Huckabee asks if Mormons believe Jesus, devil are brothers

AP ^ | December 12, 2007

[Tlaloc]

Republican presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee, an ordained Southern Baptist minister, asks in an upcoming article, "Don't Mormons believe that Jesus and the devil are brothers?"

The article, to be published in Sunday's New York Times Magazine, says Huckabee asked the question after saying he believes Mormonism is a religion but doesn't know much about it. His rival Mitt Romney, the former Massachusetts governor, is a member of the Mormon church, which is known officially as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

The authoritative Encyclopedia of Mormonism, published in 1992, does not refer to Jesus and Satan as brothers. It speaks of Jesus as the son of God and of Satan as a fallen angel, which is a Biblical account.

A spokeswoman for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints said Huckabee's question is usually raised by those who wish to smear the Mormon faith rather than clarify doctrine.

"We believe, as other Christians believe and as Paul wrote, that God is the father of all," said the spokeswoman, Kim Farah. "That means that all beings were created by God and are his spirit children. Christ, on the other hand, was the only begotten in the flesh and we worship him as the son of God and the savior of mankind. Satan is the exact opposite of who Christ is and what he stands for."

Romney did not respond to a request for comment.

Earlier this month in Iowa, Huckabee wouldn't say whether he thought Mormonism — rival Romney's religion — was a cult.

"I'm just not going to go off into evaluating other people's doctrines and faiths. I think that is absolutely not a role for a president," the former Arkansas governor said.

[greyfoxx39]

You have no knowledge about how long I have been following FR.

We have not way of knowing what other screen name(s) you may have been using and were posting under, either.

Doesn't look as though you need to bother with multiple names though, as you seem to be one of the "teflon" posters who gets away with any kind of hate speech you care to post.

[Guyin4Os]

Might as well just post the entire quote from Mormon literature:

http://www.lds.org/library/display/0,4945,11-1-13-6,00.html

A Savior and Leader Was Needed

When the plan for our salvation was presented to us in the spirit world, we were so happy that we shouted for joy (see Job 38:7).

We understood that we would have to leave our heavenly home for a time. We would not live in the presence of our heavenly parents. While we were away from them, all of us would sin and some of us would lose our way. Our Heavenly Father knew and loved each one of us. He knew we would need help, so he planned a way to help us.

We needed a Savior to pay for our sins and teach us how to return to our Heavenly Father. Our Father said, "Whom shall I send?" (Abraham 3:27). Two of our brothers offered to help. Our oldest brother, Jesus Christ, who was then called Jehovah, said, "Here am I, send me" (Abraham 3:27).

Jesus was willing to come to the earth, give his life for us, and take upon himself our sins. He, like our Heavenly Father, wanted us to choose whether we would obey Heavenly Father's commandments. He knew we must be free to choose in order to prove ourselves worthy of exaltation. Jesus said, "Father, thy will be done, and the glory be thine forever" (Moses 4:2).

Satan, who was called Lucifer, also came, saying, "Behold, here am I, send me, I will be thy son, and I will redeem all mankind, that one soul shall not be lost, and surely I will do it; wherefore give me thine honor" (Moses 4:1). Satan wanted to force us all to do his will. Under his plan, we would not be allowed to choose. He would take away the freedom of choice that our Father had given us. Satan wanted to have all the honor for our salvation.

From: The LDS's own website

Thank you newheart for the link!

[no more apples]

Exactly. It’s interesting to know, for some, what a person’s religion is, so that when they contradict themselves because they are grandstanding we can recognise it. Beyond that, a persons beliefs are what they are. And you either vote for them or not. Questioning their beliefs in theological terms is totally wrong in the political arena.

[Utah Girl]

Of course Huckabee can be that stupid. He is getting attention from the New York Times, and is being published, and encouraged by the NYT.

[William Terrell]

This is a matter of doctrine. I don't recall Jesus standing on any of this doctrine in order for His followers to achieve salvation. All He taught was faith and belief, and the individual seeking the kingdom of God within themselves.

So long as the Mormons do that, and put it upon the individual to do so, and their works indicate they do, what is the problem? If salvation is achieved without the doctrine, what is the point of the doctrine?

[Louis Foxwell]

Would you honestly vote for a candidate who believes that the Sugar Plum fairy rules the world from her throne in Never Never land? If not then you have a reliious test, or at least a test of rationality.
It is not reasonable, for me, to vote for a Mormon any more than I could vote for a Muslim, a Scientologist, a Wiccan or an atheist.
What people believe informs their actions, attitudes, values and sentiments. A world view is the foundation of thought. It matters what one believes.
I could vote for a Jew, a Buddhist, an Eastern mystic or a native animist but never a Mormon. Their ideas are far too bizarre.

[AppyPappy]

That’s kinda like saying “Believe in whatever Jesus works for you”

[ECM]

The problem with your suggestion is that you imply Mormons believe in something antithetical to Christians from a values point of view. Muslims, Wiccans and atheists have values that *are* anti-thetical to Judeo-Christian mores and values. Mormons may or may not be Christians (this is something else I don’t much care about) but I do know for a fact that they are good people that share the same *values* as I do (or at least the Mormons I know do.) It’s not like Mormons believe in cavorting with the devil on the Autumnal Equinox or they advocate *killing* those that leave their faith.

[GOP_Lady]

Good evening, Utah Girl. I think that Mr. Huckabee is in trouble with the GOP. I think his time is through. It Mr. Huckabee is incapable of seeing that we have much more in common than we do in differences, then how can he be capable of leading anything?

[Utah Girl]

I agree. Huckabee’s judgement concerns me in the matter of his pardons when he was governor, his tax plan (which will raise taxes). I think he thinks that the New York Times is on his side with the article in the Sunday Times, but they will use him and turn on him.

[GOP_Lady]

Here’s one GOPer who will NEVER support Mr. Huckabee. He’s blown it BIG TIME.

[GOP_Lady]

In our great country, you’re supposed to judge a person by their character and deeds, not by what faith they are.

[Utah Girl]

Yep. I am truly not impressed with the Republican field at all. Mitt Romney is more and more looking like the candidate.

[GOP_Lady]

Yes, I think he’s the only one who can hold the entire base together. I agree with NRO.

[MHGinTN]

Willaim, my FRiend, there is an important point here, as we have discussed in freepmail; see if you would agree:

“Jesus didn’t require that acknowledgement, just belief and faith. Do the Mormons have belief and faith in Christ?” One crucial point: ignoring Mormonism’s claims regarding Jesus allows the deception that Salvation/deliverance comes ‘after all that you can do’ to stand.

Salvation of the human Spirit is an immediate Gift by the Grace of God in Christ. Salvation isn’t something that ‘can come to you’ if you do all that you can do to be worthy of being delivered ‘after all that you can do.’

The demons believe yet will not be delivered because they refuse to repent, confess they need His deliverance, and acquire the Salvation found ONLY in Jesus The Christ. Salvation of the human soul (as distinct from the spirit yet embued by the spirit), living a Christian life, is a working out of the character of God because His Spirit dwells in the spirit of the man. Many can appear to be exhibiting the character of God, but without His Spirit within, the Real Character of God is not what is being exhibited by the mimicking 'behavior mechanism' of the man (the soul). Of such exhibition Jesus said that He would tell them to depart from Him because He never knew them ... and some of those will have pretty astounding works!

I am convinced that the strangeness of Mormonism and the pointed campaign to squelch exposure of the strangeness using terms such as bigot and christian jihadi, and haters is a Romney/Mormon strategy to avoid exposure and discussion of Romney’s liberal history in liberal Massachusetts. It is an insidious manipulation of the American people but after months of witnessing the willingness to dissemble, deceive, and outright lie regarding the truth about Momronism, I would not put anything past the Romney campaign.

[Old Mountain man]

“I am convinced that the strangeness of Mormonism and the pointed campaign to squelch exposure of the strangeness using terms such as bigot and christian jihadi, and haters is a Romney/Mormon strategy to avoid exposure and discussion of Romney’s liberal history in liberal Massachusetts. It is an insidious manipulation of the American people but after months of witnessing the willingness to dissemble, deceive, and outright lie regarding the truth about Momronism, I would not put anything past the Romney campaign.”

And, of course, you being a preacher and all, I would put nothing past you. I have no ax to grind, because Romney is my third choice. However, one question to you that NOBODY has had the brass to answer:

What happens if you are “saved” and then later go out and kill say a hundred innocent people just for the fun of it and then are shot dead by oh say a policeman? Do you get a free pass and go to Heaven? Are you forgiven all of your sins because you are “saved”?

Come on, preacher, let’s have the gospel on this one!

8-)

[William Terrell]

No, that's saying to follow what Jesus said to do. Doctrines are creatures of organized churches determined by their leaderships.

Believing in a doctrine ain't gonna get you to Heaven.

[Caramelgal]

While you might be on target on some other threads, you are way, way, off-base on this thread. In fact you are so mistaken I will call it a lie. First of all the story itself is about Romney's Mormon belief AND about Huckabee's question about this belief. What? Did you not read the article? Did you skip it & just go directly to the thread responses?

In answer to the last part of your statement: Yes I read the article and several other articles on the same topic. FYI the way I read the story, it was about Huckabee’s raising the question about Romney’s faith now when he (Huckabee) had sidestepped, refused to discuss or deemed the issue irrelevant just a few months earlier. Flip flop and pandering to the Bible Belt voters in Iowa?

Secondly, just about all of the first 200 responses to this were from folks provoked by Huckabee raising this question (from the let's keep religion-out-of-politics crowd), NOT from folks who challenge Mormonism or have concerns about Romney's belief system!!!

I read all the responses including the first 200 and I didn’t entirely agree with all of them either. I was responding not only to just those that have problems with the Mormon faith but all those (including myself at times) who have become angry and uncivil with one another in discussing the merits of one candidate vs. another based solely on tenants of religion rather than the bigger political issues at stake.

It seems to me that if these "let's keep religion-out-of-politics crowd" thought that discussing religion in a political race was an unworthy venture, many more of them would have veered away from this thread. But that wasn't the case, now was it?

So the so called "let's keep religion-out-of-politics crowd" are not allowed an opinion or voice as well on political threads? Are only you and only people who share your opinion allowed to chime in?

It seems to me that a few around here are in the “keep religion-out-of-politics” or rather and more precisely the “keep the religious-out-of-politics crowd” when the person’s religion differs from their own.

If these folks, or if you, didn't want to discuss a religious issue when it happens to dovetail into politics (you know you can't keep these things hermetically sealed no matter how much some folks sovereignly try), then what are you doing here on this particular thread?

Then what are Creationist doing on threads regarding Evolution, Science and Archeology? Are they not entitled to their opinion on those topics and am I not entitled to express mine?

There is nothing about this discussion that really “dovetails” religion and politics. The bigger question is and the one that begs an answer – would Romney’s religious beliefs prevent him from being a good President? Are his beliefs really relevant to this election? I say no. I say his record on political issues speaks to that already and why his is not on my short list. But I would vote for him over Huckabee based on their records and would certainly support Romney over Hillary or Obama or Edwards.

While Romney’s religion is not one you or I believe in, if he were running for deacon or elder of your church, then his religious beliefs would certainly be fair game and a very relevant discussion. But is there anything about his beliefs that are contrary to the Constitution? If elected President upon taking the oath of office, would Romney really dictate to you and I must believe? Would he pass a Presidential order that you and I must accept the tenants of the Mormon faith, take a few more wives (which modern mainstream LDS church rejects) and have 10% of your tax dollars donated to the LDS as a Tithe? This falls into the same sort of argument that some made many years ago (and a very few may still be making today) about a Catholic holding high office – “he will take his orders from the Pope before upholding his oath of office or the Constitution”.

It is my opinion where religion and politics “dovetail” is regarding the First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” I believe it is not the Government’s job or any elected official’s role to dictate to anyone what they need to believe in or not believe in regarding religion or creed. Nor do I believe it is the role of Government to limit or prohibit anyone from freely practicing their faith as long as they are good citizens and the practice of their faith does not advocate violence or sedition against our nation.

(There's threads galore about Huckabee that don't mention religion.)

Really? I’ve not read one recently were at least one person doesn’t post something about Mormonism being a “cult” and devolving into discussions about specific Scriptural interpretations rather than the greater political issues without ever bring home the point as to whether his (Romeny’s) religious beliefs or his record and current political views make or precludes him from being a Conservative’s candidate of choice.

Can we (and all the candidates) stick to the real issues in this election...So your personal litmus test of what constitutes "real" issues are those that you have a vision for (based on your comment "when we lose sight")...whereas these other issues you mentioned that are discussed are what? less than "real?" False issues (false being the opposite of "real?")

The issues I am most interested in, to name a just few and in no particular order of importance are; securing our boarders from illegal invasion, the future and direction of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Second Amendment, Abortion, Supreme Court nominations, Federal spending and taxation and fiscal responsibility, limited Federal involvement and intrusion into state and personal affairs that are not clearly defined by the Constitution, our trade relations with Communist China and China’s often overlooked and underestimated military threat to our security…

My personal litmus test for who I will ultimate vote for is not based on religion. Rather I base it on who is best qualified and fit to hold the office; who best understand the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Rule of Law and will guide and serve this nation and all good citizens in this regard, regardless of race, creed or religion.

While you come across as trying to be "tolerant" of distinctive opinions ("you will get no argument from me" and "I support your right to believe as you choose and your freedom to express it" and "that is their right to follow their heart and conscience"), it's quite clear that those who haven't followed your vision of what's relevant and what's not have "degenerated" into either false issues or irrelevency.

I don’t even know how to respond to that as I have no idea of what you are trying to say. Are you implying that I am intolerant and uncivil for being tolerant and trying to bring civility to discussions regarding personal religious beliefs? If so, I find that a bit of an oxymoron.

And so, because you can't just let one Huckabee thread discuss religious points, you advocate a "separate but equal" approach & sovereignly come along & dictate: "Nope, these issues aren't relevant. Dump it into the religious trash section where it belongs"

I never called the Religion Thread a “trash section” as you did. I have great respect for the Religion Thread and therefore I refrain and don’t usually post my personal beliefs regarding religion or bait others into argument on matters of faith and dogma (excepting where perhaps a discussion that started out on News/Activism and was later moved to the Religion Thread by an Admin Mod).

In fact you are so mistaken I will call it a lie.

I regret that you disagree with me or didn’t get the point and gist of what I was trying to say. I’m happy to discuss and debate with you further if only you could agree to disagree rather than coming out of the box and calling me a “liar”. What I stated was my opinion. You may disagree with me but it isn’t a “lie” as far as I’m concerned. It is my opinion and one I stand by.

[MHGinTN]

You secular ignorance is showing, bigtime. ... “What happens if you are “saved” and then later go out and kill say a hundred innocent people just for the fun of it ...” If you actually knew The Lord and Salvation by His SPirit, you would know that someone Saved by His Grcae cannot kill people ‘just for the fun of it’. It might help you to read the 23 chapter of Numbers. And, I’m not a preacher and have never claimed such.

[wtc911]

Of course Huckabee can be that stupid. He is getting attention from the New York Times, and is being published, and encouraged by the NYT.

______________________________________

My point exactly.