Billy Graham's group removes Mormon cult reference from website after Romney meeting

CNN ^ | 10/16/12 | Eric Marrapodi

[Clint N. Suhks]

Shortly after Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney enjoyed cookies and soft drinks with the Rev. Billy Graham and his son Franklin Graham on Thursday at the elder Graham's mountaintop retreat, a reference to Mormonism as a cult was scrubbed from the website of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association.

In a section of the website called Billy Graham's My Answer there had been the question "What is a cult?"

Answer: "A cult is any group which teaches doctrines or beliefs that deviate from the biblical message of the Christian faith."

"Some of these groups are Jehovah's Witnesess, Mormons, the Unification Church, Unitarians, Spritualists, Scientologists, and others," the site continued.

No longer. On Tuesday, the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association confirmed that page has recently been removed from the site.

“Our primary focus at the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association has always been promoting the Gospel of Jesus Christ," Ken Barun, chief of staff for the association, told CNN in a statement. "We removed the information from the website because we do not wish to participate in a theological debate about something that has become politicized during this campaign."

[HiTech RedNeck]

Oh, you found where I sleepwalked somewhere and cheered either abortion or gay shenanigans? Please do tell the world.

[HiTech RedNeck]

I would humbly suggest you folks call off this game of aimless jabs. Any serious consideration of the situation went away long, long ago.

[HiTech RedNeck]

This probably ought to go to Religion if not to Smokey Backroom or even to viking kitty valhalla. It has degenerated into aimless jabs of blame without having even the most tenuous thread of logic tying back to the original issue.

[SoConPubbie]

And you cannot fail to have noticed that John is also very black and white about matters that other bible writers, like Paul, treat in shades of grey. Paul speaks of carnal Christians, an idea that John in this style would hoot at. And yet both writings are in the same bible and equally true when viewed according to their style.

I'm assuming you are referring to Romans chapter 7 which has been abused and mis-used by many a preacher and christians to provide an excuse for living a sinful life as a professing "Christian". Please correct me if I am wrong in this assumption.

I say abused and misused, becuase Paul was using himself in the third person to describe the struggle of a man newly awakened to his complete sinfulness and depravity with respect to God's law and his utter helplessness in attempting to fix the problem and not sin anymore.

Furthermore, you cannot read Chapter 7 of Romans, without reading Chapter 8, they are joined at the hip, or you might even say married to each other, because in Chapter 8, Paul describes the state of that same man, struggling with his sin and lack of ability to do anything about it, as now having gotten the victory over that sin through the grace of God. He isn't sinning anymore, because he believed the Gospel and let God change his heart.

Read Chapter 8, there is no more struggle with his sin, just victory and a witness of the Holy Spirit that he is now a Child of God, something that man did not have in Chapter 7.

[HiTech RedNeck]

So a valid Christian in this view blips briefly through a “new” state?

There are as many logical difficulties with that kind of theology as there are claimed to be with others.

[HiTech RedNeck]

And let me bring your own mind back to the original matter since none of you want to. The question that arose was whether mere social hellos rose to the level of John’s “godspeed.” I say that is not necessarily so.

And all seem to be missing the point behind it all, that a guard should be made to keep a heretic group from penetrating a Christian group with a heresy. Now here’s where we can get down to brass tacks if we can leave this game of hurling blame. Does what Billy Graham did open an avenue for the LDS to penetrate the Christian church. If so, then please don’t complain to the choir here. Write a letter to Billy Graham. And tell us. That is infinitely more constructive than this mutual circle play.

[SoConPubbie]

Oh, you found where I sleepwalked somewhere and cheered either abortion or gay shenanigans? Please do tell the world.

Well, first of all, we were talking about Romney, not you. Try to stay on point.

Secondly, you support Romney who supports these issues, and are giving grief to those who are taking Romney to task, exactly because of these issues.

Do you not see the logical implication?

[SoConPubbie]

And let me bring your own mind back to the original matter since none of you want to. The question that arose was whether mere social hellos rose to the level of John’s “godspeed.” I say that is not necessarily so.

Thank you providing some clarity as to what you were trying to get at, since I have read all your posts on this thread and was having a hard time following your somewhat cryptic posts.

To be honest with you, there is definately a much more important issue here that something the distinction between hellos and godspeed.

The grahams have put political considerations above the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

They have, in fact, denied Christ for political pragmatism.

[HiTech RedNeck]

You went off on a rabbit trail about how horrible Romney is when I challenged you to back up these “Damned Romney Booster” accusations. And I still challenge you to back them up.

[HiTech RedNeck]

You ass-u-me I support Romney because I stand up against flinging of inaccurate, morphing remarks about Romney? Am I supposed to subscribe to enemy of my enemy is my friend?

[HiTech RedNeck]

Or actually, remarks about Billy Graham in his dealings with Romney. Like I can’t try to bring any logical sense without being accused thereby of aiding and comforting an enemy. That is at best groundless supposition and at worst rank projection on your parts.

[SoConPubbie]

You went off on a rabbit trail about how horrible Romney is when I challenged you to back up these “Damned Romney Booster” accusations. And I still challenge you to back them up.

How about you start with publically acknowledging that Romney supports both Abortion and the Gay Agenda, as my posts to you previously proved?

Or, as a Christian, are these matters not important to you?

[HiTech RedNeck]

What is that supposed to prove if I do? Those things reek to God. Inasmuch as Mitt did them, or might continue to do them, they would reek to God. Now what have you proved.

[HiTech RedNeck]

But, you are trying to trap me. My point was that people were hurling inaccurate and possibly badly researched accusations at BILLY GRAHAM. Whether that implies that I boost Romney or not has nothing to do with that other issue. You are trying to turn it into a who can blame whom for more of what game, again.

[doug from upland]

Romney says that Jesus Christ is his Lord and Savior. That is not good enough for some here.

[HiTech RedNeck]

That gets the controversy it does in conventional Christian circles, because the Mormon theological model of who Jesus is calls Jesus something other than God in the flesh. Instead he’s called yet another mortal aspiring to some kind of creaturely godhood. It’s more than a matter of whether you break your eggs on the little or big end.

[HiTech RedNeck]

But the peculiarity of the way the Mormon system is set up is that they can say lots of things about God and about Jesus Christ that are identical to what conventional Christians would say. As a matter of fact, they could honestly say they stand behind the words of just about all cherished US patriotic theological patter from George Washington onward. But they and conventional Christians have different views of reality, and so they can’t say everything the same. And conventional Christians and honest Mormons both acknowledge that the differences matter.

[Springfield Reformer]

I am skeptical because of my previous experiences lying Obama trolls playing mind games with conservatives.

I don’t blame you for your skepticism. It’s a hard problem. We are just pixels on a screen after all. That’s why I’d like to go to a freeper convention someday. Once you’ve seen me in person (after you got over the shock and horror), you would have, I hope, an easier time accepting that I’m just being me. I have no idea if or when one of those events is going to happen anytime soon. I had hoped to meet some freepers at the Indianola Palin event, but there were home obligations and I didn’t go.

As for my “curmudgeonosity,” I went to law school in my early 50’s. Up till that time, I had been a humble software engineer (VB,SQL, etc., mainly business apps, but one stint with a nuke control room simulator – now that was fun). Why law school? Midlife crisis, search for significance, and maybe a hedge against getting old in a technical profession. Who knows. My kids were college age, so we were all going together. Kinda fun.

So yes, I’m rather oldish, and my law degree is rather newish. And no, it wasn’t easy. Especially when staying up till 4 am prepping for class makes you fall asleep during class. Fortunately, I didn’t get called on that day. But there was laughter.

And yes, I get what you’re saying about church splits and doctrinal disagreements. Much of it is unnecessary and unfortunate. It hurts people and can permanently sour them on churches in general. Baby out with the bathwater. But you still have to teach the flock to watch out for the wolves.

Anyway, hope that clears things up for you a little.

Peace,

SR

[Springfield Reformer]

LOL!

[Springfield Reformer]

May it be so.