowered expectations about the extent to which his speech will focus on Mormonism after announcing on Sunday night that he would give a speech entitled “Faith in America.” He told reporters this week that it won’t be “a repeat or update of the Kennedy speech,” and that “there are a lot of websites people can go to” if they want to learn about Mormonism.” While some evangelicals and political pundits have called for Romney to give a Kennedy-like address, others have said that echoing Kennedy’s line about keeping his faith and politics separate would turn off evangelicals.
But a senior Romney advisor tells Beliefnet that the speech will satisfy those who “want to hear his heart more” and that it will acknowledge the role of Romney’s Mormonism in his life: “There hasn’t been a clear acknowledgment, and the speech is the answer to that need for a clear acknowledgment.”
The advisor also says Romney “could draw distinctions between LDS and mainstream evangelicals while pointing out that they share a Judeo-Christian foundation without saying ‘I’m a Christian just like you.’”
But Mormon-evangelical relations have always been contentious, in part because both groups are trying to win new converts and feel that they are competing for the same souls.
Still, not all evangelicals believe that Romney has tried to sell himself as a traditional Christian. Oran Smith, president of South Carolina’s conservative Palmetto Family Council, says that Romney has stuck to a strategy that one of Romney’s advisors floated by him last year: “we don’t have the exact same faith, but we come to the same values that grow out of our faith.”
“In most cases, he has ducked the Mormon question to keep it from being an issue,” Smith says. “But I don’t sense that he’s been disingenuous or that he’s tried to fudge the differences [between Mormonism and traditional Christianity] in a way that is trying to trick someone.”
And many evangelicals feel that a “Mormon speech” could do more harm than good, particularly if it includes references to Mormon doctrine and beliefs. Asked if he would have advised Romney to give a “Mormon speech,” Family Research Council president Tony Perkins says, “I probably wouldn’t.”
“I don’t see how in one speech you could make evangelicals comfortable with the Mormon faith,” Perkins says. “Like it or not, a large percent of Americans want to support somebody who is like them, and that’s most easily found among people who believe what they do in terms of their faith. Romney can’t lay claim to that.”
Perkins said that Romney has nonetheless convinced many evangelicals that his conservative transformation on social issues is genuine.
Still, many evangelicals say that Romney needs to go further in tomorrow’s address. “For Romney’s speech to be successful in the minds of evangelicals, he would need to offer some sort of new line, some more detailed reasoning as to some of the differences between the two religions,” says David Brody, Capitol Hill correspondent for the Christian Broadcasting Network. “But he doesn’t want to go too far. And that’s his challenge.”
For more on Romney’s “religion speech” and his Mormonism, check out New Testament scholar Ben Witherington III’s essay on how Mitt Romney’s ‘Mormon speech’ could connect with evangelicals, our What Do Mormons Believe? Guide, and the Southern Baptist Convention’s Richard Land on what he’d say if he were Romney.
Beliefnet
Advertisement
posted December 5, 2007 at 2:12 pm
It’s not surprising to me that evangelicals are having a hard time dealing with Romney’s Mormonism. They usually have a hard time dealing with people who are different from they are. The problem is that Romney says things that make him sound like a moral, religious person, so they can’t just say he’s going to burn in hell and be done with it, like they do with other people all the time.
posted December 5, 2007 at 2:40 pm
Mitt Romney is not trying to sound like an Evangelical. His actions and comments are consistent with being a Latter-day Saint, and Latter-day Saints (Mormons) sound like Christians because they are Christians. They consider themselves original New Testament Christians, and intolerant faiths are just going to have to deal with it. A true Christian shows respect for other human beings, and that involves allowing others to define for themselves who they are and what they believe.
posted December 5, 2007 at 5:02 pm
It’s funny how the Evangelicals claim the rights to the phrase “personal savior”. Doing a quick word search at lds.org, I found over 6000 articles and speeches with the phrase “personal savior. You can read them if you want, but Mormonism is no stranger to the concept.
http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=84010fd41d93b010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&hideNav=1&pageNumber=1&maxResults=20&NARROW_BY=&query=personal+savior&bucket=AllChurchContent&dateFrom=&dateTo=&AUTHOR_CATEGORY=&AUTHOR_NAME=&FORMAT=&submitSearch=Search&dateFromDisplay=&dateToDisplay=&findByAuthor=
posted December 5, 2007 at 5:04 pm
“On the campaign trail, Romney has called Jesus Christ his personal savior, a line common among evangelicals but almost never uttered among Mormons.” C’mon Dan are you kidding? Are you attempting to call Romney unauthentic because this phrase is to be considered exclusive to Evangelicals?
As a fourth generation member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, I attest that I regularly hear this phase in our worship and in informal conversation with other members of my faith.
posted December 5, 2007 at 7:36 pm
I was interested to read the author’s (Dan Gilgoff’s) comment that: “On the campaign trail, Romney has called Jesus Christ his personal savior, a line common among evangelicals but almost never uttered among Mormons.” As a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (aka “a Mormon”) I have heard other Mormons use that phrase innumerable times and have personally used that exact phrase thousands of times throughout my life. Take a look at http://www.lds.org and at http://www.mormon.org . Despite others attempting to label Mormon’s otherwise, Mormon’s are obviously Christians and consider themselves so to be. Without question, Jesus Christ IS our Personal Savior, for ALL of us who embrace Him as such.
However, that says nothing about whether Mitt Romney should or should not be President. I am not voting for the man because he is Mormon. I am voting for the man because he has a sweet track record of defending the sanctity of life in Massachusset’s as Governor since his whole-hearted conversion to the movement. He also has a sweet track record of using the veto pen to eliminate wasteful spending. He has a sweet track record of defending traditional marriage–AND of defending basic fairness in the workplace for homosexuals. He has always been FOR workplace fairness for gays and has always been AGAINST gay marriage…no matter how many times political pundits try to confuse Romney’s record on this matter in the minds of voters. He will eliminate wasteful government spending just as he trimmed the fat out of many, many corporations and turned them into profit powerhouses. He’s the best man for the job, and his religion is irrelevant.
Trust me, if Harry Reed, another Mormon (but Romney’s polar opposite politically), where running for President he would not get my vote. If you are a fiscal, social and defense conservative, consider Romney as your pick. Huckabee is a social conservative and serious stud but lacks sorely in his fiscal conservative credentials having ballooned the size of the Arkansas budget from $6B to $16B and having done it by raising taxes. Romney is a serious stud AND eliminated an inherited $3B Massachussets state budgtet deficit entirely, and did so without a single tax increase.!
Go Romney! If you are concerned about his religion, please ask a friend who is a Mormon about your concerns. Your concerns will evaporate. What joins us as conservatives is far greater than anything that could possibly divide us for concerns about differences of opinion on religious doctrine. If you are concerned about his platform, check out his website: http://www.mittromney.com . If you are a conservative, you’ll love what this man has in mind!
posted December 5, 2007 at 7:59 pm
Mitt Romney will say whatever the polls tell him to say and his appeal is purely a cosmetic mirror of what the Republicans wish they looked like. He’s a mannequin that can be propped up in any window and dressed to look and sound like whatever they want him to look and sound like.
I can just see Carl Rove with his hand up Mitt’s arse making him talk and move his mouth like he has something to say. Carl Rove was raised in SLC and is an Athiest, but he has all the skill and careful obfuscation of words and manipulation that the Mormon leaders instill in their mouthpieces and doo-doo-gooders.
Revisionist history is such a big part of the Mormon spin that Mitt can’t help but change his story to fit the moment. It’s in the blood, and Mitt’s blood is true blue Mormon (TBM), making him a charlatan by association if anything else.
Mitt Romney is a card carrying dyed in the wool Mormon, but that also makes him a strong believer in doing whatever it takes to get what he wants, even manipulating the press, “lying for the Lord”, feigning his manly hunter prowess, or denying his own faith and background in the LDS church. He comes from a long line of men who have been carefully conditioned to manipulate words.
As a former Mormon I recall many many lessons on doing just this. From the teachings that blacks and other people of color will become “A white and delight-some people” when they become Mormons, to revisionist history in many other issues the Mormons, especially the hierarchy and leadership, reflects the extent they’ll go to to deny, distort, cover up, and manipulate the information. Mitt Romney is a 6th generation or more of this kind of practice.
When he spoke out to Larry King about how he thought there was nothing more horrible than Polygamy, then told the Newsweek reporter that he was a member of a Judeo Christian religion, and much more are all reflections of his willingness to minimize his religious background, deny his own culture and faith, and jettison loyalties faster than grease through a goose. I too think Polygamy is horrible, but as a former Mormon, I would not deny my own heritage in something that the bulk of the people believed in and supported, even if I did not agree.
I too would not be too excited about calling myself Mormon if my actions did not reflect the teachings of the Church’s doctrine, but he claims to be one of the good ones. To call himself a member of a “Judeo Christian sect” is akin to denying his own faith. The cock will crow twice more and no doubt Mitt Romney will deny his own faith at least that many more times before the years up. He makes me sick, not just as a devious Mormon, but as a human being.
The Southern Carolinians and Bob Jones University officials, Born Agains, and other so called Christians who are willing to sell out to support “the best of the worst” are going to get exactly what they deserve if they continue to support this charlatan. He’ll be as easily swayed and disloyal to them and their bigoted narrow causes as he is to his own faith and family. This guy is a puppet and a joke. Stick him in the window of a department store with a nice suit and shove your hand up his arse to make him say whatever you want him to say.
He’s what those out of the church call a Mor-bot, a McMormon, a figurehead. I’m embarrassed to call him American. I’m ashamed that he is a reflection of the Mormon Church (even though I don’t like the doctrine), and ashamed that he’s still part of the human race. In two years he’ll be the butt of jokes whether he succeeds or not. America, do not make the mistake of letting another Moron, Mormon, oops, member of THE Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints rise to power. If I’ve offended anyone, I sincerely apologize. (if I nod my head and slightly close my eyes and use that sing songy voice, does it make it sound more sincere?) Excellent… you are all now placated.
posted December 5, 2007 at 9:15 pm
Dear Isanad,
Do you really have to vent your vile anti-Mormon bigotry here? You call yourself a former Mormon. That seems highly doubtful given your ignorance of even basic LDS (Mormon) doctrine.
posted December 5, 2007 at 9:51 pm
I am fully convinced that Romney is a genuine morman and not a Christian. This was made apparent in a recent Republican debate where he could not say unequivically that he believed the Bible. He mumbled around and thinly avoided saying what any true morman would say. The standard morman response to that question is “I only believe the bible insofar as it is translated correctly.” This allows mormans to hold the book of morman and other of their documents as superior to the Bible where there is disagreement. A genuine morman will tell you that they are morman and not Christian. They will tell you that mormanism is the only true religion, and that Joseph Smith is a true prophet. The book of morman trumps the bible and Joseph Smith trumps Jesus. After all, Jesus was only a son of God but Joseph Smith saw God according to their teaching.
posted December 5, 2007 at 10:14 pm
As a Latter-day Saing who has lived in the South all my life and has many Evangelical friends, I can tell you that our differences are small and our similarities are great. One important example: In order to be baptized into the LDS Church, one must be interviewed and is asked if he or she believes in the God, the Eternal Father, in his Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost. The person is then asked if they accept Jesus Christ as their Savior.
I have asked Protestants what we must do to be saved, and the basic answer is usually that one must accept Jesus Christ as their Savior. Latter-day Saints do that, are baptized by immersion, and live their lives with daily repentance in accepting the grace of Christ.
Latter-day Saints are Christians, and even though it may take several more generations in order to convince our fellow Christian conservatives on that point, we will keep living our lives according to the teachings of Jesus Christ, and keep voting REPUBLICAN! (except for those nuts in Nevada who keep voting for Harry Reid, “sigh…”)
posted December 5, 2007 at 11:05 pm
Man, some people really have a deep hate for other religions. It’s like we’re living back in the days of segregation or something like that. The deep anger and venomous attacks on the “Mormons” are striking.
I am a member of what you call the “Mormon” church. Mitt Romney is having to deal with bigotry that no other candidate would ever have to deal with. If he were a baptist, I’m convinced his record of getting things done would be more than enough to get him the nomination.
The comments above show an incredible lack of understanding of my religion. We believe and follow Christ, therefore we are Christian. We read the Bible. Probably more than other Christian churches do, based on my conversations with other Christians. Yes, we believe the Bible has translational errors. What educated person wouldn’t recognize that.
My wife is Korean, and let me tell you, that Korean translation and my King James version do have some differences in meaning. That is inherent in any book that is translated into multiple languages. Parts of the bible have been lost. We are somehow demonized for saying this, but when a documentary comes on TV talking about the history of Christianity and what wasn’t included in the Bible, everybody watches with interest.
OK, point is, we believe the Bible. Yes, we believe the Bible is not the only word of God as we have a Book of Mormon (not to mention modern scripture). Get over it and stop being such a bunch of crying babies that someone has a different belief. Stop hating everybody who’s different than you. Thinking that way won’t get you very far in life. But then again, I guess I’d expect nothing different from a bunch of Southerners who have a history of racism and segregation. I guess some people just never change.
posted December 5, 2007 at 11:10 pm
Evangelists are not the envy of Mormons, believe me. Evangelicals give themselves too much credit by claiming that Mormons are trying to be like them in any way…Evangelicals don’t have a monopoly on Christ so they can stop acting like a bunch of middle school girls talking about how some other little girl shouldn’t wear an outfit because they wore it first…Disgusting. I am a Mormon and I hate evangelicals. They make me sick.
posted December 6, 2007 at 1:12 am
I’m LDS, and I like most evangelicals. The ones I know are sincerely following Christ, and sometimes they do a better job than we Mormons do (and sometimes not). Significant differences between Mormonism and evangelical Protestantism? You bet! But we share a lot too, including common values and a belief in a loving God who sent His Son to die for us so that we can have eternal life. Really, the differences aren’t worth fighting over. And to hate or even disparage another for his/her religious beliefs isn’t exactly Christlike either.
posted December 6, 2007 at 1:20 am
I hope the few mormon followers who have thus far commented are not indicative of all mormons, talking about hate!!! We are all God’s children But Christians can’t just pretend that all of the cults out there, like mormonism, are ok. The fact is they are dangerous and lead innocent people astray. God’s word can’t be changed. If there was nothing to hide then every mormon, including Mitt Romney, should be proud to shout all their beliefs from the roof tops! They would be proud of their founder and who he was But the fact is that it is not only a different religion with different beliefs but is in fact a false religion. It is a diservice to try to act polite and politically correct as we watch our brothers and sisters walk blindly over a cliff instead of speaking the truth. I pray all God’s children will come to a true belief in Christ and only in Him and His unchanging word.
posted December 6, 2007 at 4:42 am
As a Mormon, I respect most evangelicals. I am comfortable with my relationship with Jesus and comfortable that I am on track with where Jesus wants me to be.
I am disgusted with a handful of evangelicals who have made it their mission in life to attack mormons. Is not the gospel of Christ a message of love? Was not Christ the Prince of Peace?
Yes, mormons have some theological differences about what heaven will be like…and we deviate from the creeds of early, post-apostolic church leaders regarding the relationship between the father, the son, and the holy ghost – but we still preach that God the Father and his only begotten son, Jesus Christ, are the subject of our worship…that Jesus is the savior of the world and redeemer of the human race…and that Jesus is the only means of salvation.
Mormons have much in common with their protestant and catholic neighbors (the most important of which is acceptance of Jesus as the Savior and Redeemer) so why all the downright ugly, vicious, venomous attacks???? To those who persist in such attacks, as a disciple of Christ, I rebuke you and call you to repent of your evil doings!!! Those responsible for the crucifiction of the Savior, too, were religious leaders full of such hateful venom and who were under the guise that God was on their side.
posted December 6, 2007 at 4:57 am
By the way – since the term “cult” is calculated to demean and demoralize the recipients of such a label (by conjuring up images of KKK gatherings and burning effigies) – I consider the use of the term “cult” (as applied to the mormons) as something offensive. (Which is why I consider this among the vicous, venomous attacks on the LDS church. It is false and completely inaccurate to apply such a label to the mormon church.
posted December 6, 2007 at 5:20 am
I am a Christian — and and Evangelical nor a Mormon — so I guess I am the odd man out in this discussion of “I’m right; you’re wrong! I’m better than you!” etc. etc. etc. Having been ‘raised’ in the Methodist tradition and now a conservative Episcopalian, I have developed a personal philosophy that God and Jesus are in control of my life and that no matter how many attempts are made to disrupt that, they all fall far short of their goals. When I worship in a church, I consider the area of the building often called a sanctuary to be just that — a sanctuary! Keep your politics outside of the sanctuary!!! I have enough difficulty dealing with my personal relationship with God and Jesus without your various political sales jobs.
I honestly believe that each of the political candidates has a strong personal belief system that will carry them to the finish line!
posted December 6, 2007 at 9:16 am
When people wake up, particularly evangelical or orthodox Christianity, and realize that if God is ALL that God claims to be, viz, Eternal, Infinite, Ageless, All-in-All, Primordial, The First Cause, et al, as contained in all the known and extant sacred scriptures in the world, then religion (not one’s personal theology and revelation), any religion, that attempts to define God with a set of rigid dogmas and doctrines and then imposes that definition upon its adherents with threats of excommunication at best and eternal damnation at worst is at best a disservice (evil) against God and at worst an unforgivable blasphemy. I am not knocking churches per se, just the unholy spirit that most of them operate under the influence of. MY BEST ADVICE TO EVANGELICALS IS TO GET OFF YOUR HIGH HORSE AND HOLIER-THAN-THOU ATTITUDES, SUBSCRIBE TO THE LORD’S BEATITUDES, LIVE AND LET LIVE, LOVE AND LET LOVE AND LET’S ALL TRY TO GIVE AND MAKE SPACE FOR ONE ANOTHER AND OUR “FAITH” DIFFERENCES, TO THE EXTENT THAT ANOTHER “FAITH” DOES NOT TRAMPLE ON THE “FAITH” OF OTHERS. As for Governor Romney, my vote will go to him if in the end I judge him the best qualified to be our next President based on the needs of America and American ideology. His personal “Faith” or religion has nothing to do with it in our secular government, unless his “Faith” or religion inherently possessed an ideology at odds with in conflict with our Founding Principles of Liberty, Freedom and Equity and operated towards destruction of those Principles. One cannot listen the spine-chilling rendition of “Battle Hymn of the Republic” by the Mormon Tabernacles Choir. You can listen to it entering this phrase into Google search (it’s the first item in the results): Mormon Tabernacle Choir Battle Hymn of the Republic IEAEcca9pRk
posted December 6, 2007 at 9:17 am
hey i’m called rey-rey, aged 17in england and i am a mormon, i’ve been one all my life, i’m proud of my religions diversity, i see myself as a christian. we may have not been around for that long in the historical sense but we are one of the most respected for our tolerance and love of all people. i found that in england we are being treated as just a sect, this is not only offencive but Quite hurtful as it damages my credability as a member. this is a religion which i would gladly say i believe with all my heart
posted December 6, 2007 at 9:24 am
In my comment just posted, toward the end, I erroneously left out some very important words. The sentence “One cannot listen the spine-chilling rendition of ‘Battle Hymn of the Republic’ by the Mormon Tabernacles Choir”…should have read…”One cannot listen the spine-chilling rendition of ‘Battle Hymn of the Republic’ by the Mormon Tabernacles Choir and believe all of the demeaning and cultish accusations coming from the ‘Evangelical Right’.”
posted December 6, 2007 at 9:51 am
Fundamental differences between hsitoric christianity and mormonism:
1. Doctrine of God
Mormonism:
God (Heavenly Father) is an exalted man with a physical body of flesh and bone. LDS founder Joseph Smith said, “If the veil were rent today, and the great God who holds this world in its orbit, and who upholds all worlds and all things by his power, was to make himself visible-I say, if you were to see him today, you would see him like a man in form” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 345). The trinity is denied with the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost seen as three separate entities. “The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us” (Doctrine and Covenants [D&C] 130:22).
Historic Christianity:
The one God is a Spirit who is the personal, eternal, infinite Creator of all that exists. He is the only God and necessary for all other things to exist. He exists eternally as a Trinity: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. (see Deut. 6:4; Isa. 43:10; 44:6-8; Matt. 28:19; John 4:24; 17:3)
2. Doctrine of Jesus Christ
Mormonism:
Jesus was the spiritual “first born” Son of God in the preexistence. “Every person who was ever born on earth was our spirit brother or sister in heaven. The first spirit born to our heavenly parents was Jesus Christ, so he is literally our elder brother” (Gospel Principles [GP], p. 11).”And now, verily I say unto you, I was in the beginning with the Father, and am the Firstborn” (D&C 93:21). He is also the “only begotten” physical offspring of God by procreation on earth. “Jesus is the only person on earth to be born of a mortal mother and an immortal father. That is why he is called the Only Begotten Son” (GP, p. 64). His atonement (death and resurrection) provides immortality for all people regardless of their faith. “Christ thus overcame physical death. Because of his atonement, everyone born on this earth will be resurrected . . . This condition is called immortality. All people who ever lived will be resurrected, ‘both old and young, both bond and free, both male and female, both the wicked and the righteous’ (The Book of Mormon [BOM], Alma 11:44)” (GP, p. 74). (See GP, pp. 11, 17-19, 61-77.)
Historic Christianity:
Jesus Christ was the virgin born God incarnate who existed in all time with the Father and Holy Spirit in the eternal Trinity. As a man He possessed two natures -human and divine. He lived a sinless life and willingly died on the cross as a sacrifice for the sin of all humanity. (see John 1:1-18; 8:56-59; Phil. 2:6-11; Col. 1:13-22; Heb.1:3; 13:8)
Yes, it is true that moral teachings of Mormonism and Orthodox Christianity, and for that matter many other religiuons of the world, are similiar. However, I find these differences above to be too vast for me as a believer is Jesus Christ as described in the Bible to sit by and say they do not exist.
Check out this link for the full description of differences at http://www.4truth.net: http://www.4truth.net/site/c.hiKXLbPNLrF/b.2950577/k.251D/Comparison_Chart__Mormonism_and_Christianity.htm
posted December 6, 2007 at 10:05 am
I have been closely associated with the Mormon Church, but I am not a Mormon. I do know what they believe. Romney has been reared in the strictest of morals. He believes in the Lord and in the Trinity. Most of what evangelical Christianity would disagree with, the Mormon believes will happen to him after death, if he keeps the moral codes of his life. As I said, I am not a Mormon, but I would not be afraid to vote for this man. It is time we had someone in the White House who actually LIVES his moral code.
posted December 6, 2007 at 10:51 am
Incredible that in this country Romney even has to make this speech. I am a Democrat, so I would not vote for him based on his political stand, but I am also a evangelical, I apologize to Governor Romney that he even has to make this speech in this day and age!
I have many friends here in Oklahoma that are Mormon, My wife and I used to belong to the Southern Baptist Church, and while their are many wonderful people there, they still think they have a corner on the truth.
And the baptist will tell you this, the largest number of converts to the Mormon faith are baptist, so you are stealing their sheep.LOL
With that said I have studied the LDS church doctrine, and while I do not agree with everything, I do not see how you all cannot be called Christians. I even watched the BYU channel and saw the talks given by your leaders, I was very impressed.
Times they are a changing, and even here in the bible belt, who would have though the President of Bob Jones University would endorse Romney?
To all you who feel you need to apologize for your faith, remember, the Lord, and not some self appointed Southern Baptist Leaders will be your judge, to which I say…..Thank God
posted December 6, 2007 at 11:14 am
Historic Christianity – Doctrine of God
The one God is a Spirit who is the personal, eternal, infinite Creator of all that exists. He is the only God and necessary for all other things to exist. He exists eternally as a Trinity: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. (see Deut. 6:4; Isa. 43:10; 44:6-8; Matt. 28:19; John 4:24; 17:3)
Mormonism – Doctrine of God
God (Heavenly Father) is an exalted man with a physical body of flesh and bone. LDS founder Joseph Smith said, “If the veil were rent today, and the great God who holds this world in its orbit, and who upholds all worlds and all things by his power, was to make himself visible-I say, if you were to see him today, you would see him like a man in form” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 345). The trinity is denied with the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost seen as three separate entities. “The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us” (Doctrine and Covenants [D&C] 130:22).
Historic Christianity Doctrine of Jesus Christ
Jesus Christ was the virgin born God incarnate who existed in all time with the Father and Holy Spirit in the eternal Trinity. As a man He possessed two natures -human and divine. He lived a sinless life and willingly died on the cross as a sacrifice for the sin of all humanity. (see John 1:1-18; 8:56-59; Phil. 2:6-11; Col. 1:13-22; Heb.1:3; 13:8)
Mormonism on Doctrine of Jesus Christ
Jesus was the spiritual “first born” Son of God in the preexistence. “Every person who was ever born on earth was our spirit brother or sister in heaven. The first spirit born to our heavenly parents was Jesus Christ, so he is literally our elder brother” (Gospel Principles [GP], p. 11).”And now, verily I say unto you, I was in the beginning with the Father, and am the Firstborn” (D&C 93:21). He is also the “only begotten” physical offspring of God by procreation on earth. “Jesus is the only person on earth to be born of a mortal mother and an immortal father. That is why he is called the Only Begotten Son” (GP, p. 64). His atonement (death and resurrection) provides immortality for all people regardless of their faith. “Christ thus overcame physical death. Because of his atonement, everyone born on this earth will be resurrected . . . This condition is called immortality. All people who ever lived will be resurrected, ‘both old and young, both bond and free, both male and female, both the wicked and the righteous’ (The Book of Mormon [BOM], Alma 11:44)” (GP, p. 74). (See GP, pp. 11, 17-19, 61-77.)
There are tremendous differneces in the basic doctrines of Historic Christianity and those of the Mormon Church.
My issue is no that Mr. Romney is a mormon, but that he claims only minor differences between Mormonism and Historic Christianity.
Check it out for yourself at http://www.4truth.net/site/c.hiKXLbPNLrF/b.2950577/k.251D/Comparison_Chart__Mormonism_and_Christianity.htm
posted December 6, 2007 at 11:16 am
Thank you JHS, Joy, and others who have posted their comments. As an LDS student at BYU and a convert to the church, I thank you for your views on religion. Our faith teaches that we are all children of God– So why bother fighting? If one wants to know if the LDS is Christian, they are encouraged to study it out and ask God. I am truly happy to know that others respect our views. Thank you again and again.
posted December 6, 2007 at 11:45 am
reply to michael,One cannot listen the spine-chilling rendition of ‘Battle Hymn of the Republic’ by the Mormon Tabernacles Choir and believe all of the demeaning and cultish accusations coming from the ‘Evangelical Right’.”
I have that CD, and it’s probably the best rendention I have ever heard…..Barr none!
posted December 6, 2007 at 11:51 am
TO Jacob Stark , JUST INGNORE ALL THIS “WE HAVE A CORNER ON THE TRUTH EVANGELICAL CRAP”, EVEN THE BIBLE WE HAVE NOW HAS HAD REVISIONS TONS OF THEM SINCE THE TIME OF JESUS. JUST TRUST IN JESUS AS YOU SAVIOR, THAT IS GOOD ENOUGH FOR ME.
posted December 6, 2007 at 11:57 am
Romney’s big speech will fail.
It’s simply more of his evasive doublespeak calculated to mislead conservative Christians who are too lazy to find out the facts for themselves.
And Romney has it totally wrong on the “religious test” issue.
The “no religious test” provision of Article VI, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution clearly does not prohibit individual voters evaluating a candidate’s intellect, personal moral values and even religous beliefs in the private calculus on whom to vote for. Nor does it prevent any candidate from responding in candor and honesty as to questions on matters of faith. It simply prohibits the government from establishing a formal “religous test.” Romney, not being a lawyer or particularly versed in the Constitution, undoubtedly does not understand this material distinction.
However, the apparent fact that Romney is a proud, active member of a aggressive, secretive cult which, inter alia, proclaims all other biblical faiths as apostate and which requires its adherents to adopt a host of heretical beliefs on virtually every essential doctrine of Christianity IS NOT ROMNEY’S CRITICAL DEFECT! Instead, Romney’s flip-flopping and lack of candor ought to give conservative all Christian voters strong pause.
Romney’s speech is calculated to evade and mislead. Romney’s evasive non-answers speak more loudly than his carefully-crafted, focus-grouped photo-op speech ever could. How any committed, conservative Evangelical can vote for an opportunistic abortion and same-sex marriage/homosexual rights flip-flopper like Romney is beyond comprehension.
posted December 6, 2007 at 12:10 pm
“EVEN THE BIBLE WE HAVE NOW HAS HAD REVISIONS TONS OF THEM SINCE THE TIME OF JESUS. JUST TRUST IN JESUS AS YOU SAVIOR . . . .”
J H S, if the Good Book is so unreliable, how is it that you know what to believe about the version of “JESUS” you “trust in?
For all of Huck’s faults (and there are many IMHO), he did give this correct answer in the last GOP debate:
“Huckabee: Sure. I believe the Bible is exactly what it is. It’s the word of revelation to us from God himself.
(Applause)
And the fact is that when people ask do we believe all of it, you either believe it or you don’t believe it.
But in the greater sense, I think what the question tried to make us feel like was that, well, if you believe the part that says “Go and pluck out your eye,” well, none of us believe that we ought to go pluck out our eye. That obviously is allegorical.
But the Bible has some messages that nobody really can confuse and really not left up to interpretation. “Love your neighbor as yourself.”
And as much as you’ve done it to the least of these brethren, you’ve done it unto me. Until we get those simple, real easy things right, I’m not sure we ought to spend a whole lot of time fighting over the other parts that are a little bit complicated.
And as the only person here on the stage with a theology degree, there are parts of it I don’t fully comprehend and understand, because the Bible is a revelation of an infinite god, and no finite person is ever going to fully understand it. If they do, their god is too small.”
A “Jesus” that one assembles out of the scraps of the Bible that one finds are not too onerous, oppressive or politically-incorrect is “too small.” As is the non-Trinitarian formula for “Jesus” that the LDS cult hawks.
But those who accept the conclusion that the Bible is laced with material error would be in good stead with the heretical doctrines of the LDS cult.
posted December 6, 2007 at 2:55 pm
If those are not his “critical defect”s then why do you bring them up at all?
Again, we declare that God is NOT incorporeal, without body, parts and passions. He is NOT incomprehensible, nor unknowable. Christ taught, “And this is life eternal, that they might KNOW thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou has sent” (John 17:3, emphasis added). The Nicene Creed teaches precisely that we cannot know God. Well, Christ taught that we can, we should, and we will if we are faithful.
The Nicene Creed also teaches the nature of God as the Trinity, which is NOT to be found in the New Testament (Paul F. Achtemeier, ed. (1985), Harper’s Bible Dictionary, 1099; emphasis added.).
So who are we believing in then? It is Jesus Christ.
posted December 6, 2007 at 3:23 pm
This isn’t my usual forum and so I’ll make my exit but I thought those wanting to know more about the LDS history and doctrine(s) would be interested in balancing information with documentation as well as “Faith”.
As to my experience as a Mormon, 37 years x 52 Sundays a year = ONE THOUSAND,NINE HUNDRED,TWENTY FOUR three hr. block meetings, (although the blocks weren’t instigated until the mid 70s}all spent on a hard folding chair listening to the most blatantly backward and bizarre baloney ever foisted on the world might count for some “EXPERIENCE”. Then you could count all the countless hrs. in church service from YW leadership to RS leadership and everything in between. Then you should count the tithing, missionary funds, fast offerings, and other things I’ve donated. Then you could count the $300,000. my family has spent on just missions, but I only contributed to three of those, including my sons. Boy Howdy, the hours, days, weeks, and years add up and almost make me cringe with pain at what I gave to the Mormon Church.
If anyone would like to get into it with me regarding “knowledge” of the church doctrine, In the words of your big hero George W. Bush, “BRING IT ON!!!”. If you’re an apologist or prefer revisionist history, or just Santa Claus fantasy, then it’s a good idea to retreat back to your safe little island where the world is nice and flat and June Cleaver is your mommy.
My warning to those bothering to read this is to beware of Mitt Romney as your favored candidate. The attacks against the Mormons are not my goal, but against this charletan wooden puppet that’s being put on show and doing the jiggety jig of the Republican Right Wing Religious factions. Be ever so careful in what you wish for. Look what your last wish fullfillment brought the United States and the world. Those that voted for and support George Bush and his vile administration are partially culpable in the fiasco and mess that we’re all in now.
Haven’t you learned your lessons yet? For the love of all that is good and worthwhile and salvagable in our Nation, our values, our economy, our standing in the world and the peace of the children of God, Do NOT give support for one so blind as to support torture, or to not see waterboarding as torture, or to be such a suck up as to condone such things. “I’d DOUBLE GUANTANAMO” will be the legacy you will inherit in supporting Mitt Romney. I’m ashamed of him and of anyone who supports him.
Here’s a link to verify my previous claim that Mitt Romney comes from a long line and history of those who promote “Lying for the Lord”. Have fun!!!
http://www.mormonthink.com/lying.htm
posted December 6, 2007 at 4:59 pm
LDS scripture parsing is SO much fun!
Obviously, to “know” and accept that YHWH is the one, the only true and living God is not the same thing as having a complete, exhaustive understanding of Him.
Actually, orthodox (non-heretical) Christians can find plenty of authority in the Bible for the doctrine of the Trinity. You might start with the Great Commission and John 1. Or maybe this little sound bite: “I and my Father are one.”
John 10:30 (King James Version)
Public Domain
BTW, if the “Heavenly Father” is limited to a corporeal bod, wouldn’t it be kind of hard to be omniscient and omnipresent? Or does the REAL church have that one wrong, too?
posted December 6, 2007 at 5:05 pm
reply to Speedzzter;
I believe the bible is correct in all it affirms, if you know your history, and I do mean real history, not just some ones opinion from Billy Bobs Bible school, you would know the early church had many many different accounts that were written about Jesus, some call them the gnostic gospels etc.
The early church never had issues with Jesus or his divinity, just some of the details surrounding his life,
I am a devout Christian, please show us in the bible where they mention the word “trinity”, or that Jesus is not a seperate being from the Father, who was speaking from heaven when God declared “this is my beloved son in whom I am well pleased” when he was baptized by John the baptist? Maybe he just a great vintriloquist.
Those are doctrines that have everything and nothing to do with Christ’s real divinity, they just make take their eyes off the ball, and that is Christ.
posted December 6, 2007 at 5:21 pm
By the way I am not Mormon, I know enough about the bible to know what it says about the trinty, that it does not mention the Trinity, and that many doctrines we argue, none totally know what the hell we are talking about. Thats why they call it faith!
For the Mormons, move on from this platform and just show the love of Christ to a dying world, people like Speedzzter will make sure there is no room for them in their churches.
posted December 6, 2007 at 5:33 pm
Yea, knowing God is the “only true and living God” is all we have to know. We don’t have to know a thing about Him, but as long as we know He’s there, that’s all that matters. Surely that’s what Christ meant when He said, “And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou has sent” (John 17:3).
No. I don’t think so. God wants us to understand everything and anything we can about Him, because it is only in knowing Him that we can ever do what He has asked us to do.
The Father and the Son are “one” in every meaning of the word, EXCEPT their distinct personage and body. They are one in principle, power, authority, word, deed, action, purpose, manner, testimony, mission, mercy, love, justice, grace, patience, forgiveness, and redemption.
Elder Holland once said – “We declare it is self-evident from the scriptures that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are separate persons, three divine beings, noting such unequivocal illustrations as the Savior’s great Intercessory Prayer just mentioned, His baptism at the hands of John, the experience on the Mount of Transfiguration, and the martyrdom of Stephen—to name just four.”
“With these New Testament sources and more8 ringing in our ears, it may be redundant to ask what Jesus meant when He said, “The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do.” On another occasion He said, “I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.” Of His antagonists He said, “[They have] . . . seen and hated both me and my Father.” And there is, of course, that always deferential subordination to His Father that had Jesus say, “Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.” “My father is greater than I.”
“To whom was Jesus pleading so fervently all those years, including in such anguished cries as “O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me” and “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me”? To acknowledge the scriptural evidence that otherwise perfectly united members of the Godhead are nevertheless separate and distinct beings is not to be guilty of polytheism; it is, rather, part of the great revelation Jesus came to deliver concerning the nature of divine beings. Perhaps the Apostle Paul said it best: “Christ Jesus . . . being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God.”
posted December 6, 2007 at 5:47 pm
God the Father, his Beloved Son, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost all have bodies, two of which are of flesh and bone. Albeit these two are glorified, resurrected, celestialized, and perfect beings, a far cry away from what a mortal human being is.
Even with God “limited” to a corporeal body, He can still be omniscient and omnipresent. Knowledge does not confine someone to a particular space. Just because he is all-knowing does not mean he does not have a body. And he is omnipresent, or in contact with all of His creations, through the administration and power and glory of His Holy Spirit. The spirit of God, and its influence, is spread throughout all of God’s creations.
Christ did not consider his body as a “limiting” factor, or what need whatsoever would there be in the glorious resurrection? Christ joined back together His spirit and His perfected body, never again to be separated. “A spirit hath not flesh and bone as ye see me have.” So was Christ limiting himself by taking up His body again? No. A physical body is a requisite part of our eternal purpose and identity, just as Christ’s physical body was to Him, and as God the Father’s physical body is to Him.
posted December 6, 2007 at 6:51 pm
“people like Speedzzter will make sure there is no room for them in their churches.”
What a ridiculous statement!
The LDS is the “church” with the phony, secret rituals and “forbidden” temples. True churches are open and welcoming to all who truly seek God. There are no secrets in the true Church.
However, the Church is not tasked with compromising its doctrinal orthodoxy just to please the “itching ears” of the unregenerate. In fact, obedient New Testament Churches are strongly prohibited from such “lukewarm” compromise.
posted December 6, 2007 at 7:03 pm
“And he is omnipresent, or in contact with all of His creations, through the administration and power and glory of His Holy Spirit. The spirit of God, and its influence, is spread throughout all of God’s creations.”
In other words, the anthropomorpic LDS “Heavently Father” can only be omnipresent and omnipotent through the incorporeal H.S. (who apparently is an exception to the “rule” that “A physical body is a requisite part of our eternal purpose and identity, just as Christ’s physical body was to Him, and as God the Father’s physical body is to Him.”)
These posts do a far better job than a legion of orthodox Christian apologists at pointing out the LDS heresy.
BTW, if Jesus’s physical body is essential to his “eternal identity,” (a) what sort of physical body did Jesus have before the virgin birth and (b) why was it necessary to exchange it for an earthly body?
posted December 6, 2007 at 7:27 pm
Yea, true churches have no secrets at all, except the church in which Christ told His apostles to “tell no man” (Matt. 8:4; Matt. 16:20; Mark 7:36; Mark 8:30; Luke 5:14; Luke 8:56; Luke 9:21; Acts 23:22). Christ clearly told His disciples many times to keep some things secret, as they were not fit for the whole world to know. That is part of the reason Christ spoke in parables, so that those with pure hearts would understand, and from those that were evil it would be kept secret. “Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you” (Matt. 7:6). Some things are kept secret, because they are sacred.
The Holy Ghost has a body of spirit, otherwise how could he dwell within us? At some point in time the Holy Ghost too will have the opportunity to have a physical corporeal body.
Jesus’s body before the virgin birth was like the rest of our bodies before our birth – it was a spirit. The great Jehovah of the Old Testament had a spirit body. Christ didn’t exchange a spirit body for a physical one. Our spirit body enters our physical body. When we die, the spirit body leaves our physical body. In the resurrection, the spirit body takes up the physical body again, in a glorified, perfect state, never to die again. That is the power of the resurrection; Christ burst the bands of death for all, such that no one will remain dead, but all will rise in the resurrection.
These are the things that God has revealed once again to His church, through His ordained prophets and apostles.
You know, a lot of people thought that it was all heresy what Christ was saying when He lived. But was it?
posted December 7, 2007 at 12:50 am
None of the passages cited justify any top secret temple rituals.
Mainstream Christians believe that the Holy Spirit (who has no “body”) illuminates the minds of the Elect to the essential truths of God. See e.g. John 6:65, Eph. 1:17-18, Acts 28:26-27, Titus 1:15, John 4:24, II Cor. 3:13-18.
Thus, there is simply no need whatsoever for the Church to keep secret rituals. See Luke 23:45 (temple curtain torn into at the death of Jesus Christ on th cross. The church is supposed to “Go to all peoples everywhere and make them my disciples; baptize them in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit and teach them to obey everything I have commanded you.” Matt 28:19-20. No secrets in that commission, either.
posted December 7, 2007 at 12:57 am
“….one nation under God…”, “In God We Trust”, TEN COMMANDMENTS, ???
Better that America has a candidate that believes in and lives the above and not question the reasonable tenets that taught him. How about turning those questions to candidates who exhibit little or NO Christian
character? Why aren’t the evangelicals grilling Obama about his Muslim
background and Hillary about her socialist (Communist) education.
posted December 7, 2007 at 9:18 am
Mr. Ed – We invite the whole world to enter our temples at the time just before its dedication, with no other requirements besides a free ticket. After it is dedicated to the Lord, we still invite the whole world to enter upon conforming to certain requirements. Any man or woman may enter our temples if they become worthy, repent, are baptized, receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, and be faithful for a time. We do say, “Come one, come all, repent, and be baptized, and partake of the blessings of God!”
But there is a big difference between inviting the world to believe in Christ and follow His commandments, and allowing everyone and anyone to walk off the street directly into the Holy of Holies. Moses would not have allowed that in his tabernacle either. That would have been absolute blasphemy. Those things are retained as sacred for the faithful followers of Christ who conform to His rules and regulations. We don’t set the terms, and we do not and will not cast our pearls before swine.
Paul once taught, “25 Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God;
26 Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints:
27 To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory:
28 Whom we preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom; that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus:” (Colossians 1:25-28).
God makes known His mysteries to His saints, and to the Gentiles if they will prepare themselves.
posted December 7, 2007 at 11:00 am
Tolerance does not over ride some basic thought processes.
I am a staunch American and I just can’t take it any more!
Why in the name of all that is fair and just are we giving this guy Mitt a pass? I
s it because we have become just to complacent, too busy listen , or down right “stuck on stupid” ? This guy stands before the American people and force feeds us the kind of schlock that use to be reserved for “B” movies.
The fact is he belongs to an organization (lets just leave off the fact that it is “religious”) that from the time of Brigham Young to 1978, did not believe that Blacks or any other dark complected people were worth to be nothing but a “servant” if the make it to heaven.
Nobody is asking him about “The Planet Kolob” … this is really a place in Mormon doctrine where the”best” Mormons will someday rule.
This is a guy who seems to say anything that will get him approval. I can let any one who meets the requirements for president run for the office, but I must also scrutinize his roots of morality that are the basis of his religious beliefs. .
Don’t give Mitt a pass! Make him answer the tough questions based on HIS moral rectitude; not his religion.
Jack Kennedy had to answer the questions of a Catholic public. But we all know that this guy is NO JACK KENNEDY
posted December 7, 2007 at 12:06 pm
I agree with Mr. Ed. There simply is no NT authority (or need) for a latter-day “holy of Holies.”
Moreover, the answer about who can go in Mormon Temples after the grand opening “open house/PR stunt” admits that millions of LDS members do not (and cannot) qualify for the secret rituals.
They must be among the “swine” the writer refers to . . . .
And under the OT sacrificial system in the REAL temple/Tabernacle (not the ersatz Mormon McTemples), the procedures were fully publicized in scripture. Thus, they weren’t secret.
Of course, “infidels and non-Mormons” have blown the lid off of most of the secret handshakes and secret ceremonies now. But true biblical churches do not create secretive hierarchies, do not “seal” celestial marriages,** and are not trying to qualify for ruling their own planets in the afterlife (after all, Planet Kolob is already taken by the Mormon “Heavenly Father”)
Finally, the whole point of the tearing of the temple veil and the sacrifice of Jesus Christ was to replace the foreshadowing OT sacrificial system (the law) with an open once-for-all sacrifice on the cross (the law fulfilled).
Secrets, artificial levels of achievement, and ceremonial mumbo-jumbo divert attention the radical, open message of the Gospel.
______________
** In Matt. 22, Jesus Christ had a bit to say about marriage in the afterlife:
23That same day the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to him with a question. 24″Teacher,” they said, “Moses told us that if a man dies without having children, his brother must marry the widow and have children for him. 25Now there were seven brothers among us. The first one married and died, and since he had no children, he left his wife to his brother. 26The same thing happened to the second and third brother, right on down to the seventh. 27Finally, the woman died. 28Now then, at the resurrection, whose wife will she be of the seven, since all of them were married to her?”
29Jesus replied, “You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God. 30At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven. 31But about the resurrection of the dead—have you not read what God said to you, 32′I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’[a]? He is not the God of the dead but of the living.”
Perhaps Jesus was unaware that one of the seven brothers could have “sealed” the deal for eternity (according to Mormon doctrine).
And how about Paul on marriage in 1 Cor 7:
1Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry. 2But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife [not WIVES], and each woman her own husband. 3The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. . . . 6I say this as a concession, not as a command. 7I wish that all men were as I am. But each man has his own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that.
8Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. 9But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.
And Paul in Romans 7 elaborates on the temporal nature of marriage:
2For example, by law a married woman is bound to her husband as long as he is alive, but if her husband dies, she is released from the law of marriage. 3So then, if she marries another man while her husband is still alive, she is called an adulteress. But if her husband dies, she is released from that law and is not an adulteress, even though she marries another man.
One would think that if having a celestial marriage was the key to success and happiness in the afterlife, Paul would have written something far different. But then Paul didn’t believe he would EVER be a god himself.
Paul did have a few things to say about “perfection”
Romans 7:
18I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature.[c] For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. 20Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.
21So I find this law at work: When I want to do good, evil is right there with me. 22For in my inner being I delight in God’s law; 23but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members. 24What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? 25Thanks be to God—through Jesus Christ our Lord!
Ephesians 2:8-10 (King James Version)
8For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9Not of works, lest any man should boast.
10For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.
Obviously, the regenerated man will strive to produce obedient works as an inherent byproduct of faith, under the guidance of the indwelling Holy Spirit.
But if arguably the most legendary Christian of the NT (Paul) continued to struggle with sin, perfection is not something that the legions of more ordinary Christians will attain in their mortal lives. “Perfection” is accredited to true believers through the blood of Jesus Christ (the substitutionary attonement)”In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins. Col 1:14.
posted December 7, 2007 at 12:35 pm
Mitt Romney is running for president, not a pastor or preacher. He is under no obligation, whatsoever, to explain his religion to anyone. If you want to know what he believes and practices you will find readily available information at http://www.lds.org and http://www.mormon.org.
If you really believe that temples are really not necessary in religion, that there have been no sacred rituals within the Judeo-Christian history, that the church has never had a hierarchy, practiced eternal marriage, and did not ever believe and teach the doctrine of deification and theosis, you are certainly completely ignorant of religious history and practice. Check out a book from Mircea Eliade, any book.
You cannot be saved in ignorance.
posted December 7, 2007 at 1:13 pm
By the way, all eternal marriage sealings must take place before the resurrection, otherwise you will end up as a single angel in heaven. For after the resurrection, the time has passed to enter into those covenants. That is perfectly in accord with what Christ taught.
The Psalmist must not have known what he was doing when he declared “I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High” (Ps. 82:6). Or when Christ said, “Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect” (Matt. 5:48).
You say, “But then Paul didn’t believe he would EVER be a god himself.” Except for when Paul declared, “And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together” (Romans 8:17).
posted December 7, 2007 at 5:27 pm
“By the way, all eternal marriage sealings must take place before the resurrection, otherwise you will end up as a single angel in heaven. For after the resurrection, the time has passed to enter into those covenants. That is perfectly in accord with what Christ taught.”
That’s dancing on the head of pin.
You’d think that Jesus would be interested in boosting his immediate followers to the highest level of the afterlife. Wouldn’t he be saying, marry up boys, so I can seal you myself before it’s too late?
Also earth-based sealing is a curiously, time-limited doctrine considering all the chances “gentiles” have in avoiding Mormon hell.
On the misapplication of Ps. 82:6 (remembering building a major doctrine around an obscure verse is indicative of a cult):
And Ps 82:7-8 describes their demise: But you will die like mere men;
you will fall like every other ruler.”
8 Rise up, O God, judge the earth,
for all the nations are your inheritance.
Such texts are properly understood in the context of the scope of biblical teaching on God, to wit:
Isaiah 44:6; “I am the first and I am the last apart from me there is no God.”
Isaiah 46:9; “I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me.”
Isaiah 43:10; “Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me.”
Isaiah 45:21-22; “…there is no God apart from me, a righteous God and a Savior; there is none but me. Turn to me and be saved, all you ends of the earth; for I am God, and there is no other.”
Of course there are plenty of false, inferior “gods,” such as the “god of this age” (Satan (II Cor. 4:3-5)–who incidentally is NOT Jesus’s bro), hundreds of idols and made-up gods, etc.)
And Paul wrote in 1 Cor. 8:
3But the man who loves God is known by God.
4So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that an idol is nothing at all in the world and that THERE IS NO GOD BUT ONE.
5 For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”),
6 yet for us there is but ONE GOD, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.
Other passages that contradict the Mormon doctrine of Eternal Progression.
Malachi 3:6: “For I am the Lord, I change not.”
Psalm 90:2: “from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God.”
Isa. 48:12-13:
12 “Listen to me, O Jacob,
Israel, whom I have called:
I am He;
I am the first and I am the last.
13 My own hand laid the foundations of the earth,
and my right hand spread out the heavens;
when I summon them,
they all stand up together.
Rev. 1:17-18
17When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. Then he placed his right hand on me and said: “Do not be afraid. I am the First and the Last.
18I am the Living One; I was dead, and behold I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades.
Isa. 44
6 “This is what the LORD says—
Israel’s King and Redeemer, the LORD Almighty:
I am the first and I am the last;
apart from me there is no God.
7 Who then is like me? Let him proclaim it.
Let him declare and lay out before me
what has happened since I established my ancient people,
and what is yet to come—
yes, let him foretell what will come.
8 Do not tremble, do not be afraid.
Did I not proclaim this and foretell it long ago?
You are my witnesses. Is there any God besides me?
No, there is no other Rock; I know not one.”
9 All who make idols are nothing,
and the things they treasure are worthless.
Those who would speak up for them are blind;
they are ignorant, to their own shame.
Yet the Mormon quest for godhood is an ancient delusion:
5 “For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” Gen. 3:5.
Thankfully, Romney is not running for “Theologian-in-Chief” so he will escape having to meaningfully explain his heretical views. But he clearly is attempting to mislead orthodox “sola Bible” Christians by confessing only the attractive parts of his faith and hiding the weird stuff.
Again, the real issue for voters is Romney’s flip-flops on material moral questions (abortion, same-sex marriage, special rights for self-identified homosexuals) for the sake of politics. “Of what benefit are convictions if one is not willing to live by them?”
posted December 7, 2007 at 5:50 pm
Again, your ignorance on the early Christian doctrine of theosis (deification) is stunning. Some of the greatest early Christian Church Fathers taught these doctrines:
One of the most important early Christian theologians in the second century, Saint Irenaeus, said this: “Do we cast blame on him [God] because we were not made gods from the beginning, but were at first created merely as men, and then later as gods? Although God has adopted this course out of his pure benevolence, that no one may charge him with discrimination or stinginess, he declares, “I have said, ye are gods; and all of you are sons of the Most High.” … For it was necessary at first that nature be exhibited, then after that what was mortal would be conquered and swallowed up in immortality.”
Saint Clement of Alexandria wrote, “Yea, I say, the Word of God became a man so that you might learn from a man how to become a god.” And, “if one knows himself, he will know God, and knowing God will become like God…. His is beauty, true beauty, for it is God, and that man becomes a god, since God wills it. So Heraclitus was right when he said, ‘Men are gods, and gods are men.’”
Saint Justin Martyr insisted that in the beginning men were “made like God, free from suffering and death,” and that they are thus deemed worthy of “becoming gods and of having power to become sons of the highest.”
Saint Athanasius once said, “The Word was made flesh in order that we might be enabled to be made gods…. Just as the Lord, putting on the body, became a man, so also we men are both deified through his flesh, and henceforth inherit everlasting life.” And, “”He became man that we might be made divine.”
Even the great Saint Augustine once wrote, “But he himself that justifies also deifies, for by justifying he makes sons of God. ‘For he has given them power to become the sons of God’ [John 1:12] If then we have been made sons of God, we have also been made gods.”
Every single one of these five were orthodox Christian saints, who wrote within 100 years of the time period of the Apostles. This has been a doctrine of Christianity for most of history only until recent times. Even the current Roman Catholic catechism still reads, “The Word became flesh to make us ‘partakers of the divine nature’: ‘For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God.’ ‘For the Son of God became man so that we might become God.’ ‘The only begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods’” (Paragraph 460).
Thus, your understanding of the doctrine of deification, the concept that Christians can become like Christ and like God, is very weak.
posted December 7, 2007 at 9:31 pm
I don’t reject Romney because of his mormanism, but because he lies about his beliefs. Mormans like to make little statements that sound Christian but if pressed on these issues there will always be some qualifiers that come with their statement. Romney says he believes there is one God (Mormans believe there are gods many (this is their language)). He says he believes that Jesus is THE Son of God (Mormans believe that Jesus is A son of God). And if you believe his statement that there will be no influence from the prophets in Salt Lake City, then I have some oceon front property in Utah I want to sell to you.
posted December 8, 2007 at 12:19 pm
Mitt Romney has sold his soul to become president. Its all in the record, on tape, in black and white- preserved forever in the ether, in cyberspace and in the hearts and minds of the spiritually discerning. I will demonstrate this reality in his own words. Here they are from his recent speech where he sought to allay concerns over his Mormonism… let’s parse it together shall we?:
Romney:
“A person should not be elected because of his faith, nor should he be rejected because of his faith. Let me assure you that no authorities of my church, or of any other church for that matter, will ever exert influence on presidential decisions. Their authority is theirs within the province of church affairs, and it ends where the affairs of the nation begin. 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.”
SS says:
So, its pretty clear from this statement alone that Romney’s allegiance is to the nation first and God second. That’s what is called idolatry in biblical terms. This pretty much proves the thesis in much of this blog and in my personal communications that the idea of a “Christian nation” is an oxymoron and pretty much of an impossibility. Greg Boyd, preacher and author of “Myth of a Christian Nation”, was cited in the CNN special “God’s Warriors” as saying, “you can no more have a Christian nation than you can have a Christian Bicycle”. Mitt Romney is confirming that thesis with great clarity in his statements. The Bush II administration and others before it insinuated with their campaigning for office that the possibility of a Christian nation is an attainable goal- that it is a reachable ideal. The idea of this is of course extremely appealing to those who count themselves among the Christian faithful. In the simplest of terms “One cannot serve two masters”. The religious folks are equally prone to not comprehending this maxim which is from the very words of Christ. I just heard a radio sermon today on my daily commute where a well known preacher was reasoning that since Jesus referred to his followers as the salt of the earth and it is impossible for salt to season something unless it comes into contact with it
that it stands to reason that it is in fact a Christian duty to get involved in politics. It is amazing to me however, that this sort of reasoning does not seem to comprehend that the best way for the church to influence the world is to BE the Church, affecting culture from the roots up by living out the ideals of the Church by example and so affecting culture from the roots up. That’s a full time job. That does not mean that Christians should not be unaware of politics and their implications or let themselves be heard especially in the voting booth. What it does mean is that Christians trying to serve two masters must always make compromises that detract from their faith and so participating in worldly, political power games should be done with great caution if at all. Romney shows exactly why is his speech.
The faithful of course expected G.W. Bush to do the opposite of what Romney is assuring everyone he won’t do…. that being let his faith or religion exert influence on presidential decisions. Of course it is impossible to imagine someones whose religious beliefs, no matter how paper thin or shallow, would not surface at least as moral attitudes or core values in decision making processes. To suggest that they wouldn’t is not only bad psychology but… well amoral and/or immoral to boot. I listened to several radio commentators remarks on Romney’s speech today. Most of them being so-called conservatives were busy rationalizing Romney’s remarks and failed to even bring up the points I raise here. This pretty much confirms for me once and for all that these guys armed with microphones and radio towers are for the most part either not very smart, morally illiterate and/or bankrupt, completely sold out or all of the above.
I digress.
More Romney:
“Each religion has its own unique doctrines and history. These are not bases for criticism, but rather a test of our tolerance. Religious tolerance would be a shallow principle, indeed, if it were reserved only for faiths with which we agree.”
“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.”
SS says:
Well, a week or two back I heard some remarks Romney made along these lines after John McCain, an opponent for the presidency, took a shot at Romney’s Mormon roots. Romney basically said that to criticize someone about their religion was un-American. All the talking heads on TV that night seemed to agree that this turn of events would work in Romney’s favor.
Now, they postulated, every time someone asks about Romney’s religion or begins to critically analyze the doctrines of his religion and their possible influence on him and his decisions he can now play the “un-American” card. The problem with this sort of thinking is that its ridiculous to assume that if Romney were, say a Satanist, Voodoo priest, u.f.o. Cult member, Muslim, Qabbalist, Scientologist or one of those snake handling, charismatic Christians that it would be inappropriate to ask him about it or ponder the implications it might have for the presidency. Such a concept is, of course, ridiculous. The fact is that Mormonism is not a mainstream belief system either. I will address that more in a paragraph or two.
More Romney:
“When I place my hand on the Bible and take the oath of office, that oath becomes my highest promise to God. 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 United States.”
SS says:
I question why he would bother putting his hand on the Bible, make an oath or promise anything to God at all. Of what value would it be since he has already stated that his nationalism comes before his religion, his faith and thus before God and that, “A president must serve only the common cause of the people of the United States?”
Believe me I understand the principles and advantages of separating the Church and State. I don’t need a civics lesson. However, I think its safe to say that a real disciple of Christ is not very well suited to the compromises of governing anything larger than a small community, clan, tribe or village. Its unthinkable in this day and age of mega cultures and megalomania that a meek, humble, non materialistic, non violent, lover of neighbor as self, lover of enemies and deeply committed spiritual person could attain let alone hold the office of president of the USA without selling out his spiritual values to some degree…. like Romney just did. This selling out is also manifested for Romney in the positions he has articulated where he condones pre emptive warfare (which is what the attack on Pearl Harbor was), torture, secret prisons and the contravention of the rule of law not to mention the scriptural mandate to love your enemies and treat everyone as you would be treated with regards to ‘enemy combatants” (who are essentially whoever the president decides they are nowadays). He also has resolutely refused to negotiate with enemies whatsoever which is neither wise nor biblical.
Separating church and state then, is not only a protection of the value system of the state (AKA in biblical terms “the world”) but also a concept that protects the virtue of the Church.
I also understand that a person’s theology definitely matters, especially when they hold the most powerful office in the world. Theology matters. look at the conflicts in Israel, Palestine, the entire Mideast. All the different groups believe it is they that have the rights to certain blocs of land… it is they that hold the truth… it is they that will survive and triumph with God on their side. On that score Romney’s Mormonism frightens me as well. There are doctrines in the Mormon faith which should make everyone somewhat uncomfortable. Mormons believe that the Bible is valid, but that the Book of Mormon is the completion and perfection of the Bible. As a traditional, mainstream Christian I have no problem saying that I have a problem with that. If you look at the skirmishes between the Arab world and the Christian West its safe to say that the beliefs of both sides concerning, eschatology, the end of days, prophecies about the end of the world all play into the geopolitical dynamics of things. This realization is where I got the concept for the title of this blog, Geotheology.
The end times doctrine, or eschatology of many Mormons holds the belief that in the “last days” (which a lot of people anxiously ASSUME we are in) a Mormon world leader from the USA will arise and save the nation from complete destruction and set the world to rights. Then Jesus will come back and set up the millennial reign of His Kingdom somewhere in Missouri. I don’t know about you, but at this stage of things I am really not comfortable with another cowboy with delusions of glory and saving the world for Jesus, as if he needed help, at the helm of the world’s only superpower and with his itchy trigger finger on the button of its nuclear arsenal.
The last Bit from Romney:
“We separate church and state affairs in this country, and for good reason. No religion should dictate to the state nor should the state interfere with the free practice of religion. But in recent years, the notion of the separation of church and state has been taken by some well beyond its original meaning. They seek to remove from the public domain any acknowledgment of God. Religion is seen as merely a private affair with no place in public life. It is as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America — the religion of secularism. They are wrong.”
SS says:
This last set of statements is just a lot of hot air designed to somehow qualify his statements and appeal to those among us who are worried that God is losing and the secular world is winning. I would encourage such people to re-read their religious texts and see who always wins in the end. Its funny that Romney wants to keep the ten commandments hanging on the walls in public places but has already in his previous statements broken the first three commandments ;
Exodus 2:3-7
3 Do not have any other gods before Me.
4 You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me,
6 but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments.
7 You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not acquit anyone who misuses his name.
Romney has already shown in his own words who his god is, the USA, his idol. He has also in this statement taken the name of the Lord in vain, essentially swearing to God to put the USA over Him:
“When I place my hand on the Bible and take the oath of office, that oath becomes my highest promise to God. 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 United States.”
I won’t even go into the other commandments that he will undoubtedly break if his ideas on policy, warfare and the treatment of prisoners go into effect with him as president.
Think eternally. Act spiritually. Pray Hard.
posted December 11, 2007 at 2:22 am
How sad that an evangelical Christians have taken it upon themselves to pass judgment on religions that fall outside their boundaries. Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints are indeed Christian in their beliefs. That means that they embrace the Gospel of Jesus Christ as their core belief, the foundation of their religion.
We are voting for a President in the worst of turmoil on this earth. The compassionate values of Mitt Romney, or someone like him, would be a welcome relief to the tortured, vindictive, self serving man who is in office now.
Let’s welcome our political and religious differences and cast our votes for who we each feel should be the next president, that’s what democracy is all about. But remember that this country was built on FREEDOM OF RELIGION and that all men are created equal. The Bible tells us not to judge so knock it off.
You cannot build up your own house by destroying the house of another.
posted January 26, 2008 at 1:45 am
01:35 AM
I am offended by and tired of people slamming the Mormon church. Romney is open minded person free of personal prejudice. Romney will equally serve and treat all citizen of our nation with fairness. An article of faith in his church is “We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all people the same privilege, let them worship how, where or what they may.” Mormons hold the U.S. Constitution in the highest regard and respect the separation of church and state. Thus, no Mormon leader will ever try to use his office to press his faith on other people. Yet, in this campaign we have seen a candidate (Huckabee) propose amending the constitution to agree with his interpretation of the Bible. Why aren’t the voters outraged at such a proposal? It clearly violates our founding fathers respect for the separation of church and state. I am tired of postings claiming Mormons are not Christian and am offended by the Evangelical’s voter guide which makes this unfounded and cruel claim. Evangelicals DO NOT OWN the word Christian. They do not have the right to tell another person whether or not he is a Christian. Their bigoted judgments impress me as very un-Christian. Perhaps a better qualification as to one’s Christianity is in his willingness to follow Christ’s teachings (Christ did say, “Come Follow Me”) rather than whether they fit a definition some man or society has formulated in a particular denomination.
Pingback: Today’s Romney Speech: Must-See TV? - Idol Chatter