Mitt Romney’s Defining Moment (By Randall Balmer)
In what may be the defining moment of his campaign, Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts and a Mormon, addressed the issue of faith and its bearing on his pursuit of the presidency. Pundits inevitably compared Romney's speech in College Station, Texas, with the speech that John F. Kennedy gave just down the road at the Rice Hotel, Houston, on September 12, 1960.
The parallels are unmistakable. Both men felt compelled to address what was openly discussed as the "religious issue" in 1960. Both men were reared in a tradition different from Protestantism, which claims the allegiance of at least a plurality (if not a majority) of Americans.
But the parallels end there. Unlike Mormonism, Roman Catholicism was well known to most Americans in 1960, although many Protestants had a jaundiced view of the Roman Catholic Church. Many Americans, by contrast, know little about Mormonism, officially named the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Many Americans see Mormons as strange and secretive; their temples, for instance, are closed to "gentiles" (non-Mormons). The Mormon notion of God as both male and female, baptism for the dead, and even the practice of wearing Mormon underwear (thought by many to have protective powers) strike many as unorthodox, if not downright bizarre.
For evangelicals, some tenets of Mormonism are particularly troubling. Mormons accept the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) and the New Testament as divinely inspired, but they believe that the Book of Mormon, discovered by Joseph Smith in Palmyra, New York, in 1827, is similarly inspired. And Mormons believe that the president of the Latter-day Saints is the conduit for continuing inspiration. Evangelicals, on the other hand, view the Bible (Old and New Testaments), as the "word of God" and their sole religious authority. For another religious group to add to the canon of scripture strikes most evangelicals as utter blasphemy.
These suspicions do not augur well for Romney. 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.
Throughout the early months of the campaign, Romney sought to downplay his faith, protesting that he was not a spokesman for Mormonism. But many voters, evangelicals especially, have not been mollified – which led him to the dais of the George Bush Library in Texas this morning to deliver his "JFK speech."
Two of the most compelling arguments central to Kennedy's speech in 1960, however, are not available to Romney. Kennedy unequivocally affirmed his "absolute" support for the separation of church and state, and he also foreswore government support for religious schools. Romney cannot echo those positions. 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.
So in the end, Romney was reduced to bromides about religious liberty and "family values." (Mormons are good at "family values.")
Ironically, Romney missed the opportunity to make his best case for a Mormon to be president. Mormons believe that America's charter documents, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, are actually divinely inspired. After seven years of an administration that views the Constitution as a nuisance, many Americans, I suspect, would welcome a president who sought to defend the integrity of the Constitution rather than subvert it.
Randall Balmer, an Episcopal priest, is professor of American religious history at Barnard College, Columbia University, and a visiting professor at Yale Divinity School. His most recent book, God in the White House: A History: How Faith Shaped the Presidency from John F. Kennedy to George W. Bush, will be released by HarperOne in January.
Add to:
Category: Elections, Evangelicals, Faith and Politics, Religious Right
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Comments
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.
Posted by: kevin s. | December 6, 2007 2:39 PM
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
CORRECTION:
My last comment above, "Okay, let's see you try to do a better job," was a response to this sentence:
For this level of astute analysis, the Ivy League charges $40k a year.
D
Posted by: Don | December 6, 2007 3:13 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
I liked Romney's speech. Not that I plan to vote Republican, but I think it might be good to have a Mormon in the White House because he would clearly be sensitized to the rights of religious minorities. He seemed to genuinely understand that the role of government is to avoid favoring or suppressing any one religion, while simultaneously supporting, even encouraging, citizens to seek their own spiritual truth.
Posted by: Dennis | December 6, 2007 3:49 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
Are Mormons Christians?
Posted by: justintime | December 6, 2007 4:05 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
Eric, most conservative Christians (and not-so-conservative Christians as well) probably share the same view of church-state relations that you so well articulated. However, there are some elements within the so-called "religious Right" that would blur the distinction almost completely. 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.
I'd send you to some Web sites but the ones I've seen appear to be quite partisan. If I run across a source that's more objective, I'll post it here.
Peace,
Posted by: Don | December 6, 2007 4:20 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
Romney is getting his just desserts. As long as he tries to pander to those who are intolerant toward the children of undocumented workers, he will get religious intolerance from them in return. 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.
Posted by: I and I | 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
Posted by: justintime | December 6, 2007 4:01 PM
'And just think, we get an unlimited quantity of regurgitated analysis from Kevin for absolutely nuthin!'
You are getting paid for what you post?
I want to get on that list. (lol)
Blessings -
.
Posted by: moderatelad | December 6, 2007 4:37 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
The greatest thing in Romney's favor is his proven competence in management.
That is certainly something we sorely need in this era where the administration (and therefore Republicanism, and unfortunately elements of Christianity) has become associated with government service meltdown and bureaucratic incompetence.
Platitudes just don't cut it anymore. I'd rather have any leader, regardless of religious affiliation, who knows how to make government run efficiently and fairly in accordance with constitutional norms.
For my theology, I'll go to church and read the Bible.
When I want government services, I'm concerned with competence in delivering them.
If we make religious belief a pre-emptive and overriding requirement for public service, then we're deteriorating into our own version of sectarian fundamentalism applied to politics, and we do no service to the whole nation, but appear as bigots. We might as well apply the requirement to driver's licenses or brain surgeon's credentials and it would make as much sense.
Posted by: N.M. Rod | December 6, 2007 4:45 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
Mormons are a non-Christian cult, which masquerades
as the only true Christianity. Examine their beliefs in detail (humans eventually becoming gods
of their own planets, etc.) and you will find no correspondence to the Bible -- which, by the way,
gives clear warning against adding to what it has
to say. (Rev. 22:18, 19) Joseph Smith did not "discover" the LDS sacred texts, as Balmer asserts. He wrote them as a poor imitation of the Bible, just as the Koran is a poor imitation written by a human being. Romney is entitled to believe what he will, but he at least ought to be honest about his beliefs, rather than trying to hide LDS doctrine under a bunch of vague talk. My own main concern is that a Mormon president would legitimize this cult in the eyes of many (and already far too many folks think of Mormonism as
simply another branch of Christianity, which it is not).
Posted by: John G. Pierce | December 6, 2007 5:03 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
This being the age of the Church, since the Holy Spirit fell on that Pentecost, a consistent reading of the Scriptures implies that prophecy, as discussed by Paul in 1st Corinthians 12, 13, and 14 should be an option for us today.
The difference between a Mormon (or Muslim) understanding of prophecy and a true Christian understanding is that Christian prophecy does not reveal any new doctrine beyond the received Scripture. Indeed the test of a word of prophecy is whether it bears up and agrees with Scripture.
The notion that prophecy was given to the early Church by way of revealing the doctrine they needed is, gently put, risible. The doctrine they needed was taught them by Paul and the other Apostles.
That doctrine is the rule by which any successive charisma of prophecy must be judged. If the prophecy is not Scriptural, then it's fleshly, or demonic, or both...
New Testament prophecy is given to 'stir up, build up, and cheer up' the Church. It's a way for God to fulfill His original purpose in creating us, to have friends He could talk to!
Posted by: Ted Voth Jr | December 6, 2007 5:19 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
Darrell, I am not spiteful, nor do I lie. Where in the Bible does one find a justification for sacred underwear? For telestial kingdoms? For Temple Marriage? If we can have additional scriptures today, then the floodgates are
opened for anyone to write anything and make a claim for "inspiration" for it. No, the canon had to be closed in the first century and approved by Church councils. Who are the "valid" Christian churches? All those who hold to the historic understandings of the Trinity, of substitutionary atonement, of the validity of the Scriptures alone. All the groups you mentioned do this, though they have different understandings of some aspects of the faith, and different norms for
interpretation. Which version of the Bible is the correct one? There is really only one. If you are talking about different translations, that's a separate matter. If you are talking about the
different underlying texts, the differences are
minimal. There is more agreement among Bible texts
than there is for Homer. * 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.
Posted by: John G. Pierce | December 6, 2007 5:38 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
The separation of church and state as we define it in our constitution - implied: The rule of law over justice via religious rituals and traditions is what matters here. We might be dangerously close to reversing this order. The LDS church aligns it's belief in being the "One True Church" with it's belief that the Constitution is a sacred document - A document by God or inspired by God. - Who gives the LDS church the authority to make this statement? LDS gives itself the authority. Also, I do believe that the framers of the constitution were deists. Believed more in a hands off God. Big difference! We might want to recall why our forefathers left their homeland and why George never became the first King of America - Washington this is.. Faiths such as LDS and Islam are young adolescent faiths in comparison to Jewish and Christian religions. They still have rituals honoring a magical god and a mythical god. I would argue that most Evangelical Christians are stuck in the same place. Some serious thought needs to happen when considering voting for anyone who practices any faith that believes it is the one true universal path to salvation. Both the LDS believe system with it metaphors and the Isamic believers with its Sharia law are not good for the health of our nation. Romney's LDS language shapes his thoughts - Has to be - It's the same for all of us. Finally, to compare Catholics to LDS: American Catholics are leaving the Church in record numbers. They are in the adult stage of faith and politics. Most of today's christians - Catholics included - do not practice a secret faith behind closed church doors. LDS does.
Here's the one question to ask Mitt. When you become a God, which planet will you choose to rule?
Posted by: Tom Pendergast | December 6, 2007 7:02 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
This question is for Mike Huckabee:
How old is planet earth?
Posted by: justintime | December 6, 2007 9:30 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
"Mormons believe that America's charter documents, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, are actually divinely inspired."
Until this point I didn't really care whether we have a Mormon in the White House or not... but this is a little hint of Divine Right (Manifest Destiny?), and that can't be a good thing. Although a religion that commands its inherents not to drag it into government sounds rather attractive at this point ;)
Posted by: Hali | December 6, 2007 9:41 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
Two points: 1. Conservatives are not demanding that the establishment clause be removed by amendment; they are complaining that a de facto amendment has removed the balancing clause concerning religion: Congress shall make no law "prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Federal and state legislatures have passed a host of laws which together prohibit free exercise of religion. Yet the bias of recent Justices has only looked to the "free exercise" clause in bizarre cases like use of hallucinogens in rituals.
2. A fair question was asked by Ashpenaz: "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?"
and the answer that comes to mind is that those were the only books that COULD be written about Jesus by eyewitnesses and their immediate associates. The church was unified, and localized enough at that time to decide what books were in common use by those churches who received direct revelation through the incarnation of Jesus. The Holy Spirit is certainly active today, as described by Paul to the Corinthians and elsewhere, but nothing will be revealed that contradicts anything that has already been said. Without a canon, we would have the chaos of "No, I want to believe THIS" instead of looking to God's revelation of Jesus in Scripture as an arbiter. Our reason enables us to read Hebrew, Greek, etc., but it is our sinfulness that leads us to change things "for these new times."
Posted by: Witness for Peace | December 6, 2007 11:41 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
Ashpenaz: the Scofield Reference Bible was printed in Wheaton, the of BoM in Salt Lake; that fact alone supports the superiority of the SRB, no?
justintime: Does a young earth wear magic underwear?
Posted by: canucklehead | December 7, 2007 1:41 AM
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
Ashpenaz,
Well to be fair it really does depend on how one interprets Revelation and Christ's final command to John there. I think there is no other way to slice it the cannon is closed. But that doesn't exclude the work of the mystics or the saints. As a matter of fact we should be using their testimonies and stories as a means of developing and growing our faith past the current western standards that limit and weaken the church and her union w/ Jesus.
Look at the great teachers like Thomas Merton, Basil Pennington and other great teachers like Bede Griffith, St. John of the Cross... If someone wants something deeper than the immature milk of Joel Osteen then they can go to the Orthodox, Catholic, or Coptic mystics. Heck the Quakers are a great source of real meat for protestants.
The cannon may be closed but that doesn't mean the Holy Spirit has stopped talking or that revelation ended. Quite the opposite actually, revelation must be a constant living oneness w/ God.
p
Posted by: payshun | December 7, 2007 3:07 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
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. Don
Why? Because they are so blinded by ideology and their blind devotion to a leader, that they cannot stand to hear any criticism of him.
Posted by: JamesMartin | December 7, 2007 5:23 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
In an election, you count the votes and inaugurate the winner. In a discussion of who to vote for and why, there are as many reasons as voters! Hence the wide ranging discussion.
So how do I evaluate Mitt Romney, and the comments of my brothers/sisters and friends? If the Origin of Species is an inspired text, then cripples and homosexuals should be allowed to die, or perhaps killed. But I'm a Christian, not a Darwinist, and the New Testament commands me to love them as I love myself and treat them the way Jesus would treat them--instead of in accordance to how they contribute to the furtherance of my favorite "revelation."
If Jesus isn't who John and Peter say he is, we are all in big trouble!
Blessings,
Witness for SHALOM
Posted by: Witness for Peace | December 7, 2007 7:36 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
Ashpenaz--So what do you think of your own questions? Do you think Scofield is no different than BOM?
I hold (I believe consistent with orthodox Christianity) that God reveals self to humanity in time and space through varied modes; and most completely in the form of a person. The eternal Word became human in-time flesh and dwelt among us.
The 'closing' of the canon does not 'close' God's self-revelation, activity, presence, nor power.
On what basis would you determine whether "Mein Kampf" was the word of God?????
Posted by: letjusticerolldown | December 7, 2007 7:56 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
Don, I'm not a Bush fan; shudder. But see what I said above how the "Free exercise" of religion has basically been amended from our Constitution by fiat, composed of little pieces of hugely wrongheaded jurisprudence.
And,
A hearty "Amen" to LtJusticeRollDown and to your
screen name, too, from one of my favorite prophets.
As we await aspenaz's answer, I'll proffer my own: how do these other books speak of Jesus? Do they affirm what he said, and what the disciples and other martyrs died for, that his witness was unique? I'm thrilled
that Luther didn't like James--now we know that he was really reading the book. Scripture--the Christian's "Constitution"-- must always be challenging us, and leading to illumination of what we know, and purging of what in us was wrong or immature. So how do these texts comport with what Jesus said?
Most of them flatly contradict many of his claims. Reason then forces us to chose: Jesus or Mohammad?
We
can still admire the discipline and abstinence of many Muslims, and pray that they will come to follow Isa
(Jesus)--instead of waging war and marrying a 9 year old.
As for claims to have "seen Jesus"-- the Church, aided by an honest understanding of Scripture, evaluates such claims. None will enter the official canon, but
many Classics--by Evelyn Underhill, St. John of the Cross, John Stott, Thomas Kelly, John Milton, even Bunyan and Dante--have attained near-canonical status for how they illuminate the Scriptures the Church has always looked to. The idea of the Church Universal is very much a Reformed tenet. We just don't agree that
the Roman Church is the WHOLE of the church universal,
just an important-and flawed-part of it. A friend who is far more conservative than I am pointed out that evangelicals and conservative Roman Catholics have far more in common theologically than either do with the
liberals in their respective denominations. And yet I don't want my denomination to split--many people have not given up on me as an individual, so why should I give up on theological liberals w/in my denomination no matter how far they stray and no matter how miserable they make
themselves in the process?
Posted by: Witness for Peace | December 7, 2007 8:43 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
Don, I belive there have been serious constitutional issues during this administration. First, that would seem rather common. Second, in some regards they are working in 'uncharted' territory.
I do not have a basis to say President Bush's attitude towards the Constitution is that it is a nuisance; nor that his motivation in governance has been to subvert it. When a writer is on one topic, and takes a hard turn in the last paragraph to ust level the charge, without delineation or explanation, then a bunch of readers are going to think something like this was a "smug little slap."
I am open to understanding the constitutional issues. Please recognize the rhetorical style Balmer employed turns ears away from hearing.
Posted by: letjusticerolldown | December 7, 2007 9:06 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
Jesse, I don't share your comments about the tone of Balmer's essay. It seems rather straightforward and objective to me, at least until one gets to the paragraph about church-state separation. I don't read any "dripping" of resentment for Christian conservatives, Mormons, or of Romney himself.
The church-state paragraph does contain an unspported statement, which has been addressed earlier. And maybe Balmer is showing his colors here as one who shares secularists' view of that issue. But calling his comments 'smug condescension' seems a bit much to me.
And yes, the way he introduced the Bush administration's disreagrd for the Constitutional separation of powers could be offputting to some--I admit that. But it is a topic that deserves to be addressed. (Letjustice: Was Balmer really making a "hard turn" when he addressed this issue--after all, he was talking about a point that he thinks Romney missed addressing.)
Perhaps, Jesse, your reaction to this essay was influenced by previous things Balmer has written. Since I don't recall reading anything from him before, I don't have that perspective.
Peace,
Posted by: Don | December 7, 2007 10:05 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
And just think, we get an unlimited quantity of regurgitated analysis from Kevin for absolutely nuthin! justintime - There is always a price to be paid- we have to read it. James Martin
I think Kevin and his cohorts perform a valuable service for this forum. They bring to light all of the misguided intentions and flawed reasoning that have been used, and continue to be used, by the Christian Right Wing to hijack our Democracy. By examining their arguments, we inoculate ourselves against the authoritarianism of the Christian Right.
If Kevin and his cohorts were not here, we would have to invent them.
Posted by: justintime | December 7, 2007 10:24 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
"JamesMartin: Please clarify how you desire these last two posts to contribute to a dialogue about this piece on Mitt Romney??" Letjusticerolldown
I will do so when the blog rules require that I give an accounting to you.
Posted by: JamesMartinq | December 7, 2007 11:17 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
Just an aside:
"Guliani is a social liberal, Huckabee is a fiscal liberal."
Hogwash. Huckabee by no stretch of the imagination is a fiscal liberal. Folks like Robert Novak have pointed to his support for tax restructuring in AR that resulted in some wealthier people having mild tax increases, but even he said it means Huckabee is not as fiscally conservative as some of the others--he didn't call him a liberal.
Stop spreading exaggerations. Lord knows we've got enough already.
Posted by: I and I | December 7, 2007 11:42 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
Thanks for your comment!
Additional and even superior texts are found all the time, and they are incorporated into our texts by translators if authentic. The circumstances of their discovery and their content make authentication possible if occasionally difficult.
A totally new revelation, changing a lot and adding even more, is a completely different story. It would result in the formation of a whole new religion, such as Mormonism. In spite of that, I respect Mitt Romney's qualifications and experience very much. He's far, far from perfect. But Mormonism isn't the issue.
BUT>>>> you still haven't answered LetJusticeRollDown's question: which texts do you believe and order your life by? We are curious, as it helps understand why you persist in these fascinating and polite questions!
Blessings,
Witness for SHALOM
Posted by: Witness for Peace | December 7, 2007 11:59 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
Ashpanez--Let me try a different question: "Do you believe there is a divine being who reveals self to humanity? Is it possible for humanity to know anything that is true external to our own created meanings?"
JamesMartin--Thank you for considering my request to explain your posts.
What is your concept of dialogue??
Don-as to whether Balmer took a hard turn--yes he did. Pointing out a topic Romney did not address does not relate the speech to that topic.
Shalom.
Posted by: letjusticerolldown | December 7, 2007 12:44 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
Don,
I think you're right that my impression of this essay was likely colored by Balmer's previous work, which to me always displays a sort of spiteful, bitter quality to it.
It is also worth noting that the views of Christian conservatives on church/state matters which Balmer cites disparagingly are views supported by the Supreme Court, which found that school choice does not violate the constitution. These views, hardly radical, are generally shared by most of the public.
Posted by: jesse | December 7, 2007 2:01 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
"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)?"
Unauthorized wiretapping has ceased, for starters, though I don't see where tapping international communications is forbidden in the constitution and you would have to explain to me why it is allowable in the case of mafiosos and not terrorists.
The Constitution neither permits nor forbids signing statements, and President Monroe was the first to use one, and Reagan (about whom I'm sure Balmer would offer similarly inspired commentary) used them extensively.
Bush has not ignored the Geneva convention. He simply disagrees that Guantanamo represents a violation of the convention.
As far what he has done to uphold the Constitution, he has consistently nominated judges who actually care about it, rather than seeing the courts as a forum from which to legislate.
Whether or not, you agree with these arguments, they exist, which is why Balmer's irrelevant cheap shot (and something can be a cheap shot even if you agree with its merits) contributes nothing.
There is not one new or compelling idea in Balmer's post. He has offered no insight into the significance of Romney's speech. It's just an excuse for him to be pissy. 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.
Posted by: kevin s. | December 7, 2007 2:29 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
"One of their profs makes one statement you don't like, and you broadbrush their entire system..."
Well, no, I said there was nothing compelling in the entire article, and it's not like this one is an exception. 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.
His writing emblematic of the trend among many top-tier institutions of trading serious scholarship (to say nothing of serious theology) for pop culture relevance.
Posted by: kevin s. | December 7, 2007 3:22 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
Unauthorized wiretapping has ceased, for starters, though I don't see where tapping international communications is forbidden in the constitution and you would have to explain to me why it is allowable in the case of mafiosos and not terrorists.
Unauthorized, secret wiretapping of American citizens by the Bush administration is operational at this moment, as we speak.
To believe otherwise is to be naive.
Bush is demanding carte blanche and retroactive immunity for unauthorized wiretapping of American citizens.
FISA requires a court order for wiretapping American citizens.
Virtually all requests are granted a court order. There is a 24/7 interface between intelligence authorities and the FISA court.
What more could the Bush administration legitimately require?
Bush doesn't want a FISA court restricting his unlimited, unitary powers.
He wants the telecoms to be immunized for their participation in illegal wiretapping.
They're spying on us, folks!
Call your Senators and request they oppose Senate Bill 1959.
Posted by: justintime | December 7, 2007 3:40 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
Ashpenaz,
One mayor difference between Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon vs. the Dead Sea Scrolls and those who discovered them is verification. Let's see these gold tablets, let scholars take a look and study them. The Dead Sea Scrolls are being studied.
The major difference between the Book of Mormon and the Dead Sea Scrolls is this; we have solid evidence that the Dead Sea Scrolls exists, we have no evidence that the gold tablets ever existed.
Jeff
Posted by: Jeff | December 7, 2007 5:05 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
We have no evidence that the Gospel of Mark existed--all we have are copies. Why do you believe in an inerrant, original autograph of Mark and not an inerrant, original autograph of the Book of Mormon?
Sit down with a Mormon and say the Apostle's Creed together. You can, you know. If you both agree on the Apostle's Creed, aren't you both Christians? Isn't believing what the Apostles believed enough?
Posted by: Ashpenaz | December 7, 2007 5:32 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
Ashepenaz,
Great debate/ discussion. Mormonism is a branch of christianity. But it's of the heretical variety, like the gnostics. The bible (from a contemplative/liberal perspective) is a complex book full of myth, allegory, actual history, poetry, biography and mystical teachings. THe same cannot be said for those that believe in the book of Mormon. It's all literal from the horses being in America pre Europe to the lost tribes being here when we know they came from the baring straight.
http://www.med.umich.edu/opm/newspage/2007/beringstrait.htm
My point is that Mormonism started out as a religion based on war, destruction, racism and a really poor standard of prophetic integrity. It's Christian but then so was Arian. It's heretical because it follows many of the same teaching he espoused and he was placed in exile. Joseph Smith is much the same way. He wanted power at the expense of his people and did almost anything to get it.
p
Posted by: payshun | December 7, 2007 6:01 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
"After seven years of an administration that views the Constitution as a nuisance, many Americans, I suspect, would welcome a president who sought to defend the integrity of the Constitution rather than subvert it."
An after DECADES of Congresses and Supreme Courts that view the Constitution as a nuisance, many Americans, I suspect, would welcome a Congress and a Supreme Court who sought to defend the integrity of the Constitution rather than subvert it.
Posted by: Ken | December 7, 2007 6:16 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
Mr. JamesMartin: If you feel I am being condescending to you, I apologize. You posted comments that I requested you explain. You chose not to. Which is completely your perogative. I could respond to your statements my making retorts, arguments, or whatever. I personally prefer to understand what a person is saying first. I also am committed to futhering productive dialogue and cutting out unhelpful comments. I do not pretend to think you are accountable to me on a personal level. But I do presume to have a responsibility towards others who read these posts to engage in respectful dialogue. That is my standard--for me. It is my request that others do the same. This is why I wondered if you do not care to answer questions about your posts--how you perceive dialogue to take place.
I am perfectly able to be condescending and self-righteous all day long for which the Lord can righfully judge with me greater wrath than anyone I would judge. It is my prayer that such characteristics would be washed out of my life. If you see those to be present I am sorry far beyond anything else I have stated or asked here.
The purpose of this comment is to explain my question
Posted by: letjusticerolldown | December 7, 2007 6:53 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
Ashpenaz,
You said,
"Sit down with a Mormon and say the Apostle's Creed together. You can, you know. If you both agree on the Apostle's Creed, aren't you both Christians? Isn't believing what the Apostles believed enough?"
Do a little research on Mormon doctrine. They have a very different belief of God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. I can sit down with a Mormon and we will both say we believe in Jesus Christ. But Mormon belief of who Jesus is very different (brother of Lucifer, not eternal, conceived physically through sexual relations between God and Mary etc,) So in short, Mormon doctrine does not agree with apostolic teaching.
Jesus
Posted by: Jeff | December 7, 2007 8:00 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
Diana,
What part of Romney's speech implies that nonchurch goers are not valid as Americans?
Sorry for signing the last post as 'Jesus', it was inadvertent.
Jeff
Posted by: Jeff | December 7, 2007 8:13 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
What a sadness descends on reading this Babel!
Always confirmed in Faith by the society of my believing sisters and brothers, I love the occasions when they reveal those myriad ways in which God is active in every life.
In this string I read no Grace.For all his Ivy League credentials Randall Balmer is ungenerous; immature.Not only does he not call the religious issue what it was, undiluted bigotry and sinful, he doesn't repent the sectarian hatred for which Norman Vincent Peale fronted. Then he continues that old pretense that the fractured-every-possible-way body of Christians are not a multitude of cults but a unity, American Protestanism. He will not repent the scandal, the sin, of our divisions. He will not acknowledge that "Sola Scriptura" has produced a thousand Joseph Smiths with their unconscious syncretisms and gospels-of-whats-happenin'-now. (In that respect what could be more American than Mormonism.)
We need you to give us a better lead Sojourners if we are to make a cogent contribution in the Public Square and stop peeingon each other as in this exchange.
Catholics bore the huge cost of keeping America a pluralist society by, among other things, paying twice for school. Evangelicals, now that the secularists have comandeered the education dollar and apparatus, have to swallow that pill.
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.
Posted by: Franko | December 7, 2007 11:46 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
T. D. Jakes would agree with you about the Trinity, since he and many Prosperity Gospel teachers preach "Oneness" Christology. I don't see why Prosperity Theology or Dispensationalism or Christian Dominionism is any more orthodox than Mormonism. Why are Seventh Day Adventists OK and Mormons not?
Posted by: Ashpenaz | December 8, 2007 2:56 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
Mormonism is the doctrine of demons and Romney pointed out what was "good" about other doctrines of demons. Christianity is the only true religion who worships the one true God, everything else, no matter how close it is to Christianity is plain wrong, that is the offense of the cross. Its not called the "warm fuzzies" of the cross... tolerance overtakes truth. The truth is... Christ is the only way, prayer in Islam is prayer to a demon, catholicism is idol worship, Mormonism is a cult of sincere yet sincerely wrong fanatics... followers of Christ who take His word literally and surrender all; who lose their lives and preach the gospel to a lost world... that's truth. We need to draw a line, but we shouldn't build a wall, yet the cross of Christ is a wall AND it is our line. I will not vote for the lesser of two evils... why try to stop the inevitable anyway... we know that in the last days Christians will be persecuted like never before... a conservative in the white house may delay that and I am ready for all this to end and to once and for all separate the Christ followers from the Christ admirers... so that the lost can really see what a Christian is... persecution will save the church from the green/social gospel garbage and from the tolerance that embraces other religions.
Posted by: David | December 8, 2007 9:04 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
Ashpenaz,
You said,
"I don't see why Prosperity Theology or Dispensationalism or Christian Dominionism is any more orthodox than Mormonism. Why are Seventh Day Adventists OK and Mormons not?"
The difference is the view of who Jesus is and what he did through the crucifixion and resurrection. The groups you mention are orthodox in the view of Christ divinity, incarnation, sinless life, physical death and resurrection. Mormon doctrine is contrary on several of these points.
Jeff
Posted by: Jeff | December 8, 2007 10:39 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
I think you missed an important point in Mits speech, subtle yet for me most important. To quote from your lead, ” pledged to serve the common good rather than a single religion if elected president." He said, “that any American who gets down on their knees and prays to God “I’m on their side.”
Not good enough for me as it leaves out millions of fellow Americans who perhaps are atheists or maybe those who don’t get on their knees, as I no longer do.
I promise you any person who is fervent about a religion especially one with so many rather odd or unlikely beliefs has his judgment and view of the world affected by that belief system. Most religions leave their followers ridged in thinking, judgmental and intolerant. The Mormons belief that the constitution is divinely inspired is no different in that belief than that claim for many other documents or books claimed to be “the word of God.” I ‘m sorry if I just insulted Jim Wallis a Christian for whom I have deep respect. Not many like him left. To quote Mark Twain, “if Christ were alive today on of the things he wouldn’t be is a Christian.” That was a long time ago and things have gotten much worse since then.
Posted by: Terry E Hofslund | December 8, 2007 10:45 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
Mr Romney has to my idea made a terrible; the worse thing that you can do, PERIOD, is to say you are not going to do something and then do it.
This is not what we need from someone who would like to be the VOICE OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE!!!
Posted by: Rudy Harrison | December 8, 2007 10:53 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
Witness for Peace:
David was real. Jesus was real. Esther? Maybe a real person but most likely a metaphorical story that developed around 200 bce. They were real human beings but many of the stories told about them are metaphorical and myth. Metaphor and myth express a deeper truth kind of like poetry and parable. George Washington was real but most likely didn’t chop down a cherry tree. That story, while myth, expresses the deeper truth about what people saw in Washington, that he was an individual of the highest integrity and could be trusted implicitly in everything he said and did. Many of the stories about David and Jesus are of the same type of myth.
Another example: the story of the two people on the road to Emmaus following the execution of Jesus. As you know Jesus appears to them as they walk and tells them all about the scriptures but they don't recognize him. Later, as they "broke bread," his identity was revealed to them and then he vanished from their sight. My mind tells me that this did not really happen... it is a metaphorical story... but you come to the same meaning, the same conclusion, whether you believe it is literal or metaphorical: We can experience Jesus as a living reality and he travels with us on our journey.
Posted by: jackfate | December 8, 2007 12:45 PM
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
Would you die for the advancement of peace and justice?
Posted by: jackfate | December 8, 2007 1:13 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
I don't know.
Posted by: jackfate | December 8, 2007 1:50 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
Oh and to answer your question. Yes I would die and willingly w/o regrets. But the real question is will you live for justice and peace? That's a far harder question because once you are dead your labors cease. In my view it's easier to die for a cause then to live for one.
p
Posted by: payshun | December 8, 2007 2:04 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
And to Ashpenaz, yes, perhaps you are more orthodox than some or all of those you mentioned. Did I say otherwise? Perhaps I, or other posters, was/were presuming far more about your beliefs than was warranted, and should've, in true humility, limited my comments to beliefs reflected in your posts. Can you forgive me?
Witness for Peace
P.S. Not sure what Monophysitism has to do with this, but feel free to explain, hopefully after you've forgiven me?
Posted by: Witness for Peace | December 8, 2007 4:06 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
Point taken.... living for justice and peace is defintely preferable. But many have given up their lives... Do you know about Oscar Romero?
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.
I do not feel the healing episodes are historical. They are strong metaphors for the shortcomings of his followers who were unable to "see" and "hear" just what he was talking about. That holds more meaning for me personally and adds depth the the story. Indeed we all have difficulty "seeing" and "hearing" even today.
Posted by: jackfate | December 8, 2007 4:58 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
My point is that Dispensationalism, Dominionism, and Prosperity Theology are no wierder than Mormonism, so if those are acceptable, you shouldn't have any problem with the Mormons. If you can believe in an "original inerrant autograph" of Mark, for instance, which no one has seen, then you should have no problem accepting a magic book read by magic glasses which at least one person has seen. If you are willing to believe the eyewitness account of an angel talking to a young girl, the eyewitness account of an angel revealing a book should be no problem. Take the theological speck out of your eyes before judging others.
Posted by: Ashpenaz | December 8, 2007 6:06 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
It doesn't matter whether you're Mormon, Baptist, Catholic, even Muslim. What matters is whether you stand with the poor, inclusivity among all cultures and races, and justice for all people. George W. Bush and Dick Chaney are both Methodists, yet they stand in total opposite, contrary, to the Methodists' stance on peace and justice, and responsibility for the poor and God's fragile planet.
pea
Posted by: pea | December 8, 2007 6:45 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
Show me from Scripture where being "wrong" about Jesus will cost anyone their soul. Jesus didn't set right belief as a requirement. In fact, He said that many who called Him "Lord, Lord," would be turned away for those who didn't even know who He was. If salvation required right belief as a condition, it wouldn't be salvation by grace.
I'm not sure that Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, or Daniel Dennett would agree that the Bible has survived scrutiny. I suspect that they would put it in the same category as the Book of Mormon. There are many erudite Mormon scholars just as there are many mainstream Christian scholars--and many who think all the texts are man-made myths. Pick your team. But the other guys have their team, too.
Christopher Hitchens would say an angel meeting with a young girl and then God coming down on her and making her pregnant is equally as irrational as another angel showing a young man a book and giving him the magic glasses to read it. Don't think your beliefs are superior because you surround yourself with people who agree with you.
Posted by: Ashpenaz | December 8, 2007 8:46 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
Ashpanez--I get the distinct impression you do not believe there is any Divine truth revealed to humanity that we can know. Is that the case?
Posted by: letjusticerolldown | December 8, 2007 10:52 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
Jeff,
But we do believe Jesus is eternal! He did die on the cross! He did physically rise again from the dead. He is our beloved Savior and the Savior of all mankind.
"He was the Great Jehovah of the Old Testament, the Messiah of the New. Under the direction of His Father, He was the creator of the earth. “All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made” (John 1:3). Though sinless, He was baptized to fulfill all righteousness. He “went about doing good” (Acts 10:38), yet was despised for it. His gospel was a message of peace and goodwill. He entreated all to follow His example. He walked the roads of Palestine, healing the sick, causing the blind to see, and raising the dead. He taught the truths of eternity, the reality of our premortal existence, the purpose of our life on earth, and the potential for the sons and daughters of God in the life to come.
He instituted the sacrament as a reminder of His great atoning sacrifice. He was arrested and condemned on spurious charges, convicted to satisfy a mob, and sentenced to die on Calvary’s cross. He gave His life to atone for the sins of all mankind. His was a great vicarious gift in behalf of all who would ever live upon the earth.
We solemnly testify that His life, which is central to all human history, neither began in Bethlehem nor concluded on Calvary. He was the Firstborn of the Father, the Only Begotten Son in the flesh, the Redeemer of the world.
He rose from the grave to “become the firstfruits of them that slept” (1 Corinthians 15:20). As Risen Lord, He visited among those He had loved in life. He also ministered among His “other sheep” (John 10:16) in ancient America. In the modern world, He and His Father appeared to the boy Joseph Smith, ushering in the long-promised “dispensation of the fulness of times” (Ephesians 1:10).
Of the Living Christ, the Prophet Joseph wrote: “His eyes were as a flame of fire; the hair of his head was white like the pure snow; his countenance shone above the brightness of the sun; and his voice was as the sound of the rushing of great waters, even the voice of Jehovah, saying:
“I am the first and the last; I am he who liveth, I am he who was slain; I am your advocate with the Father” (D&C 110:3–4).
Of Him the Prophet also declared: “And now, after the many testimonies which have been given of him, this is the testimony, last of all, which we give of him: That he lives!
“For we saw him, even on the right hand of God; and we heard the voice bearing record that he is the Only Begotten of the Father—
“That by him, and through him, and of him, the worlds are and were created, and the inhabitants thereof are begotten sons and daughters unto God” (D&C 76:22–24).
We declare in words of solemnity that His priesthood and His Church have been restored upon the earth—“built upon the foundation of … apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone” (Ephesians 2:20).
We testify that He will someday return to earth. “And the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together” (Isaiah 40:5). He will rule as King of Kings and reign as Lord of Lords, and every knee shall bend and every tongue shall speak in worship before Him. Each of us will stand to be judged of Him according to our works and the desires of our hearts.
We bear testimony, as His duly ordained Apostles—that Jesus is the Living Christ, the immortal Son of God. He is the great King Immanuel, who stands today on the right hand of His Father. He is the light, the life, and the hope of the world. His way is the path that leads to happiness in this life and eternal life in the world to come. God be thanked for the matchless gift of His divine Son." THE LIVING CHRIST www.lds.org This is a Mormon document stating our belief in Jesus Christ. You can disagree with it if you like, but when you articulate what we do or do not believe, make sure you are accurate :).
Posted by: Bon | December 9, 2007 12:43 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
If the Mormon you are witnessing to is only interested in feeding you their party lines that they learned in their high school seminary classes, then I suggest this: start talking about what they really believe. What I mean is that some of the Mormon beliefs are so outrageous, the average Mormon will look silly trying to defend them.
Consider these questions to ask your Mormon friends about how they got their doctrine and if these things are true:
1. Is it true that Joseph Smith put his face in a hat to interpret the Book of Mormon?
(A demonstration of this to your Mormon friends might help illustrate how silly this looks).
2. Is it true that Joseph Smith looked through stones to tell people where treasure was buried before he discovered the Golden Bible (that no one was allowed to see) in the same way?
3. Is it true that Joseph Smith was so fascinated by Masonic beliefs, that he incorporated them into his "pure Mormon doctrine" and even put Masonic images on the temple of Nauvoo?
4. Is it true that Joseph Smith believed in polygamy and had 48 wives?
As you can see, these types of questions ought to make the average Mormon think about how others see their faith. For the devout Mormon it may not be enough for you. I often think of my neighbor, a Mormon bishop in the local ward, no matter how logical of an argument I make to him, he can't go there. And for people like that, the truth may not be enough.
That's why everything we do as Christians, in witnessing to Mormons, must be bathed in prayer. This is a spiritual war we're fighting and it can't be done by us. It must be done by the acts of Holy Spirit. Pray for your Mormon neighbors before you talk to them. Pray before the missionaries surprise you at the door. Don't be reactive, be proactive. Ask God for the wisdom for dealing with the specific person you are talking to. One size does not fit all in witnessing to unbelievers, why would it be any different for Mormons?
For more i