Jill Stanek: Behind the scenes at FRC Briefing (Family Research Council)

“I don’t take aim at reps of different churches of the historic Christian faith. “

No, but if it’s outside that protestant comfort zone, then what? What about a Jewish Mitt Romstein? Polish Catholic Mitt Romanski? As a catholic, there’s been one or two times when an evangelical Christian spouted off to me about how the Catholicism is a cult. I’ve even seen it on FR too. Someone from some breakaway sect spouting off about the 1 billion strong 2,000 year old Catholic and Apostolic Church of Christ Jesus. Most don’t, but a few have. That is why I find it so unimpressive to have people going around calling another church ‘cults’. Might as well tattoo your forehead “Narrow-minded.” To a militant atheist, any bible-believing fundamentalist is in a cult. Should we care?

“Well, if you had defenders of Dennis Kucinich in these threads” ... the fact is that we dont because the value system wrapped around what he thinks doesnt match ours.
The fact that some anti-Christian leftists will dislike Christian leaders, same leaders who are trying to preserve family values against the tide of secularism, is a ‘no surpise there’ story.

Yet for Mormons, who give us the most Republican state in the union in Utah and are uber-family-values-oriented, we have a group of people sympatico with our values.

Delving deeper into arcane details of LDS only distracts from the many more serious and fundamental questions of what Mitt Romney Presidential Candidate brings to the table.
That is what is so disappointing with the anti-mormon types grinding away at their axes on it. It hurts conservative cause to be bashing a group of people who are in their hearts good people and many of them part of the GOP coalition.

Also, the mormon=bad my-religion=good judgment is so simplistic and shallow when it comes to judging politians that I cant imagine any thinking voter today falling for it.
For me, that religion-test means I should pick Catholic (supposedly) Rudy over Huckabee Thompson or Romney... yet Rudy is least compatible with my views, values and philosophy. Makes no sense. And further: Do you want to build a party based on no Mormons, no non-Christians, suspicious looks at Catholics, no atheists, and why not toss the liberal Anglicans while you are at it, by attacking and bashing candidates of the ‘wrong’ religion ... you’ve not got a majority party anymore, what you’ve got is a church... and we need to understand just a wee bit the difference between ‘church’ and government, dont we?

my original point - Huckabee gets a 1000 words, and Romney and Thomson got nothing. The shallowness of the thought was distressing. Suggestion: Go ahead and discuss Romney, but if you are going to discuss, discuss him as a whole candidate and dont just peg-hole ‘mormon’ and be done with it.

PS. you are citing Smith about how all the other guys are wrong. Okay but what religion doesn’t have that? Heck, that’s nothing compared with what’s in the Quran. Ann Coulter just got in trouble saying same wrt Jews. There’s nothing new there, just the same-old my-religion-gets-you-to-heaven and-the-others-guys-doesnt.
It reminds me of the Rowan Atkinson comedy skit where he’s the devil receiving people into Hell - The French, lawyers, etc., and members of some mainstream denominations ... and then delivers the punchline on which sect really got into heaven (”Sorry, the Jehovah’s Witnesses were right.” )

Polish Catholic Mitt Romanski? As a catholic, there’s been one or two times when an evangelical Christian spouted off to me about how the Catholicism is a cult. I’ve even seen it on FR too. Someone from some breakaway sect spouting off about the 1 billion strong 2,000 year old Catholic and Apostolic Church of Christ Jesus.

The Catholic Church is part of that historic Christian Church. Oh sure, it's added on some less relevant doctrines, just like some of the Protestants have done. But again, I'm not talking about mere doctrinal disagreement. What I would object to is IF a Catholic Mitt Romanski labeled all the Protestants as "apostates"--and I've yet to see any RC candidate or officeholder do that.

What about a Jewish Mitt Romstein?

Likely to at least call upon the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (at least not some "council of gods" as the LDS Book of Abraham references...LDS will tell you that none of the LDS gods have been so from eternity...they are created entities). Michael Medved & Dennis Prager are good examples of Jewish believers who don't label our leaders as "corrupt" or all creeds as an "abomination" to either God or Jews.

Go ahead and discuss Romney, but if you are going to discuss, discuss him as a whole candidate and dont just peg-hole ‘mormon’ and be done with it.

I have on other threads. Waffling on pro-life issues. He's still pro-homosexuality on some issues. Etc. I evaluate candidates on a whole array of issues...position stances on social issues; character; faith commitment, etc. which is why when you said For me, that religion-test means I should pick Catholic (supposedly) Rudy over Huckabee Thompson or Romney... yet Rudy is least compatible with my views, values and philosophy. Makes no sense. you can't stop at only their denominational identity elsewise you'd have no difference between a 1992 Baptist Bill Clinton and a 2007 Baptist Mike Huckabee. (Right?)

Delving deeper into arcane details of LDS only distracts from the many more serious and fundamental questions of what Mitt Romney Presidential Candidate brings to the table.

Well, indeed I've on occasion gone into details. But I've tried also to stick to my main concern...which is not some obscure detail about their faith floating way out there like some satellite...but rather what is front & center. I mean, even if you only look at it from one or two angles...like what are Protestant voters going to think of MR as they find out more of what he believes once the MSM probes deeper? And secondly, what is inspiring about a candidate who labels you as an apostate and your leaders as "corrupt" and as all your creeds as an "abomination?" I mean you don't have to chase away 90% of those voters to lose. So then it's not just considering this stuff from a "religious" or "theological" angle...it becomes an electability consideration...which was exactly the same consideration that Republican voters weighed when they voted or didn't vote for Pat Robertson in 1988...they thought, "How is this man's religion & religious intensity & statements going to be weighed by general-election voters?"

Well, apparently you weren't there to protest voters doing that in '88; so I'm not sure why you're doing that now.

Yet for Mormons, who give us the most Republican state in the union in Utah and are uber-family-values-oriented, we have a group of people sympatico with our values...It hurts conservative cause to be bashing a group of people who are in their hearts good people and many of them part of the GOP coalition...And further: Do you want to build a party based on no Mormons...

OK, I've conceded on other threads that indeed we have those shared values. And MR is the first LDS candidate I've spoken out against. In part, it's because I do make a distinction between a POTUS candidate and other positions (and I've elaborated upon that in other threads).

All I can say is thank God that Jesus didn't take your posture of "It hurts the Zealot Political party cause (after all, Jesus associated with two disciple-zealots even if he wasn't a member) to be bashing a group of people (the Pharisees) who are in their hearts good people and many of them part of the anti-Roman coalition..."

why not toss the liberal Anglicans while you are at it, by attacking and bashing candidates of the ‘wrong’ religion ...

Again, you're confusing who attacked whom first. I'm responding to LDS attacks--which was a universally-applied "nuclear" type attack upon the entire world-wide church. (Whereas, whatever mainline attacks you could come up with upon "the right" those are mere local skirmishes, not the World War Joseph Smith started upon the entire Christian church). Smith built an entire church upon one foundational vision. In this vision, he labeled every non-Mormon creed as an "abomination" of God and Christian leaders as "corrupt" and we're all "apostates" in the eyes of Mormons.

Now if we can get upset that Islam labels us "infidels," then we can do the same when LDS call us "apostates." It's just not flattering for candidates to offend their base, and no true believing Mormon has ever distanced themselves from either Joseph Smith's "first vision" or what they have since elevated to "Scripture."

...we need to understand just a wee bit the difference between ‘church’ and government, dont we?

Well, what does that mean? That pro-life Catholics, for example, who might be "pro-life" because of their faith beliefs need to separate that out from "governmental" concerns lest they introduce "church" beliefs into the public square? An entirely ridiculous notion...Frankly, the German Lutherans of the 1930s should have applied their faith and their Bible to Hitler...not separate those things out from applying a filter to him. What about those who believe what they do about homosexuality from the Bible and apply that belief to weighing a candidate? Are you going to be consistent & tell them "Naughty, naughty, naughty, you shouldn't do that! You'll rip the big tent & the Log Cabin folks will get upset."

...you are citing Smith about how all the other guys are wrong. Okay but what religion doesn’t have that? Heck, that’s nothing compared with what’s in the Quran.

Well, you're right...tell me what Muslim is running for POTUS and I'll be sure to frequent those threads, too.

There’s nothing new there, just the same-old my-religion-gets-you-to-heaven and-the-others-guys-doesnt.

You make this all sound like it's just some routine tug-o-rope religious rope-a-dope boxers who are always goin' a few rounds. Hey, if a Scientologist-POTUS would open the door wide open PR-wise for our young people to embrace Scientology, I would speak out on that, too.

My point? Bill Clinton was a presidential role-model disaster for our young generation re: the scandal. Any president the voting block elevates to the highest role model position in our land accords the highest vote of respectability to the public aspects of what that person stands for. If that person, for example, is a neatly tucked-away communist who's adopted a mask of "family values," & we elect him president, we are telling our kids that communism is OK to emulate. Furthermore, we are handing proselytizing fuel to communists everywhere. It would fuel their door-to-door boldness and other aggressive campaigns to be able to say, "See. Our respectable Communist leader holds the highest office in the land. Come study what helped make the man he is today!"

...what’s even worse is someone who judges a candidate for President on matters that don’t relate to fitness for office and instead tars him with a broad brush based on a biased view of a different religious sect...I’m convinced the motives, thinking and results of this are all to the bad. So reconsider your (wrong) belier that this is ‘front and center’; really, it’s a side-show.

I list below four (of about another 10) "filters" I use as a voter to evaluate presidential fitness, which are to me "front and center." (And frankly, in the end, it doesn't matter that you think a person's reason for voting is a "side show" or "front and center" or not...I mean a female voter might give you a few reasons she's voting for Mitt and you might accuse her that those aren't the real reasons, it's just a "side show" to cover up her front & center reason based more upon his perceived good looks...but so what?)

Point 1: Religion IS NOT a qualification for public office fitness; but it's certainly is one quality of voter discernment among many others...namely, voting record, position statements, social issues' stances, character, viability, scandal-free past, etc.

Point 2: If we agreed that a candidate belongs to the most deceptive cult in the world, then certainly that candidate's vulnerability to deception in the most important area of his life--his faith--serves as an indicator that he/she might be more easily deceived in public policy issues. "Vulnerability to deception" belongs on a character checklist! (Go ahead, tell me with a straight face, "Yes, I want a POTUS who is easily deceived. I don't believe vulnerability to deception relates to fitness of office.")

Point 3: Other-worldly commitments (faith) is a character issue! There's no way around this realization! To try to extract such other-worldly commitments from character is simply not possible. Time & time again folks try to hermetically seal "faith" & "religion" away from the public square as if folks checked their faith at the door or as if folks were neatly cut-up pie pieces. (Just try telling any voter that he should never weigh "character" into his/her voting-decision considerations).

Point 4 (which I apply only at the POTUS level): If I...

...(a) was a POTUS candidate from a commonly regarded "cultic group"; and

...(b) mislabel 75% of my voting base's primary faith tenets & claims as mere "apostate" status (Note: 75% of people claim to be "Christians" in the more mainline/Protestant/Catholic sense--& frankly, this % is higher in the Republican party) Then...

Conclusion: I not only show open disdain for my voting base, but betray my ability to inspire confidence in my ability to accurately define a major world religion. If I cannot accurately define a major world religion, what confidence do I inspire re: my ability to handle national security issues, terrorist issues, & negotiation issues pertaining to another world religion like Islam?

The argument you use could as well be used to tag Protestant candidates as ‘anti-semitic’ because of things Luther said.

You're off-base on many counts. (where do I begin?)

(A) Protestants don't label everything Luther said as "Scripture." While it's true that LDS don't label everything Smith said as "Scripture" as well...the fact is, they did elevate Smith's first vision to the level of "Scripture." As it applies to Mitt I don't necessarily associate everything Smith said & tie it to contemporary LDS; but I do take issue that a presidential candidate believes a bigoted "orthodox" description of his base. This fundamental tenet (meaning it's not a take-it-or-leave it belief) says most of his base are abominable, corrupt apostates.

I mean imagine you're a non-minority candidate of a high minority district, and you seek their vote. You act in a cordial, highly inviting manner toward minorities. Your overtures seem to be right on target. But then somebody uncovers that your MooseHead Club constitution labels minorities as "abominable, corrupt apostates." The minority voters would have every right, if the candidate did not reject this constitutution or his membership in it, to not only reject but vilify him.

It seems to me that you're concluding that church members are the only ones who are not allowed to be provoked when stereotyped in a certain manner.

(B) Also, please note that Luther did an "about-turn" on these statements toward the end of his life. MR has done an "about-turn" on multiple issues...so why doesn't he just add one more? All he'd have to say is that he doesn't believe Christians are apostates. All he'd have to do is to disavow just 2 verses in his entire list of LDS scriptures. (Of course, I say "All he'd have to do..." knowing full well that if you take away those 2 verses, you don't have a standing LDS church).

The fact that you continue to drag irrelevent statements about what Joe Smith said 150 years old and still are using the offensive ‘cult’ term (clue for ya: he’s not running) into the discussion proves you don’t get my point.

Here’s my criteria:
http://travismonitor.blogspot.com/2007/02/who-should-be-our-next-president.html

The candidate should be of good character and capable of leading and managing the vast behemoth that is the Federal executive branch, with a conservative vision that embraces the three legs of the Republican coalition:
1. A pro-free-market pro-freedom, small-Government, fiscal conservative who is for lower taxes, limited spending and less Government regulation.
2. A strong defender of American sovereignty (including our borders) and our national security who will win the war on terror (and understands it as a necessary war against violent radical Islamic extremism); someone who will stymie the anti-Americans both at home and abroad.
3. A pro-life, pro-family defender of traditional values, e.g., for school choice, for traditional definition of marriage, and opposed to the social re-engineering of the cultural left.

While we are at it, we need a candidate who can engineer solutions to: energy dependency, global warming, Federal budget deficit, US trade deficit, failures in American education, illegal immigration, Medicare and Social Security going bust, cultural degeneration and breakup of families, and global terrorism.

The candidate needs to espouse not just the right ideas, but be an articulate and inspiring leader. This leader should both win the election and win Americans - and the world - to pro-freedom conservative values and beliefs.

Here’s JimRobs:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1780333/posts?page=106#106

The candidate should be of good character and capable of leading and managing the vast behemoth that is the Federal executive branch, with a conservative vision that embraces the three legs of the Republican coalition: 1. A pro-free-market pro-freedom, small-Government, fiscal conservative who is for lower taxes, limited spending and less Government regulation. 2. A strong defender of American sovereignty (including our borders) and our national security who will win the war on terror (and understands it as a necessary war against violent radical Islamic extremism); someone who will stymie the anti-Americans both at home and abroad. 3. A pro-life, pro-family defender of traditional values, e.g., for school choice, for traditional definition of marriage, and opposed to the social re-engineering of the cultural left.

Well, first of all I have to commend you that you have well thought-out, (and formalized) criteria. Not many voters do that. And you're a good example.

Secondly, I don't think there's many folks who are going to adopt my personal criteria, which will add what I previously mentioned, so I'm not sure why I'm deemed as some sort of "threat."

The fact that you continue to drag irrelevent statements about what Joe Smith said 150 years old...

I have an LDS source which conveys to LDS missionaries that one of the three most important LDS doctrines to discuss door-to-door is the doctrine of the apostasy-restoration. You keep trying to reduce this important LDS doctrine to some marginal ancient dustbin. But this doctrine is delivered daily today as fresh as bakery trucks of old would make their daily run.

I challenge you: Go to the biggest national retailer...not just book retailer but overall retailer. Go to the book section & you'll find an LDS section. Front & center of that section is an LDS book on the complete apostasy of the Christian church.

If these statements are so "irrelevant," why were they elevated to "Scriptural" level and why are these concepts conveyed door to door daily and peddled by our most prominent retailers?

...you continue...using the offensive 'cult' term...

You are funny. The entire LDS church, Mitt included, can label me an apostate. An abominable believer. But if I defend myself and label them a "cult," I'm offensive vocalizer, not them?

Smith...(clue for ya: he’s not running)...

Listen, I don't pretend to know what ideological understandings made George Wallace and that Louisiana office-holder Duke to be labeled as "racists," but at some point they adhered to some intellectual justification written or said by some person(s) of authority in their lives.

Are the LDS "four standard works" authoritative for the true believing Mormon? (Yes). Do they authoritative works portray Christians as complete apostates? (Yes) Are our creeds identified as completely abominable before God in their eyes? (Yes) Is this not some obscure doctrine but is the most vital doctrine of their faith? (Yes) [Because if the First Vision didn't occur, all the rest is a sham]

For the true believing Mormon, it's a catch-22. They can't distance themselves from this doctrine without drawing Smith's vision into question. But because they can't distance themselves, they must conclude that other churches are corrupt abominable creed-holders and apostates. (There is no third way)

“label them a “cult,” I’m offensive vocalizer, not them?”

Yes, you are offensive, in going out of your way to drag this up in a thread about candidates and being unable to discuss this without being as negative as possible in describing LDS.

Look, any believing Jew obviously thinks Christianity is a false religion, or they’d convert. I have no problem voting for a Jewish President so long as they advocate the traditional Judeo-Christian values that we would share, even if I find their theology different. I have no problem voting for a Pentecostal President so long as they advocate the traditional Judeo-Christian values that we would share, even if their theology is suspect. I have no problem voting for a Mormon President so long as they advocate the traditional Judeo-Christian values that we would share, even if their theology is suspect.

“Listen, I don’t pretend to know what ideological understandings made George Wallace and that Louisiana office-holder Duke to be labeled as “racists,””

Well, it certainly were not called racist because they were Baptists and 150 years ago the Baptist church had racist teachings. ...

“The entire LDS church, Mitt included, can label me an apostate.” Mitt, in his entire public life has not done anything of the kind you insinuate. Never. He has never in his career challenged or discounted other Christians. This kind of rhetoric from you is no different than the ‘gotcha’ politics that the ‘anti-papists’ played against Catholic politicians, claiming they were just robots of the Pope. Wrong. It was bigotry then and its bigotry now.

“Are the LDS “four standard works” authoritative for the true believing Mormon?” - The fact that you even give a flip about that suggests your moral compass is way off. I dont care. I’m not Mormon and have no interest in it. The few mormons I’ve known personally have been straight-up honest decent and moral people. Joe Smith is not running, and you need to look into your heart over what it is you are hoping to accomplish with your over-the-top incessent bashing of mormonism. Maybe you can besmirch the character of a good man running for President, but it certainly doesn’t advance conservatism nor does it shed a positive light on Christian faith.

Yes, you are offensive, in going out of your way to drag this up in a thread about candidates and being unable to discuss this without being as negative as possible in describing LDS.

Listen, are the financial gifts of a millionaire Mormon perhaps of at least minute interest to his potential voters? (Yes)

Is MR a tithing member of his millions to a particular faith-based organization called the LDS church? (Yes)

Does MR's accumulative tithe of his millions go in part to publishing and distributing the Pearl of Great Price through this faith-based org? (Yes)

Does this particularly organization "go out of its way" to deliver this broadside against the historic Christian church door to door? (Yes)

Look, any believing Jew obviously thinks Christianity is a false religion, or they’d convert.

Look, you still don't get it. I have few problems with folks of other faiths who have private and even public opinions that my faith is considered by them, as you say, "false." That's not the issue. It's (1) when they spend millions and millions and millions and trillions of man-hours going around exporting that belief, then I'm going to defend against it. (2) I don't see Jews or Joe Liebermann coming along and saying, "You know, my Old Testament tells me that you Christians are apostates and your professors are 'corrupt.' Furthermore, you are not God's people." (Now I wouldn't blame God's original people for telling us if they thought, "Hey, we're the only God's people on this earth"...but even then I don't hear that from their circles...and the few places where you might here that I don't see them spending gazillions of $ & man-hours trying to convince the world that Christians are counterfeits).

I have no problem voting for a Jewish President so long as they advocate the traditional Judeo-Christian values that we would share, even if I find their theology different. I have no problem voting for a Pentecostal President so long as they advocate the traditional Judeo-Christian values that we would share, even if their theology is suspect.

(Generally speaking, I don't either...of course, I would evaluate candidates on an individual basis...'cause you have Baptists ranging from a '92 Clinton to an '07 Huckabee)

Maybe you can besmirch the character of a good man running for President, but it certainly doesn’t advance conservatism nor does it shed a positive light on Christian faith.

This reminds me of reactions I've seen to pro-lifers who have held up signs of aborted babies. The response might be, "This certainly doesn't advance the pro-life cause nor does it shed a positive light on pro-lifers" (to be "imposing" in showing graphic photos).

More irony. You're upset over one measly person holding up a mirror to Mormon Scripture (not my words, but LDS words). But when I point to the mirror--like when these pro-lifers point to the photos--you blame the messenger and the sign-holder.

Who provoked whom? Who is besmirching the character of good men running millions of churches worldwide if not the Mormon church which claims "all professors [of these churches] are corrupt?" Here MR is spending thousands of $ to peddle this kind of obscene publishing nonsense worldwide thru millions of printed pages til Christ returns and thru perhaps billions of man-hours til Christ returns...and then you compare all that to one measly person like myself?

I'm sorry, but your provocation barometer is way off base...just like those supposed "pro-life" folks who are more upset at the folks holding up pre-born babies' signs when instead their "upset" needs to be directed at the reasons those signs exist.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.