Evangelical publicist sends letter to evangelical leaders urging them to rally Romney support

Mark DeMoss (The DeMoss Group) ^ | 9 October 2007 | Mark DeMoss

[Colofornian]

So you’re willing to rationalize Thompson’s restorationism on the basis that he’s not even good at it...

I guess you don't get it. If I owned a Ford, but got rid of it...you can't play "Pin the tail on the Republican donkey" by taking aim at my Ford fidelity. There would be no Ford fidelity.

...yet Romney’s faith makes him worthy of utter condemnation? A bit of a double standard here.

OK, how many folks are going door to door pitching Fred Thompson's (past?) faith? Is there a satellite TV station called RU-TV?

Wouldn’t you rather expect Thompson to join a mainstream Christian church and be a faithful attendant thereof? That would, at least, make your stance consistent - AND it would make Thompson a much better representative of Evangelical voters... wouldn’t it? Yet Thompson gets a pass.

Whose rationalizing anything? Have you ever seen me plug Fred? (The answer's "No") Do I defend Fred? (The answer's "No") Do I see FREEPER folks defending Fred's spirituality anywhere for me to take issue with them on any specifics? (The answer's "No") If I were to "cut down" a Fred Thompson restoration tree and no FREEPERS responded, it'd be silly conversing with myself (it seems that whatever "restoration" in question is not important to folks & it seemingly stopped being important to Fred somewhere along the way).

That would, at least, make your stance consistent...

Speaking of consistency...while you haven't been a big Mitt defender (faith-wise, yes; otherwise, no...I seem to recall you being "iffy" on Mitt for a while), perhaps at times you've defended his switch on social issues (yes? no?). And if not you, I know many LDS keep asking, "Why attack what Mitt used to believe? That's yesteryear's tenets he held onto. Let's move on." So, if you think that's a good argument of theirs (perhaps you've said as much a time or two)...then it would also apply to Fred. If you were then "consistent" you would have to say, "Why attack Fred on what he used to believe? That's yesteryear's tenets he held onto. Let's move on."

[Grunthor]

“few actual theological differences with Mormons”

Like maybe the entire “Book of Mormon?”

Heck, that’s only ONE difference, isn’t it?

[JDoutrider]

read later

[WFTR]

Its interesting how McCain is a no-go with evangelicals. I would have thought they would hold him in higher esteem than the rest of the conservative base.

John McCain trashed evangelicals in 2000 when he was running against then-Governor Bush. He was also part of the "Gang of 14" who tried to push the president to select moderate, pro-abortion nominees to the Supreme Court. McCain-Feingold is also aimed at preventing Christian organizations from being able to rally support at the time of an election. This pattern of action against evangelicals will likely keep them from ever supporting Mr. McCain.

Bill

[JSDude1]

Romney is wolf (there is something about him), also there ARE better candidates than a Massachusetts (no offense to you all in Mass) Liberal..!

I am sorry, if he can sell out the left (in this election); he can sell out the right when it is politically expedient in the future: He’s “more of the same”!...

[Saundra Duffy]

“As a Southern Baptist evangelical and political conservative, I am convinced I have more in common with most Mormons than I do with a liberal Southern Baptist, Methodist, Roman Catholic or a liberal from any other denomination or faith group. The question shouldn’t be, “could I vote for a Mormon,” but, “could I vote for this Mormon?” After all, Mitt told me there are Mormons he couldn’t vote for (I presume Harry Reid, for example); and there are Southern Baptists I couldn’t vote for (Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, to name a few).”

Yahoo!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Saundra Duffy]

I would love to watch Romney debate Hillary on health care. He’s the only GOP candidate who can go toe-to-toe with her. It would be lovely!!

[Saundra Duffy]

Do you believe that Jonah was three days inside a big fish? Do you believe that Noah built an ark and that the animals came in two-by-two? Do you believe that Daniel survived in the lions’ den? Do you believe that Shadrak Meshak and Abednigo were thrown into the fiery furnace and survived without even the smell of smoke on them? Do you believe that God parted the Red Sea and the Jews walked over on dry land? Do you believe that manna fell from Heaven? Do you believe that the Walls of Jericho came a-tumblin’ down? Do you believe that Moses struck a rock with a stick and water flowed? How about the creation of the earth in seven days? What about all those plagues in Egypt, the river turning red, fish dying, boils? What about the Passover where you sprinkle lamb’s blood above the door? What about sacrificing animals on an altar? The idea that Abraham was willing to sacrifice his son on an altar?

How preposterous!!!!!!!!!!!!! You’d have to be a fool to believe all that nonsense, right?

You just attacked my Faith. I love my Church. I am not ashamed of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. He died for me.

[Plutarch]

John McCain trashed evangelicals in 2000 when he was running against then-Governor Bush...This pattern of action against evangelicals will likely keep them from ever supporting Mr. McCain.

Yup, and anyone associated with all that evangelical trashing in 2000 as well, for that matter.

[restornu]

Mark DeMoss, James Lileks

Hewitt: Hour 2 - Hugh gets reaction to the James Dobson threat to sit out the election if Rudy is the nominee with Christian publicity expert Mark DeMoss, and then covers the good, bad and the weird with humorist and columnist, James Lileks.

Audio
http://ksky.townhall.com/MediaPlayer/AudioPlayer.aspx?ContentGuid=23f52336-8cb7-47d6-aeed-dcaea130d24b

[WFTR]

You forgot to mention some other parts of the Bible that seem strange today. I believe that there's a part of the Levitical law that said a woman accused of adultery would be given a concoction mixed by the priest from stuff around the temple. If she was guilty, she would die. If she was innocent, she would live. There's another account of a man sending his daughters to be raped and killed by homosexuals who had surrounded his house demanding that he let them have sex with two men who were visiting. God also commanded the Israelites to kill everyone in Canaan including innocent new born children and pregnant women. If every Christian had to defend every one of those stories, no Christian would ever be elected.

Bill

[WFTR]

Yep, Fred Thompson was a strong McCain supporter in 2000. Maybe he is still feeling some negative effects of that support. I was at an event here in Louisiana a few weeks ago, and no one seemed enthusiastic about Mr. Thompson. I was surprised.

Bill

[epow]

Ideally, a husband and wife are coequal companions. This ideal persists in the eternities

Not according to Jesus Christ.

Mat 22:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.

Mat 22:30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

Mark 12;26, For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven.

It is clear that Jesus taught that the status of resurrected saints in marital and sexual matters is exactly the same as that of the angels. IOW they are not married when resurrected and do not marry in Heaven.

In those verses of scripture Jesus reminds the Sadducees that life in Heaven after the resurrection is quite different from this life. It does not merely continue this world and its arrangements, but it is life of a completely different order.

I personally believe that Jesus was indicating that although resurrected husbands and wives in Heaven will know and love one another in Christian love and fellowship, they will not be married as they were on earth in mortal bodies, will not have marital relations, or give birth to children. In that regard they are "as the angels of God in heaven". I can't prove that by scripture, but I believe it is clearly implied in the above quotations of Jesus' own words to the Sadducees.

[tantiboh]

~”OK, how many folks are going door to door pitching Fred Thompson’s (past?) faith?”~

Wait, so that’s your argument? Romney’s an unacceptable candidate because Mormon missionaries keep knocking on your door?

~”Do I see FREEPER folks defending Fred’s spirituality anywhere for me to take issue with them on any specifics?”~

Interesting you mention that. The conversation normally goes something like this:

“Mormons are bad.”
“No we aren’t!”

You’re acting like we’re living in a world like this:

“No we aren’t!”
“Mormons are bad.”

Generally speaking, if detractors didn’t bring up Romney’s faith, it’d hardly come up at all in political threads where he’s the subject. In fact, I found much of August and September to be just that way, and it was quite nice.

~”...I seem to recall you being “iffy” on Mitt for a while...”~

You recall correctly, though I am becoming less so. I’m finding him to be the least politically unacceptable of the viable candidates. Another week or so, I think, and I won’t be able to claim the “iffy-ness.”

~”perhaps at times you’ve defended his switch on social issues”~

No, they rather bug me. I have gone so far as to say that at least he’s moving in the right direction (flipping) and not flopping back. Frankly, I think a Mormon stake president should have been more staunchly pro-life in his public policies. I may be a bit harder on him because we share the same faith, and my human prejudices cause me to expect more from him. But, conversions do happen, and I believe firmly in redemption; I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise. I will say, though, that he hasn’t switched on nearly so many issues as some of his detractors like to claim (one example being the gay marriage issue).

~””Why attack what Mitt used to believe? That’s yesteryear’s tenets he held onto. Let’s move on.” So, if you think that’s a good argument of theirs (perhaps you’ve said as much a time or two)...then it would also apply to Fred. If you were then “consistent” you would have to say, “Why attack Fred on what he used to believe? That’s yesteryear’s tenets he held onto. Let’s move on.””~

Look, I’ve been holding off on my support (as if little ol’ me matters much) because I wanted to see what Thompson brought to the table. I don’t really like how Thompson’s performed so far, and I think he goes too far in his application of federalism, which impacts a number of crucial issues. So, I’ve found him lacking.

I have, like you, commented on the double-standard. How is Thompson given this aura of Conservative Savior when he’s migrated right just as far as Romney has, and has plenty of blemishes in his record to rankle conservatives? Yet Romney gets pilloried for the same evolution while Thompson gets a pass, at least here on FR.

My disenchantment with Thompson, though, is due to what I see in his issues NOW, and my fondness for Romney is due to what qualities I see in him NOW. I’d be happy to explain further, if you’re interested.

[tantiboh]

Careful with that kind of talk, WFTR. You’ll be called a Deceptive Mormon Apologist soon.

[tantiboh]

We ascribe to a different interpretation. In verse 30, Christ stated that marriage does not occur in Heaven; He did not say that marriage upon the earth does not persist in Heaven.

We believe that a man and woman married on earth can have an everlasting relationship that will persist beyond the grave. We believe that the family unit is a fundamental building block in the eternities; and that a family may be joined for all time. Death does not end our familial relationships.

The following verses from LDS scripture explain the concept. This is, we believe, modern revelation given by Christ (http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/132):

15 Therefore, if a man marry him a wife in the world, and he marry her not by me nor by my word, and he covenant with her so long as he is in the world and she with him, their covenant and marriage are not of force when they are dead, and when they are out of the world; therefore, they are not bound by any law when they are out of the world.
16 Therefore, when they are out of the world they neither marry nor are given in marriage; but are appointed angels in heaven, which angels are ministering servants, to minister for those who are worthy of a far more, and an exceeding, and an eternal weight of glory.

19 And again, verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife by my word, which is my law, and by the new and everlasting covenant, and it is sealed unto them by the Holy Spirit of promise, by him who is anointed, unto whom I have appointed this power and the keys of this priesthood...[it]...shall be of full force when they are out of the world...

So, it is a difference that exists between LDS doctrine and that of mainstream Christianity; it is, though, a rather comforting teaching. The idea of eternal companionship certainly goes far in building the strength of a marriage.

[hoagy62]

Let me put it to you this way, and, so you know, I am speaking just on behalf of myself:

As a Southern Baptist, I could no more support a candidate who is a known follower of what I consider a ‘doctrine of Satan’ than I could betray my country. And should my church decide later to support Romney, I would immediately leave the church and fellowship elsewhere.

I don’t see that happening, but I just wanted to let you know where I stand.

[JRochelle]

LOL.

It would be funny.

Romney has said that the biggest difference between his health care plan and Hillary’s is that his became law.

[Colofornian]

Wait, so that’s your argument? Romney’s an unacceptable candidate because Mormon missionaries keep knocking on your door?

Nice reductionism. Does Thompson's (past?) faith put "institutes" near every college campus? Do they teach you can become a god? Is the salvation they offer based upon 16 things YOU have to do to garner exaltation? Have they made the good news of the gospel into a series of laws you have to follow? Does the town where most of the folks who believe what he believed is among the nation's leaders in suicide (like Utah)?

Interesting you mention that. The conversation normally goes something like this: “Mormons are bad.” “No we aren’t!” You’re acting like we’re living in a world like this:“No we aren’t!” “Mormons are bad.”

Look, I'm not sovereign enough to pre-arrange the topics of the posts around here. They're usually driven by what's in the media (since they all start with an article), so in one sense the topics are media-driven. All I can tell you is that you can review the threads for yourself and you'll see all of the major candidates taking their lumps at one time or another. It seems to have been (from the looks of what folks have posted) open season.

Whereas on any given week I see the media and posters here addressing Mormonism, I don't see the media and posters here addressing Fred's (past?) faith. Certainly in more recent months you can make a partial case for that being that if Mitt gave up his stake meetings and didn't make anything of his Mormon roots, certainly the frequency of Mormonism being addressed in these threads would die down.

So I tell you what: You start a thread about Fred's spiritual beliefs with some real meaty content (not guesswork) and ping me and I'll be glad to participate in the discussion.

Generally speaking, if detractors didn’t bring up Romney’s faith, it’d hardly come up at all in political threads where he’s the subject. In fact, I found much of August and September to be just that way, and it was quite nice.

Are you that clueless? You're telling me that the liberal MSM, who always takes every opportunity to bash anyone from the "religious right," is giving Mitt a free pass in mentioning his faith? (You must have been vacationing in the Pacific of Kolob)

Look, I rarely post articles. If I wanted to, I could go to the LDS Church-owned Deseret News 3-6 times a week and, skipping those you would call "purely religious" articles, I could post gobs of articles that mix Mormon faith with some other admixture. Some would be a faith & politics mix; during the Olympic games in SLC, there were numerous "Mormons & the Olympics" articles. I mean, even though the Boy Scouts sport a "I believe in God" dimension, they're basically a secular organization. I'm sure I could find plenty of Boy Scouts & Mormons articles. (You get the drift).

Now if the Mormon church has the right to comment (thru Deseret) on the admixture of faith and the public square, why do you consider that a monopoly privileged only to Mormons?

You recall correctly, though I am becoming less so. I’m finding him to be the least politically unacceptable of the viable candidates. Another week or so, I think, and I won’t be able to claim the “iffy-ness.”

Tanty, what I appreciate about you is that you are an authentic person. You are a rare transparent Mormon. You're a straight shooter. Well, because of that, I know you've said exactly the same thing a few months ago. (Seemingly always on the edge of Mitt, about to become a Mittbot, but not quite committing)

I have, like you, commented on the double-standard. How is Thompson given this aura of Conservative Savior when he’s migrated right just as far as Romney has, and has plenty of blemishes in his record to rankle conservatives? Yet Romney gets pilloried for the same evolution while Thompson gets a pass, at least here on FR.

Well, look closer into Fred's record. He is conservative, and no, he hasn't migrated as far as Romney has. Use common sense. What do you need to present yourself to be elected in Tennessee? Now ask the same question: What do you need to market yourself as to get yourself elected in Massachusetts? As for blemishes, yes (but they all do--even if it's only electability)

None of the major-tiered candidates have received a total free "pass" (even if it's not always been evenly balanced; but again, since most discussion is generated by what's in the media, whoever said the media was balanced?)

[FastCoyote]

“You just attacked my Faith. I love my Church. I am not ashamed of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. He died for me.”

I attacked none of your Biblical beliefs Saundra, I only attacked the baloney of Joseph Smith and the BOM, about whom we have ample documentary proof of charlatanism. Moreover, we have at least an archaeological trace of Biblical events whereas we have diddly squat about Lamanites and Nephites. By the way, you attack my faith but trying to make me accept Joseph Smith as a valid Prophet (who himself called all other Christians an abomination).

So I guess your crappy reference to us being some Joseph Smith fantasy Robbers really was a petty low insult that I’m supposed to put up with because you are a “Saint”. Then you won’t mind me suggesting you are Baal worshipers, just to even things out.