The LDS church believes that the USA's founding documents are divinely inspired? I never heard that before. Interesting that they think the agnostic Jefferson could have been inspired by God to write the Decl. of Indep. God indeed does work in mysterious ways.

;-)

Nine paragraphs of regurgitated analysis capped by a petty reference to Bush.

Petty? Hardly. It just happens to be the truth.

I wonder why the neocons are so sensitive about comments about neocons and Bush on this forum. See the Gareth Higgins/Golden Compass thread for some more examples.

Nine paragraphs of regurgitated analysis capped by a petty reference to Bush.

Okay, let's see you try to do a better job.

Peace,

Posted by: Don | December 6, 2007 3:11 PM

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but when "leaders of the Religious Right" preach that the "First Amendment seperation of church and state" is a "myth", I don't think they're saying that there shouldn't be any seperation between the two. They're saying that the seperation of church and state, as defined by secular liberals, has no basis in our founding documents. Many secular liberals would like the seperation of church and state to mean that public officials don't talk about their faith, that their faith does not inform their policy decisions, that their faith has no place in the public square and is an afront to the freedom of religion found in the first amendment. This is a myth, and I think most here at Sojo would agree. (You can see this in the debates particularly surrounding abortion and bioethics. Secular liberals often say "you're just trying to impose your religious views on others people" as if someone's faith shouldn't inform their policy decisions.)

We should definitely be careful about how faith interacts with our national life and policy and I agree with much of what both JFK and Romney said, but I think Randall Balmer is implying things about conservative Christians that aren't true when it comes to the seperation of church and state. Again, I could be wrong; I'm not an expert on what so-called leaders of the "Religious Right" have said recently.

Posted by: Eric | December 6, 2007 3:28 PM

Nine paragraphs of regurgitated analysis capped by a petty reference to Bush. For this level of astute analysis, the Ivy League charges $40k a year.

And just think, we get an unlimited quantity of regurgitated analysis from Kevin for absolutely nuthin!

Posted by: justintime | December 6, 2007 4:01 PM

Mr. Balmer--I do not have specific reason to doubt you; but what is your evidence that Evangelicals (or any significant number of voters) are disinclined to vote for Romney because they hold theological views distinct from Mormonism???

And what preciseley would you be pleased if he had said????

I suspect the biggest difference between Kennedy and Romney is that there were large numbers of voters willing to reject Kennedy because he was Catholic; and I do not believe that the case with Romney.

Romney cannot fit the storyline of the Religious Right Boogeyman trying to impose a theocracy--so the media has to consistently try to throw his candidacy into the face of Relgious Right, saying, "This can't be your guy. Don't vote for him. It doesn't fit your bigotry."

My storyline is that your piece simply makes that prejudicial argument. And I could be wrong.

(Huckabee and Obama are my guys)

Again: What did you want him to say?????????

Posted by: letjusticerolldown | December 6, 2007 4:18 PM

"Okay, let's see you try to do a better job."

Well, I might start with the fact that Romney has struggled not because of his faith, per se, as much as the fact that tiptoeing around his faith has made him appear uninteresting.

Seriously, the article says nothing that hasn't been rehashed throughout the past year, and then Balmer offers a smug little slap at Bush.

Posted by: kevin s. | December 6, 2007 4:32 PM

As a minister, I find it interesting that many people believe that divinely inspired texts would come to a halt 2,000 years ago. I'm not a Mormon, but I do believe that God works (and speaks) through many people, even in this day and age. I have seen spiritual truth in the writings of many religions, including the Koran. The problem is that some people mis-intepret these writings (including the Bible).

Posted by: Rev Carla | December 6, 2007 4:33 PM

Jefferson and his Baptist allies agreed that Church and State should be separate, he for the sake of the State, they for the sake of the Church. As a born-again US citizen, I agree with both of them.
The devil's second best-trick ever was Constantine's Establishment of the Church; this secularization of the Church corrupted the Church and totally corrupted her witness.

Up till the last couple of centuries the true Church had been struggling to free herself from the secular yoke of the State. Then the last couple of decades the most vocal, most visible sect of the Church has again been corrupting herself, selling herself to the most corrupt element of the World, the Corporate elite, for thirty lousy pieces of silver.

The last couple of months have been hopeful for the soul of the Church,;the terms of this attempted Reestablishment of the Church seem to haver fallen apart. Thanks be to God, Who is Jealous for the purity and well-being of His Bride!

Posted by: Ted Voth Jr | December 6, 2007 4:41 PM

N.M. Rod, your last is the most insightful post I've seen on this thread. When, oh when as a country are we going to face up to the reality that our leaders need to be highly competent, knowledgeable, even exceptional, at making our large, diverse and complicated nation work? I can't help but think that so many people are giving "faith tests" to the candidates because they expect miracles. They want the candidate to be so close to God that the candidate will receive some kind of divine insight in how to pull us out of our current messes. Well, as a Christian of Reformed bent, I'm skeptical of this--I'd rather our leaders use their God-given brains to govern and the rest of us use our God-given brains in choosing them. And I would imagine God is quite tired of us expecting shortcuts.

Posted by: I and I | December 6, 2007 5:00 PM

Here we go again! Please America, stop allowing the claims of the candidates faith in God guide your decision about their honesty. Bush played that card to the max and look at where we are today. The real test of a shepherd is how well he cares for his flock. Many of these so called leaders are willing to sacrifice their friends, families, and faith in order to win. Stop looking at how cute a candidate is or is not. Study his or her past, present and what will become of our country, if you put them in "power!" Let the one TRUE GOD, not their wooden god, nor their corn stalk devils lead you at the polls.

Posted by: Shorty | December 6, 2007 5:08 PM

John G. Pierce is spitefully parroting a common lie about the Mormon church, that it is not Christian. Every major belief of the Mormon church has its roots in the Bible. If you are of the evangelical bent that believes a book compiled hundreds of years ago, in multiple versions, by multiple authors, somehow became the only inerrant "word of God" standard, then you might want to believe that Mormons are not Christian. Mormons simply believe that God's word is ongoing, that there are additional scriptures and new revelations today.

So, Mr Pierce, who are the valid Christian churches? the Catholics? (would that be Greek Orthodox or Roman?) which of the Protestant denominations are allowed to claim Christianity as their own? how about Evangelicals who discount both Catholics and other Protestants? and while we're at it, which version of the Bible is the "correct" one? It's complete foolishness to say Mormons are not Christian when their first principle is "Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ"

Posted by: Darrell | December 6, 2007 5:28 PM

"Politically conservative evangelical voters are a core constituency for the Republican Party. In order to win the Republican nomination, Romney needs the support of conservative evangelicals, especially in Iowa."

I think this is wishful thinking on Balmer's part. Guliani is a social liberal, Huckabee is a fiscal liberal.

"Leaders in the Religious Right preach that the First Amendment separation of church and state is a "myth," and seek taxpayer support for church-related schools."

Ok, when SoJo wants to raise taxes and conduct foreign policy supposedly "according to scripture", how is this not violating the separation of church and state just as much as the Religious Right does?

"Regarded as the most radical are the so-called Christian Reconstructionists, who believe it is God's mandate that Christians restore the use of biblical law in all areas of life (e.g., advocating the death penalty for blasphemy, homosexuality, etc). I don't know how much influence such teachings have had on the Christian conservatives, but there has been influence, I am sure."

Hardly any at all. But it doesn't stop liberals from pointing to them as typical.

Posted by: Brent | December 6, 2007 6:10 PM

Secular liberals want people to have faith and to speak about it. We just don't want to see it used to get votes. That's disgusting and it doesn't matter which side of the aisle do it on either.

p

Posted by: payshun | December 6, 2007 7:25 PM

When the church made the first lists of accepted texts, here was no sense that the canon was closed--their lists were saying "These are the best texts available to us at this time." No one said that better texts might not come later.

To use another example, the books about the Reformation shich were written at the time of the Reformation might not have the same objectivity as books about the Reformation that were written later. Later books would benefit from a larger perspective--why wouldn't books about Jesus be the same way?

Why would the best and most authoritative books about Jesus have to be written in a certain time frame? Did the Holy Spirit say, "You've got one century guys--write 'em fast!"? Why couldn't there be more inspired texts later? And why couldn't they have the same authority as those in the New Testament?

Posted by: Ashpenaz | December 6, 2007 9:37 PM

Why is the Oneness theology of T.D. Jakes more orthodox than Mormonism? Or the Prosperity Theology of Joel Osteen? Or the Dispesationalism of Tim LaHaye? I don't see any difference in terms of inspiration between the Scofield Reference Bible and the Book of Mormon.

Posted by: Ashpenaz | December 6, 2007 11:00 PM

Paul was an eyewitness of Jesus--but after Jesus' resurrection. As was John of Patmos. Why couldn't there be other eyewitnesses similar to Paul and John the Revelator today? If we assume that Paul was telling the truth about meeting Jesus, why don't we assume Joseph Smith was telling the truth? Or Muhammad, for that matter? Or St. Bernadette? Or Joan of Arc? Or Neale Donald Walsh? How do you know that Jesus didn't dictate A Course In Miracles? Is Jesus incapable of speaking to someone the way He did to Paul and John of Patmos? How do you know that?

You can say Paul went to the apostles for confirmation--true, but not all the apostles agreed with him. Apparently James thought that Paul was wrong about Jesus, as did Peter. And there were many early Christians who wanted to leave John the Revelator's work out of the canon, as did Luther. So who gets to decide? If you say, well, the Church, then do you agree with bishops and real presence and women having partial souls?

Again, how is the Scofield Reference Bible any different than the Book of Mormon?

Posted by: Ashpenaz | December 6, 2007 11:58 PM

The biggest problem I have is that Romney said that judges need to respect the religious underpinnings of the Consitution. That's a pretty horrible idea. Even if we accept that Christianity was behind the Constitution (as others have pointed out, Jefferson was a Deist, and the Founders were way more excited about science than religion) the idea of a judge considering the religous backing of the Constitution scares me.

This speech made me more wary of Romney. I never thought that the Prophet could just call him up and say, "Hey, invade Canada." But I didn't know what his Presidency would mean for religous tolerance.

Prophetic Progress: Kennedy versus Romney

Posted by: JimII | December 7, 2007 2:01 AM

Two thoughts:

Believing that the constitution is inspired by God will not result in more respect for it. You need only look to mean-spirited and intolerant attitudes of some of those here who claim a similar respect for the Bible;

Romney is falling victim to the intolerant attitudes of the constituency he is attempting to court. On some level it serves him right. Romney and the right wing reactionary evangelicals (not all evangelicals, mind you) would make good political bedfellows if they were not separated by religious dogma.

Posted by: JamesMartin | December 7, 2007 5:19 AM

JamesMartin: Please clarify how you desire these last two posts to contribute to a dialogue about this piece on Mitt Romney??

Multiple comments here debate Christianity, Mormonism, authority of religious texts, etc. And even those with obvious problems with Mormonism have not suggested that Romney be opposed on that basis.

I think Romney continues to be very unfairly treated, not by voters with a religious bias, but by a media storyline that requires 'conservative Evangelicals' to be biased against him. The equation is that since all evangelicals are conservative Republicans, and since they want to apply religious tests (imposing their faith)--they therefore must oppose a candidate who is a Mormon.

If they do not do so, then the storyline collapses. So he is constantly pushed and prodded on the issue. He has answered the same questions for a year. Huckabee will continue to be asked theological tests (as justintime does above)--again legitimized by the bias that since conservative Evangelicals want to impose their views (e.g. Christian Reconstructionists; do you know any?), therefore a Southern Baptist Preacher deserves to be quizzed on his theological positions. i.e. It is his fault.

I have little time for "God and Country" propoganda; But Sojo, I think this dynamic in this campaign is corrosive and if you can't call the media on their behavior, you weaken your capacity to continue to nurture an appropriate and healthy dialogue regarding faith and politics.

Posted by: letjusticerolldown | December 7, 2007 7:06 AM

......and as for evaluating Mitt Romney, someone commented about his efficiency as a manager. That's an excellent point. Whether Bill Clinton was/is a Christian or not, his disrespect for the Ten Commandments led to personal habits which did not further his work as a leader! The abundant evidence suggests quite the contrary for Mitt Romney, whatever we think about Mormon texts and Mormon Temples.

Posted by: Witness for Peace | December 7, 2007 7:51 AM

Once again, to paraphrase Luther:

I'd rather my nation be governed by a competent Mormon than an incompetent (orthodox) Christian.

I have reasons why I won't vote for Romney, none of which have anything to do with the fact that he's a Mormon. But my reservations about Romney are beside the point. So, as far as I can see, are theological debates about the character of Mormonism.

So why are we so worked up about telestial kingdoms, open and/or closed canons, and sacred underwear? Romney felt, though, that he needed give an address, clarifying how his faith might influence how he would govern. From my perspective, that's perfectly valid, given all the misinformation about Mormonism. Randall Balmer was giving us his perspective on how effective Romney's speech was. Was Balmer's essay a reason to let loose about why the LDS church is or isn't a cult?

Seriously, the article says nothing that hasn't been rehashed throughout the past year, and then Balmer offers a smug little slap at Bush.

As I said before, it wasn't smug and it wasn't a slap. It was only the truth. In fact, I would like to hear more. All Americans who believe in the rule of law should be concerned about this issue. To me, it's the most important issue we face as a nation.

If you think Balmer is wrong, then tell me, how has the Bush administration been upholding the Constitution, given actions lilke unauthorized wiretapping, signing statements, ignoring treaties approved by the Senate under their Constitiutional authority to approve treaties (such as the Geneva Conventions)?

I would like the 2008 candidates to discuss how they, as president, would restore the Constitutional balance of powers that has been so seriously eroded both by administration disregard and Congressional inaction.

Peace,

Posted by: Don | December 7, 2007 8:23 AM

Witness For Peace--Partially agree with comment about the range of reasons voters have. I seldom feel (and I doubt most voters feel the same) there is a representation of my views in the media or political dialogue.

However, I also believe there are greater commonalities in national elections than we often acknowledge. My vote for President is my one "Presidential Act." I cannot ever remember entering a ballot booth thinking, "OK, what will advance my interests?" I suspect large numbers of people are attempting to apply bedrock principles.

I believe "Good Management" is widely desired. I much appreciated with Al Gore's VP work on innovation and efficiency in government. The scale of the bureaucracy on top of the scale/power of systems (e.g. economic, technological)making up our complex, urbanized world; demands a lean/effective administrative branch.

At this point I believe the two parties are hindrances to good management as their interest in power subverts all. Some year there is going to be a third-party ticket come out of nowhere that will bring in 20% of the electorate that does not vote, win 15% of the electorate that normally votes; and take the election.

Gore/Romney for President--The Gory Party--The new GoP!

Shalom.

Posted by: letjusticerolldown | December 7, 2007 8:50 AM

One has to admit that Balmer's tone is in sharp contrast to others who often post here, like Diana Butler Bass and Brian McLaren, who are generally thoughtful and even-tempered. Balmer's resentment of Romney, Christian conservatives, and even Mormons (who are great at "family values") drips off so much of this essay. He basically rehashes what has been standard commentary with this kind of smug condescension. It's very off-putting.

Posted by: jesse | December 7, 2007 9:28 AM

The supposed need for this speech is another great example of how attachment to man-made doctrines and religious labels cause us to miss the point of divinity and thus, we are divided. Lost in labels is what so many are. Underlying these differences in doctrines (which are made by men) are beings who must learn to live in this human experience as loving human beings, which is hard enough without being so divided by our belief that our religions and "beliefs" should divide us from other beings.

Posted by: Aaron B | December 7, 2007 10:16 AM

Posted by: justintime | December 7, 2007 10:24 AM

'...misguided intentions and flawed reasoning - hijack our Democracy.
'...authoritarianism of the Christian Right.'

Please - you really believe that the American Voters are that dumb that they can be 'hijacked'? I think that the avg American voter is connected and involved in the process. Take into consideration that the rise of the 'religious right' was in the 80's into the early 90's when the big 4 (ABC-CBS-NBC-CNN) basically at total control of the news in the US. Maybe their (RR)message communicates to the avg voter better than the hate of what I hear some liberals say. Maybe their ideals are more in sync with the avg American?

Blessings -
.

Posted by: Moderatelad | December 7, 2007 10:45 AM

Leave it to evangelicals to argue about the political equivalent of how many angels dance on the head of a pin while the whole world goes to hell in a handbasket. Get a grip you guys! People in Sudan are dying. People are getting slaughtered in Iraq and radical Islam is growing thanks to the poor ideologically-based planning of our current neoconservative government. Americans are going broke over a horrible war. Our civil rights are being subverted at every turn by the current administration, and you're worried about somebody's underwear??? Geez!

Posted by: Kate Maver | December 7, 2007 11:39 AM

Mark is the earliest gospel. Let's say someone finds a package containing all of Mark's interviews, research, the Q gospel, etc. Since those things are earlier than Mark and closer to the actual time of Jesus, wouldn't those then be more "canonical"? Would we then have to replace Mark with these earlier works in our Bibles? The fact that they are closer in time to Jesus and might even contain a letter Jesus wrote would make them more reliable, wouldn't it? Or would Mark still be the only inspired text? Would our canon remain closed, even to an authentic letter written by Jesus Himself?

If you can imagine earlier, better sources than the gospels, then what would you do if an angel told you to "Dig here!" and you found the golden tablets containing sources which were written before Mark? Why wouldn't you believe them?

Posted by: Ashpenaz | December 7, 2007 11:44 AM

Oops, that wasn't the best paraphrase of LetJusticRollDown's question. Which is a more authentic witness to the truth, the Schofield Reference Bible or the Book of Mormon?
Blessings,
Witness for SHALOM

Posted by: Witness for Peace | December 7, 2007 12:06 PM

You can fool some of the people all of the time.

You can fool all of the people some of the time.

While you can't fool all of the people all of the time, you can fool enough of them, enough of the time.

Especially if you confirm their own flattering self-deceptions to them.

That's the sad history of mankind, including these United States!

Posted by: N.M. Rod | December 7, 2007 12:46 PM

He has done very little to show that he is taking the moral high road in this campaign season--he is scripted and slick and saying what he thinks the base wants to hear (his religion notwithstanding). But I gotta give him credit: he's the only candidate from either party that is actually playing down his religion rather than milking it for all its worth.

Yes, he is a politician's politician. His statements and policies are those he thinks will be most politically advantageous for him. He has flip-flopped on a number of issues, indicating his moral principles, if any, are much less important to him than political power. Like most politicians, his real religion is actually quite obvious - he worships himself.

He isn't milking his "religion" (Mormonism) because he understands that the LDS faith is viewed with great suspicion by many voters. His speech sought to place himself in the mainstream of Christianity, which is what seems politically most beneficial to him.

It is certainly debatable about whether Mormonism should be considered Christian (2 Cor. 11:4 warns against preaching "another gospel" which Mormons very literally do), but I'm not sure that in practice it departs further from the Gospel than do many legalistic fundamentalist or conservative evangelical churches.

Posted by: Bill Samuel | December 7, 2007 2:10 PM

"That someone capable of writing something so banal teaches at an Ivy League university is baffling, and goes a long way toward explaining why Ivy Div schools lack the esteem accorded their other graduate and undergraduate programs."

One of their profs makes one statement you don't like, and you broadbrush their entire system...

Posted by: squeaky | December 7, 2007 2:45 PM

The Book of Mormon, presumably, was written before any of the other gospels. It just wasn't discovered until later. In that way, it's just like the Dead Sea Scrolls or the Nag Hammadi library. How is it different? Also, there would be no way for the early church fathers to consider the Book of Mormon for canonization since it was written in America and they had know way of knowing about it. Had they known about it, they might have canonized it.

If the Book of Mormon was written before any of the other gospels, wouldn't that make it more authentic? If we discovered a lost text which we could prove was written by, say, Thomas or Peter, wouldn't we have to consider it more authentic than Luke who put together materials from second-hand sources? On what basis do you say that the Book of Mormon is not exactly what it says it is? How is Joseph Smith any different than those who discovered the Dead Sea Scrolls?

Posted by: Ashpenaz | December 7, 2007 3:36 PM

John G. Pierce commented:
Any group which denies the Trinity and especially the divinity of Jesus
and/or the Holy Spirit is cultic and therefore
not genuinely Christian. This includes LDS,
Watchtower, Unification, Christian Science, and
many others.

The first Article of Faith of the LDS church says:

We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in his son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.

And the second article of faith:

We believe that through the atonement of Christ all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel.

How does that NOT indicate a believe in the trinity (or Godhead, as Mormons call it) and the redeeming power of Jesus Christ's atonement?

Posted by: Darrell | December 7, 2007 4:58 PM

Age isn't the only criteria for biblical texts. No one I know of was martyred over the authenticity of the Epic of Gilgamesh!
There are things like archaeological attestation (enormous for biblical texts), scholarship from other religions (Many if not most of the OT texts are in the hands of non-Christian Hebrew scholars as far as I know), even paleonumismatics (according to my friend the Hebrew professor and "Keeper of the Coins" at one of the Harvard museums). All of these things are entirely lacking for the Mormon documents.
Mitt Romney can believe otherwise as long as he appoints Supreme Court Justices who understand their oath to the Constitution of the United States, not to random documents from wherever.

Posted by: Witness for Peace | December 7, 2007 5:27 PM

People have been martyred for the authenticity of the Book of Mormon. Wouldn't that make it true, by your standard?

Posted by: Ashpenaz | December 7, 2007 5:37 PM

"JamesMartin--Thank you for considering my request to explain your posts." letjusticerolldown

You're welcome. What is your concept of being self-righteous and condescending?

Posted by: JamesMartin | December 7, 2007 6:13 PM

Every post he has written is a combination of shallow analysis combined with hissy commentary. From what I understand, his book is written in a similar vein. Kevin S.

I guess that shallowness is in the eye of the beholder. Some here might well level the same charge against many of your s"enlightened statements" posted here.

Posted by: JamesMartin | December 7, 2007 6:17 PM

Ashpenaz,
Your question was,
"How is Joseph Smith any different than those who discovered the Dead Sea Scrolls?"

Before switching the subject, let's finish with your original question. The Dead Sea Scrolls have stood up to scholarly inspection.

On the subject of Mark (Gospel of). You are correct in saying we don't have the original autograph of Mark. But we do have an early historical record that proves that Mark was widely circulated.
Secondly, the Gospel of Mark was not written in some mystery language that only a so-called prophet could read with special glasses. It was written in the language of the day and copied for circulation in the languages of the day. In other words, we have early copies of Mark in the language it was written in with testimonies from respected men who would lay there lives down for that gospel.
We also have telling evidence that Mark has not changed over the years.(some believe the ending of Mark was tacked on about AD 125, I don't).
The BoM has continually changed over the years with some embarrassment of of the LDS. Not to mention wholesale plagarism of the KJV Bible.

Jeff

Posted by: Jeff | December 7, 2007 7:24 PM

No one has addressed the troubling aspect of Romey's talk. Although, I am a Christian, I respect the rights of Americans to worship or not worship any religion they deem echoes their belief. When you have a candidate that indicates or implies that only churchgoers are valid as American citizens I worry. I support the separation of church and state for that matter. We blur those lines any more the nation will be in trouble.

Posted by: Diana Madoshi | December 7, 2007 8:08 PM

"Some here might well level the same charge against many of your s"enlightened statements" posted here."

They are free to idenfity such statements as they arise. Either way, I am not an Ivy League professor. I am not charged with educating whomever it is Div schools seek to educate these days.

Also, for those who would defend Mormonism here, please deal with the arguments raised. I have seen very few of them addressed.

Posted by: kevin s. | December 7, 2007 11:25 PM

How could an unbeliever read this thread and think that Christianity is a unifying spiritual presence or even a commonly held set of beliefs?

My trouble with Romney is that he believes in fighting wars of aggression either for some vague ideological reason, or more likely for control of resources and territory. He would make an excellent Roman emperor with his "management" skills, and would be impressive as the face of today's fascistic Rebublican party. I think most American Christianity is as silly as Mormonism, and for the most part, as far from the example and teachings of Jesus. Any way, most Americans are equally ignorant about Mormonism, Christianity, the constitution, and American history; they will not go out of their way to research what a candidate really thinks and will not vote for someone who most closely represents their views. Romney is TV Doctor handsome and can spout meaningless nonsense with the best of them. He is smarter than G Bush but the Republican machine doesn't really care about anything but corporate power and global imperial dominance. Romney is fine with them.

I think the trinity is nowhere to be found in the OT or what Jesus taught. It is pulled out of the"scriptures" by force and is really about reinforcing patriarchal power structures which Jesus challenged.

Posted by: jonabark | December 8, 2007 1:34 AM

"Can we be more clear in enunciating that the new reading of the separation of Church and State is a secularist falsification. Much as fundamentalists look for "proof Texts" in Scripture, ignoring the guidance of Tradition, people now are abusing the Constitution and ignoring what the legislative history tells about the intentions and meanings of the Founding Fathers. Lead on good sisters and brothers." Franko

Might this be the ghost of Francisco Franco calling to us?

I do realize one has a "c" and the other a "k" but it is a hard "c" nevertheless and the content appears to the same. Viva la Patria! Viva la iglesia! And as our little neighbor to the South, Speedy Gonzalez would, say: "Andale!"

Posted by: JamesMartin | December 8, 2007 8:25 AM

While I appreciate humor, I'm not sure mockery is appropriate here. This is much wisdom hidden, perhaps, behind Franko's passion.

. One of the results of the
Constitution's prohibition of a state church has been the proliferation of denominations, especially as links with state churches in Europe were difficult to maintain. As with any human institution, problems of sinful divisiveness arose as well. But in other ways, different aspects of God's truth was illumined.
But we cannot blame our Founders for the suppression of religion that Franko rightly decries. We have a new state religion of secularism. I think by referring to the context, religious and otherwise, of the Constitution, Mitt Romney might actually help reverse this trend.
It is sad to see "fascistic" used as a slur on all Republicans. If you need to hunt down and purge authoritarian government, look no farther than the aggressive secularists who would prohibit Bible clubs from meeting in elementary schools while falsely claiming they believe in freedom of religion.

For peace and God's wholeness SHALOM

Posted by: Witness for Peace | December 8, 2007 9:10 AM

Thirty-Five years ago when I began to become interested in religion and the bible I welcomed into my apartment two young Mormon men (teenagers really) who were doing their one or two year ministry. Not knowing anything about Mormonism or even Christianity for that matter I was glad to talk to someone about my blossoming interest. After a few visits I decided their particular brand of religion was not for me. One question those two polite, respectful, clean cut kids asked me concerning the book of Mormon has stuck in my mind: "Could this book have been written by a man?" The answer they were seeking from me of course was: "No, of course not. It was supernaturally written and inspired."

My answer to that question today is: "Yes. It could only have been and indeed was written by a man." That is my answer for all "holy books" including the books of the bible. They were ALL written by men. They are all human works. They are all filled with fanciful, magical stories that never actually happened. (Asking if they really happened is the wrong question. The correct question is: "What do the stories mean?") The authors had a specific agenda in writing the stories they contain. Today adherents to the religions they have spawned have elevated their books to supernatural status as if a supernatural being somewhere dictated every word. When we believe this we make our religions nothing more than superstitions which assure that we are kept in a perpetual state of childlike awe. This gives rise to the religious wars of words we see raging around us and right here on sites such as this. "My god is better than your god. My god is the one true god. My god is real yours is false. Only I have the correct understanding. Only my beliefs are in line with truth." Childish rants. But very dangerous childish rants.

What is needed is adult Christian reeducation. We need to move beyond the childhood perceptions we learned in Sunday School to a more mature understanding of the bible and all things religious. The stories in the bible are not literally, historically, factually true stories. They are metaphorical stories written to give hope to communities of individuals who had lost everything. They were written around the destruction of two temples in Jerusalem, one in 586 bce and the second in 70 ce. They gave the people who lived through those cataclysmic events a spiritual and religious identity. They can do the same for us in our own time if only we can discard the superstition, strive for a higher and mature level of consciousness, and seek the truth revealed within their pages and in every mature human heart and mind.

Posted by: jackfate | December 8, 2007 10:44 AM

Terry, you're going to have oddballs in any large group. And sadly, they'll be the most noticable.

. To answer a question, though it has no bearing on Mitt Romney's exc. qualifications for office: The Trinity is a picture used to explain God. It attained the status of doctrine because no better explanation was available. It is quite literally a mystery, although one of supreme importance if we are truly trying to understand God (as opposed to trying to embarrass "heretics" or win arguments.)
If you look for it, it's all over the place. If you don't like it, please feel free to ignore the evidence: God the Father speaking to Jesus at the baptism with the Dove descending is the most graphic. Jesus promising to send the Holy Spirit because He was returning to the father. In the OT, God, speaking in Isaiah 11, promising to send his Servant, the root from Jesse, and to place the Spirit of Yahweh upon him.
Lest you think I'm some straight laced, theologically correct sort (one of the those fascistic Republicans, perhaps, though I'm VERY Independent), allow me to add: my pastor has actually projected ICONS on the front wall of the church! (It was an E. Orthodox depiction of equality and fellowship w/in the trinity.) At the other end of the sanctuary is--gasp--a depiction of God the Father in stained glass! I've never before worshiped in a church with a real steeple, so this is actually a new experience for someone now in the prime of life. And friendly debates in cyberspace are still fresh and vital as well.

Posted by: Witness for Peace | December 8, 2007 10:52 AM

Rudy, I'm not sure what you mean. "...not going to do something and then do it."
And I, too, wish that better leaders than Mitt Romney would make themselves available. I really do.
JackFate: How can you be so sure that these things didn't happen? Was Jesus real? Is he still buried somewhere? Are Esther and King David mythical?
Blessings,
Witness for Peace

Posted by: Witness for Peace | December 8, 2007 11:09 AM

Thanks for your thoughts, but I wouldn't die for no metaphor! Neither did Paul or Peter....

Posted by: Witness for Peace | December 8, 2007 12:58 PM

Well, that's a mighty personal question for a public forum! I hope I'd be willing to lay down my life for anything Jesus asked me to do.
Since you asked the question, would you?

Posted by: Witness for Peace | December 8, 2007 1:48 PM

Well to be fair Jackfate miracles do happen. THey are rare, but they do happen. My life is living proof of that. I had a near fatal illness, I got prayed for I got better. I have friends that have met others that are raised from the dead. I have literally one degree of separation from it. Some of the stories are indeed myth like Jonah but most of the healing stories are actual history. They still happen today but there are plenty of places where it doesn't. So again I would not dismiss all of it because it doesn't conform w/ your world view.

p

Posted by: payshun | December 8, 2007 2:02 PM

Dietrich Bonhoeffer wrote that ".... when Christ calls he bids you to come and die." (paraphrase)

Makes the "calling" a bit more challenging than the romanticized platitude about accepting Jesus as "Lord and Saviour" doesn't it?

Posted by: jackfate | December 8, 2007 2:21 PM

My point here is not to defend Mormonism. I'm not a Mormom--I'm an Episcopalian. My point is to say check the speck in your theological eye before you condemn others. Anyone who believes that Dispensationalism or Prosperity Theology is OK has no right to question a Mormon's belief. If you believe that God is going to magically lift you up out of your clothes into the sky, or that a magic handkerchief can bring you money, then don't complain when someone else believes in magic books and magic glasses.

Posted by: Ashpenaz | December 8, 2007 4:09 PM

Ashpenaz,
You asked very specific questions, first concerning the authority of texts and then the reasoning behind what is seen as heretical. All I did was give you the answers to those questions to the best of my ability.

Bringing in Prosperity, Dispensationalism and other theologies seems to be a red herring.

Jeff

Posted by: Jeff | December 8, 2007 5:24 PM

Ashpenaz,
"Take the theological speck out of your eyes before judging others."
What's with the tone? We are dialogueing and wham! this accusation. What is up with that? I dealt with these questions, we disagree. There is no point in being disagreeable.

In addition. I do not believe anyone has ever seen this magic book, because it never existed. Back to the scholarly scrutiny of the texts. The Book of Mormon translated by J. Smith could not stand up to scholarly inspection. The canonical writings have and continue to be thoroughly and critically examined. To hold the Mormon writings to the same standard is reasonable.

As far as your other point, the differences you may have with other theologies are minor in comparison of the central question, Who is Jesus?

If you are wrong about the rapture it won't cost you your soul. If you are wrong about Jesus, it will.

Jeff

Posted by: Jeff | December 8, 2007 6:26 PM

Well put Jeff.
We don't judge others, but we do judge whether beliefs are true or false. Some are true, some are debatable, and others are false. The Book of Mormon has never been proved to be anything but an interesting fabrication. The religion that grew out of it is fascinating, nonetheless.

Posted by: Witness for Peace | December 8, 2007 8:27 PM

Ashpenaz,
Acts 4:12 is a good start as well as Romans 10:9-13. If we believe that salvation comes through Jesus the Christ, then our belief in who Jesus is is very important. If someone presents a Jesus to you that is not eternal, not incarnate is the brother of Lucifer, did not die on the cross and physically raised from the dead they present a false Christ.

Scholarship is not about teams. Scripture has stood the test of time and challenges of all types from very early on and still is scrutinized not only by Christian scholars but by plain old scholars. I don't know what Hitchens, Harris, Dawkins or Dennett would say. Let them take their best shot. Long after these men are gone the Word of God will still remain.

Lastly, I don't surround myself with people who agree with me (a judgemental statement from you). I am constantly speaking with people of very different views who challenge me and allow me to challenge them.

Jeff

Posted by: Jeff | December 8, 2007 10:02 PM

Jeff, you didn't quote Jesus. Peter and Paul are just human beings, interpreting their experience in their own context. That's useful, but it's not Jesus' words. If you want to believe what men say, that's fine, but I'm going to trust the words of God's Only Son. What did Jesus say was necessary for salvation?

Letjusticerolldown--I get the distinct impression you are a Monophysite bibliolater--is that the case?

I believe Jesus is the Word of God made flesh--not the Bible. If you want that kind of book, I think the Koran would work for you. I'm going to stick with Jesus, whose flesh and blood I feed on in the Eucharist. Knowing Jesus in the bread and wine came long before any book, so that's what I trust.

Posted by: Ashpenaz | December 9, 2007 12:42 AM

I like the Bible.

It's a collection of writings that I have found helpful as I journey through life. I can dip into it when I want for comfort and wisdom. I also find many of the characters fascinating.

Some of the individual writings such as the book of Genesis and the Psalms are really quite beautiful. And I'm sure no human being (even Shakespeare) could have come up with the kinds of words attributed to Jesus, especially in John's story - words which have led me to believe that Jesus is the saviour of the world.

However, if I'm honest, I find most of the collection quite boring, especially the Old books and the Prophets. And, with a few notable exceptions (such as a letter to his friends in Rome and his treatise on love) I find Paul's writings difficult to access. He comes across as a bit of a whinger who frankly could have done with a lot more sex in his life.

I appreciate that the Bible means far more to some people than I am giving credit for here and I respect that position. But I just don't see it myself.

I guess if I were to give an explanation as to why I don't see a need to be bound to this collection of writings as a single work, it would simply be -

If the faith of the early believers was in no way affected by the absence (I understand it was 400 or so years after Jesus that this collection came together) of a recognised collection of holy writings (I'm talking about the 66 individual writings that constitute the modern bible - not the older writings that the early church had) then neither should my faith in any way be subject to its presence today.

I like the Bible. It has its moments.

Posted by: Bruce | December 9, 2007 2:31 AM

"And the problem I have with the idea of a god who magically heals is that it is selective. It is inconceivable to me that a loving god would heal one person but let the other guy down the hall die."

No argument from me on that. I share your frustrations and your doubt. It is selective, extremely so. I survived a near fatal illness where a really close friend of mine did not. Why did I live when she died? I struggled w/ that question a lot. In my view she was more deserving of life than I was.

But I don't see death as the universal "big bad" any more. I see death as an gateway to immortality so for me if someone dies I expect to see life come of it. I don't know how. Quite honestly that is irrelevant for me. But when it comes to be aware and full of praise.

That's not to say that death doesn't hurt or that in many cases it is wrong but I think we need to step out of our mortality a bit and look at the big picture. Death is unfair. It's designed that way. So we can howl at the moon and death in a way that wastes our life or bring life, joy, love, hope and peace into the lives of others. Some can bring more life into this place after they die so...

As for the healing stories I definitely don't believe they were metaphorical. The details are too striking. Spitting in the dirt and making a clay and putting it in someone's eye. Friends going thru thatched roofs to bring healing. People falling out of windows and then being brought back. Lazurus alone is in my view a historical fact. He did die and was brought back.

Healings are supposed to rare. That's why they were spectacular because it puts to lie that death and pain have eternal control over our lives. The truth is life and love do if we let it. That's the hard part.

p

Posted by: payshun | December 9, 2007 8:30 AM

"Believing the Bible doesn't make anyone a bibliolator. The description of the eucharist by Ashpenaz limits faith to a narrow, individualistic, subjective, and wholly personal experience. It is indeed personal, but we need brothers and sisters to lovingly hold us accountable. See posts above!Blessings,Darrell
Posted by: Witness for Peace |"

Agreed. If the Bible is being used and viewed correctly it leads us to Christ and his transcendant love. What rises to the level of idolatry is when a person or a group says that one must absolutely adhere to their interpretation of the Bible to be considered Christian. Even then it probably does not constitute bibliolatry, rather the interpretation and not the Bible itself becomes the idol. The flip side to this, of course, is that there are then no absolutes. That is a valid criticism. But then again, conservative evangelical christianity has never been very good at allowing for subtlety and nuance.

Posted by: JamesMartin | December 9, 2007 10:27 AM

"What is needed is adult Christian reeducation. We need to move beyond the childhood perceptions we learned in Sunday School to a more mature understanding of the bible and all things religious. "

In other words, we need to stop believing what we believe, and become more mature... By believing what you believe.

That, friend, is an immature thing to say, and the suggestion that Christians believe as they do because their theological exploration ceased after grade school is simple hubris. By all appearance, your's ceased when you encountered a theology who ascribed to your own worldview.

"My mind tells me that this did not really happen..."

Forgive me if I don't readily embrace your appeal to authority here. You have done an adequate job explaining why and how metaphor is effective. What you have not done, however, is make any sort of case that the Bible is metaphor as opposed to literal truth.

"Makes the "calling" a bit more challenging than the romanticized platitude about accepting Jesus as "Lord and Saviour" doesn't it?"

In some ways. In other ways, we are liberated from our sinful nature, and are rewarded with peace and joy that comes from God. I find the notion that my flesh can be put to death to be inspiring indeed.

"I'm not sure that Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, or Daniel Dennett would agree that the Bible has survived scrutiny."

This is the equivalent of saying Calculus does not exist because some people do not understand it.

"I believe Jesus is the Word of God made flesh"

Why do you believe this? Where did you get your information? Did you come up with this narrative on your own?

Posted by: kevin s. | December 9, 2007 1:53 PM

"helped me to get to know more about Him."

He helped you to get to know more about Him. Good. How did you get to know more about Him? Was the Bible in any way involved? What about people who had read the Bible?

Posted by: kevin s. | December 10, 2007 1:23 AM

I'm tempted to say something like "Bruce needs to write a book"
But really, I don't think he has spoken verbally with people who've walked next to Jesus. Nor is his vision anything like Paul's, if that's what he's trying to say. (But if I'm mistaken and it was, I'm eagerly awaiting the story of your commissioning as a missionary to the Middle East).
Your opinions are valid as such, but as statements of fact they're simply inaccurate, sorry.
Blessings,
Darrell

Posted by: Witness for Peace | December 10, 2007 6:05 AM

"The same way the early church got to know Jesus."

That is no longer possible. We need to study the thousands of manuscripts from those who did get to know Jesus that way. We will come to some differences of opinion, but not the radical subjectivism of Ashpenaz. He may still be a Christian in spite of this; that's not my point. The point is that this is poor reasoning and methodology, as Kevin S. has said better than I.

Posted by: Witness for Peace | December 10, 2007 6:32 AM

The early church did not have the Bible. They had the OT and some NT literature may have been in circulation among certain churches.

Unless I'm mistaken, inerrancy pertains to the 66 books that make up the Bible today.

So, to recap an earlier comment, if the faith of the early church was in no way affected by the absence of ‘the definitive’ collection of holy writings (i.e. the 66) then I really don't see why my faith should in any way be subject to its existence now.

Posted by: Bruce | December 10, 2007 8:10 AM

Thanks for your comments :)

Posted by: Bruce | December 10, 2007 8:43 AM

Actually, the baptism came before the actual feeding on the Body and Blood in the above story. Intially, I just sat in the presence of Jesus in the sacraments while His disciples told stories about Him. Then I was baptized, and then I was able to enter into the intimate act of feeding on His body and blood.

Posted by: Ashpenaz | December 10, 2007 11:24 AM

He helped you to get to know more about Him. Good. How did you get to know more about Him? Was the Bible in any way involved? What about people who had read the Bible? Posted by: kevin s

Anybody ever see History of the World Part I? Kevin's dogged interrogation reminds me of that song- "The Inquisition".

Is that you, dear brother Kevin S. or the ghost of the long, lost Torquemada?

Posted by: JamesMartin | December 10, 2007 1:04 PM

Professor Balmer gives us absolutely no analysi of Romney's speech itself, but just dismisses it out of hand. He recounts the issues that Evangelicals criticize about Mormon beliefs, without addressing the fact that Episcopalians and Evangelicals have profound doctrinal differences, including ones that shade into political issues like abortion and homosexual marriage. What Balmer and many other critics of Romney try to obscure is the fact that, on all the political issues that are informed by their Christian faith, Romney is much closer theologically, as a Mormon, than Balmer is as an Episcopalian! The fact that both Baptists and Episcopalians pay lip service to belief in the Trinity (just try to get any member of either church to explain it cogently without lapsing into a classic heresy such as Monophysitism) has absolutely NO effect on their deep differences on the political issues that divide liberals form conservatives, and which are tied to religious beliefs about the authority of scripture to govern sexual behavior.

The Bible is explicit (in a clear translation) that homosexual behavior is not acceptable to God, yet Episcopalians are on the verge of splitting from the Anglican Communion over their rejection of that part of the Bible.

By contrast, Mormons believe the Bible is the Word of God and take those passages condemning homosexual acts as being authoritative.

Many Episcopalians ambrace similar discrepancies between heterosexual behavior and the injunctions of scripture.

Mormons believe in celibacy outside of marriage. Adultery is an occasion for excommunication. They believe and obey the Bible, where Episcopalians do not.

In the area of public policy, where religious beliefs affect voters' views of what the law ought to be, Mormons are much closer to Southern Baptists in their religiuous beliefs than Episcopalians or liberal Methodists like Hillary Clinton.

Sharing a single point of doctrine does not mean that other profound points are shared. Episcopalians might claim they honor the Bible as the sole scripture, but they don't honor it with obedience in the way Mormons do. Many Episcopalian ministers aren't even sure that Jesus was resurrected, or that He was born of a virgin or was divine. Mormons are rock solid that those things are true. Mormons are closer to Baptists theologically than Episcopalians in the places where it counts, in simple behavior and acceptance of God's laws.

Mormons do have original beliefs that are not in the Bible--but baptism for the dead is not one of them! See I Corinthians 15:29. It is a practice based on belief in the words of I Peter 3 and 4 about post-mortal evangelization of the dead, which was initiated by Jesus between his death and resurrection. It is a belief that was held by early Christians. Paul knew the Corinthian saints were practicing it and used it as an argument for the Resurrection of all mankind. In a long epistle condemning improper practices and beliefs, Paul did NOT condemn baptism for the dead. This is just one example of where Mormons are living more in accordance with the Bible than other Christians. Many Christians pay lip service to the authority of the Bible, but Mormons actually live it.

The Mormon response to complaints about the Book of Mormon is simple: Man did not write the Book of Mormon, God did. No human minister of religion has authority to tell God that He must be silent, that He can speak to prophets and apostles from 1800 BC to 100 AD, but He must now shut up! God can speak when and to whom He pleases. Anyone who thinks that the warning to men to not tamper with John's Revelation somehow bars God from issuing knew revelations doesn't understand how the Bible came to be, nor who God is.

It might be convenient to say "There is no more revelation from God except this book", but the book was compiled by men, and some versions contained books that are not in modern Bibles, and others left some out that are. Luther almost threw out James and Revelation. So much for his respect for "sola sciptura".

Posted by: Raymond Takashi Swenson | December 11, 2007 10:26 PM

Witness for Peace wrote the following: It is sad to see "fascistic" used as a slur on all Republicans. If you need to hunt down and purge authoritarian government, look no farther than the aggressive secularists who would prohibit Bible clubs from meeting in elementary schools while falsely claiming they believe in freedom of religion.

First I said "today's republican party", a party which has consistently defended torture, the right to kidnap and hold without habeas corpus or due legal process and spying on anyone or seizing their records without a warrant. I am not claiming all Republicans support these fascistic practices, but that today's Republican party is fundamentally fascistic. This is not a slur. It is an accurately descriptive historical term describing an alliance between corporations, government, and the military usually driven by an us vs. them philosophy that scapegoats some evil other( Communists, Gays, terrorists, Islam, Jews, Liberals, counter-revolutionary capitalists, etc.) in order to unite people in a fearful submission to authorities. The Democratic party is deeply implicated in the fascistic practices which currently characterize American governance.

It is time to wake up from the MSM lies and see the truth. The constitutionally based rule of law is no longer operating in America. This is not something that might happen. It has happened. It can be restored, but it's not a matter of preventing fascism. It's a matter of dismantling it.

Your notion that people who would prevent bible clubs meeting in school constitute authoritarian excess at a time when human beings are being waterboarded, beaten , sexually humiliated and subjected to psychological abuse designed to destroy their personal identity is rather a stretch. A more realistic moral balance is needed.

Posted by: jonabark | December 13, 2007 10:29 PM

Who said anything about demons? I am talking about fascism, a word with a real historic and socio-political meaning. It is a topic that has been formally studied and is the subject of many books. I think an exchange would be more meaningful if you address words I say, not words you put in my mouth. My statements are either accurate or inaccurate. They have nothing to do with "demonizing".

As far as political parties, If I have to choose between respectfulness and truthfulnss, I choose truthfulness. I only offer respect to those who demonstrate qualities I consider respectable . This includes only a handful of elected representatives. I do critique both parties with direct honest fact based information. You have not challenged my facts, only the words I use to give meaning to those facts.

Posted by: jonabark | December 16, 2007 1:27 AM

Thanks for your message.
If you don't already understand the seriousness of the threat posed by those who would deny elementary school students freedom of religion, I really doubt I could convince you in this brief space. It is your context for understanding facts that is puzzling or disturbing or something.
Blessings,

Posted by: Witness for Peace | December 17, 2007 7:57 AM

Jonabark

Are you arguing that 'We the people' are really a fascists?

Posted by: letjusticerolldown | December 17, 2007 7:38 PM