YOU MEAN THIS MORMON?
PRESIDENT MITT 
Posted on 11/02/2012 1:48:05 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Remember the good ol' days when folks in the media were fond of telling us that conservative evangelical Christians would exhibit anti-Mormon bigotry and fail to vote for Mitt Romney simply because of his religion?
Well now that conservative evangelical Christians seem by-and-large on board with the Romney/Ryan ticket liberal CNN Belief Blog contributor Stephen Prothero has turned the tables and criticized conservative evangelical leaders with, essentially, denying their faith by being pro-Romney. From his November 1 post, "My Take: Billy Graham and Ralph Reed are putting politics before God" (emphases mine):
Why are evangelicals like Billy Graham and Ralph Reed stumping for Mitt Romney? And why are roughly three-quarters of white evangelicals inclined to vote for him?
Because politics matters more to them than religion.
[...]
Until quite recently, many evangelicals saw Mormonism as a dangerous cult spreading false theology and dooming its followers to hell. In fact, only after Romney showed up for a meet and greet with Billy Graham in North Carolina earlier this month did the website of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association erase a reference to Mormonism as a “cult."
Did Mormons all of a sudden change their theology? Did Graham change his definition of a “cult”? Of course not. It just became politically expedient for Graham to declassify Mormonism, given the fact that Romney, a Mormon, was the presidential nominee of his beloved GOP.
Ralph Reed, too, is forsaking his theology for his politics, mobilizing his Atlanta-based Faith and Freedom Coalition to place voter guides in Ohio churches in the run-up to election day.
I am old enough to remember when the main purpose of Reed’s Christian Coalition and other groups on the religious right was to put born-again Christians in the Congress, the White House, and the Supreme Court. And for decades those who were running those groups saw Mormons as non-Christians.
And don't get me started on Mike Huckabee, who in a recent ad says that a vote for Obama is a vote for your own damnation.
Have LDS Church members repudiated the Book of Mormon as “another testament of Jesus Christ” or their view that the Bible is the word of God only “as far as it is correctly translated”? Have they accepted the Trinity? Rejected their teaching that there are many gods?
As Ben Witherington, Albert Mohler, and many other evangelical thinkers continue to insist: no, no, and no.
I used to believe that the purpose of the religious right was to infuse American politics with Christian politicians and Christian politics. I no longer believe that. The purpose of the religious right is to use the Christian God for political purposes. Why any Christian, conservative or liberal, can say "Amen" to that is beyond me.
I am perfectly happy to see Reed stump for Romney in Ohio and Graham plump for Romney in an ad in The Wall Street Journal. Just don’t tell me they are doing so as Christians. They are doing so as shills for the GOP.
First off, the Huckabee ad, as I explained yesterday, has nothing to do with damnation or hell. But to Prothero's larger point, plenty of evangelical Christians still have strong disagreements with Mormon teaching, but they recognize that secular politics is not about selecting a national pastor but electing a president, a civil officer, not an ecclesiastic one. Secondly, Ralph Reed has long been disassociated with the Christian Coalition and a thoroughly partisan Republican activist for years, so it's ludicrous for Prothero to hit Reed for partisanship.
You'll notice that Prothero insisted that the Christian Coalition was founded "to put born-again Christians" in all three branches of the federal government. While that doubtless was and probably remains a desire of many folks within the Christian Coalition, it appears nowhere in the group's mission statement, available online and excerpted here (emphases mine):
The Coalition is a political organization, made up of pro-family Americans who care deeply about ensuring that government serves to strengthen and preserve, rather than threaten, our families and our values. To that end, we work continuously to identify, educate and mobilize Christians for effective political action.
Our Mission:
•Represent the pro-family point of view before local councils, school boards, state legislatures and Congress
•Speak out in the public arena and in the media
•Train leaders for effective social and political action
•Inform pro-family voters about timely issues and legislation
•Protest anti-Christian bigotry and defend the rights of people of faith
What's more, a review of the Christian Coalitions site finds no explicit "vote for" pitches for candidates for federal office, although it's clear the organization is friendly to Romney and conservatives and highly critical of liberal Democrats and President Obama. The Coalition does have a 2012 legislative agenda, which, among other things, wants to make the Bush tax cuts permanent and repeal ObamaCare.
Prothero has a right to his opinion, but the Boston University religion scholar really needs to tighten up his argument with facts, rather than misleading innuendo.
Already sent this to GG in a previous thread...so this is for others interested in how Lds "prophets" operate:
Read the second line in the chart below...and then inform all of us what promises did Kennedy ever make that comes even close to the sacred temple promise Romney has made to the Mormon church?
Then...continue on and read the Lds "prophets'" statements below (along with other Lds general authorities)...And then, you be sure to please show us where the Pope has made similar spiritual-political imposing statements such as what you find from those Lds leaders below...except for the first three statements, ALL of them were made by Lds leaders between the 1960s and 1980s...
The bottom-line: No one will be able to reinforce GG's strawman case of a Kennedy comparison equivalent...Why? Because you can't argue from a void.
Therefore it's no parallel...
| Lds Leader | Chronological 'Prophet' or Fundamental # (or Other Title) | Overlap Areas: Could the President of the U.S. become a 'puppet' to an Lds 'Prophet?' (The Lds Prophets -- in their own words) | By contrast: Roman Catholic leader (like a Pope or John F. Kennedy) | Any similar statements made by a Pope or Kennedy |
| Mitt Romney as POTUS??? | Aside from above prophetic impositions, why would Mitt not only honor what these 'prophets' have spoken, but what a future Lds 'prophet' may tell him to do? | The Law of Consecration Oath Mitt Romney has sworn in the Mormon temple (done before marriage/sealing in temple): "You and each of you covenant and promise before God, angels, and these witnesses at this altar, that you do accept the law of consecration as contained in this, the book of Doctrine and Covenants [he displays the book], in that you do consecrate yourselves, your time, talents, and EVERYTHING with which the Lord has blessed you, or WITH which he MAY bless you, to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, for the building up of the kingdom of God on the earth and for the establishment of Zion." Source: What is an LDS Church/Mormon temple marriage/sealing? [Q: Please define 'Zion': The LDS PR Web site (lds.org) defines its primary meaning: "membership in the [LDS] church."] | Kennedy made no similar vows to the Catholic church that Romney has made to the Mormon church | No comparative vow |
| John Taylor | Lds 'Prophet' #3 | “The Almighty has established this kingdom with order and laws and every thing pertaining thereto…[so] that when the nations shall be convulsed, we may stand forth as saviours…and finally redeem a ruined world, not only in a religious but in a political point of view.” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 9, p. 342, April 13, 1862) | No parallel exists between Lds "prophets" and Roman Catholic popes | No Pope in the past 150 years has made statements similar to Lds "prophets": Those who raise up this 'strawman' argue from silence |
| John Taylor | Lds 'Prophet' #3 | The LDS Church -- in 2001 -- thought it well to pull this quote from John Taylor to emphasize it: "The Lord...is desirous to show us how to save ourselves, how to bless ourselves temporally and spiritually, intellectually, morally, physically, POLITICALLY..." (Lds Church owned Deseret News, Nov. 19, 1865, p. 2, as quoted in Teachings of Presidents of the Church: John Taylor (2001, p. 178). Also from p. 178: "The idea of strictly religious feelings with us, and nothing else, is out of the question...Our religion is more comprehensive than that of the world...it embraces all the interests of humanity in every conceivable phrase..." (Original source: The Gospel Kingdom, 1943, p. 168) | No contemporary parallel exists between Lds "prophets" and Roman Catholic popes | No Pope in the past 150 years has made statements similar to Lds "prophets": Those who raise up this 'strawman' argue from silence |
| Orson Hyde | President of the Lds Quorum of the 12 Apostles for 28 years (1847-1875) | “What the world calls ‘Mormonism’ will rule every nation...God has decreed it, and his own right arm will accomplish it. This will make the heathen rage.” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, p. 53) | No contemporary parallel exists between Lds "prophets" and Roman Catholic Vatican | No Pope in the past 150 years has made statements similar to Lds "prophets": Those who raise up this 'strawman' argue from silence |
| Heber J. Grant | Lds 'Prophet' #7 | "Elder Marion G. Romney recalled the counsel of President Heber J. Grant: 'My boy, you always keep your eye on the President of the Church, and if he ever tells you to do anything, and it is wrong, and you do it, the Lord will bless you for it.' Then with a twinkle in his eye, he said, 'But you don't need to worry. The Lord will never let his mouthpiece lead the people astray'" (in Conference Report, Oct. 1960, p. 78)." Cited in Official Lds publication Search the Commandments: Melchizedek Priesthood Personal Study Guide, p. 209 (1984) | No contemporary parallel exists between Lds "prophets" and Roman Catholic popes | No Pope in the past 150 years has made statements similar to Lds "prophets": Those who raise up this 'strawman' argue from silence |
| Harold B. Lee | Lds 'Prophet' #11 | ...President Harold B. Lee said: 'We must learn to give heed to the words and commandments that the Lord shall give through his prophet, '...as if from mine own mouth...(D&C 21:4-5)...You may not like what comes from the authority of the Church. It may contradict your political views. It may contradict your social views. It may interfere with some of your social life. But if you listen to these things, as if from the mouth of the Lord himself..." Cited in official Lds publication Remember Me: Relief Society Personal Study Guide I, p. 27 (1989) | No contemporary parallel exists between Lds "prophets" and Roman Catholic popes | No Pope in the past 150 years has made statements similar to Lds "prophets": Those who raise up this 'strawman' argue from silence |
| Spencer Kimball | Lds 'Prophet' #12 | "President Spencer W. Kimball said: '...We deal with many things which are thought to be not so spiritual; but all things are spiritual with the Lord, and he expects us to listen, and to obey..." (In Conference Report, Apr. 1977, p. 8; or Ensign, May 1977, p. 7) Cited in official Lds publication Come, Follow Me: Melchizedek Priesthood Personal Study Guide 1983, p.12 (1983) | No contemporary parallel exists between Lds "prophets" and Roman Catholic popes | No Pope in the past 150 years has made statements similar to Lds "prophets": Those who raise up this 'strawman' argue from silence |
| What about Marion G. Romney, cousin to Mitt's father? | Who was he in Lds hierarchy? (Title: 'President' - Top 3 of church as 2nd counselor to both #11 & #12 Lds 'prophets') | "Elder Neal A. Maxwell has said: 'Following the living prophets is something that must be done in all seasons and circumstances. We must be like President Marion G. Romney, who humbly said, '..I have never hesitated to follow the counsel of the Authorities of the Church even though it crossed my social, professional, and political life' (Conference Report, April 1941, p. 123). There are, or will be moments when prophetic declarations collide with our pride or our seeming personal interests...Do I believe in the living prophet even when he speaks on matters affecting me and my specialty directly? Or do I stop sustaining the prophet when his words fall in my territory? if the latter, the prophet is without honor in our country! (Things As They Really Are, p. 73). Cited in official Lds publication, Search the Commandments: Melchizedek Priesthood Personal Study Guide, pp. 275-276 (1984) | No contemporary parallel exists between Lds "prophets" and Roman Catholic Vatican | No Pope in the past 150 years has made statements similar to Lds "prophets": Those who raise up this 'strawman' argue from silence |
| Ezra Taft Benson | Lds 'Prophet' #13 | Benson speech given 2/26/80 @BYU. Summary: “…remember, if there is ever a conflict between earthly knowledge and the words of the prophet, you stand with the prophet…” (See excerpts re: 3 of 14 'fundamentals' below) Source: Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet | No contemporary parallel exists between Lds "prophets" and Roman Catholic popes | No Pope in the past 150 years has made statements similar to Lds "prophets": Those who raise up this 'strawman' argue from silence |
| Benson (cont'd) | Fundamental #5 | 5. The prophet is not required to have any particular earthly training or credentials to speak on any subject or act on any matter at any time. (My Q: Ya hear that Mitt Romney?) | No contemporary parallel exists between Lds "prophets" and Roman Catholic popes | No Pope in the past 150 years has made statements similar to Lds "prophets": Those who raise up this 'strawman' argue from silence |
| Benson (cont'd) | Fundamental #9 | 9. The prophet can receive revelation on any matter, temporal or spiritual. (My Q: Still listening, Mitt?) | No contemporary parallel exists between Lds "prophets" and Roman Catholic popes | No Pope in the past 150 years has made statements similar to Lds "prophets": Those who raise up this 'strawman' argue from silence |
| Benson (cont'd) | Fundamental #10 | 10. The prophet may advise on civic matters. (My Q: What say ye Mitt?) | No contemporary parallel exists between Lds "prophets" and Roman Catholic popes | No Pope in the past 150 years has made statements similar to Lds "prophets": Those who raise up this 'strawman' argue from silence |
| B.H. Roberts | LDS Historian and Seventy. Note: Roberts was an elected Democratic Congressman from Utah in 1898 -- but was NEVER seated by Congress because of grass roots uproar vs. Roberts, who took a THIRD simultaneous wife in the early 1890s. Grass roots America collected 7 MILLION signatures on 28 banners and presented them to Congress...in pre-mass media 1800s! | “[T]he kingdom of God... is to be a POLITICAL INSTITUTION THAT SHALL HOLD SWAY OVER ALL THE EARTH; TO WHICH ALL OTHER GOVERNMENTS WILL BE SUBORDINATE AND BY WHICH THEY WILL BE DOMINATED.” The Rise and Fall of Nauvoo, 1900, p. 180 | No contemporary parallel exists between Lds "prophets" and Roman Catholic Vatican | No Pope in the past 150 years has made statements similar to Lds "prophets": Those who raise up this 'strawman' argue from silence |
Maybe Rev. Graham and his son understand the dire situation we are in. I pray that you and your crew here wake up before next Tuesday.
I make a distinction 'tween Billy Graham's actions late in that one week (meeting with Mitt Romney & endorsing him) vs. what his Evangelistic Association did late that ensuing weekend -- which was to scrub the Web site of all "cult" references...including references of Mormonism as a cult.
"Dire situations" may call for endorsements; but not for scrubbing truth...
FR is a conservative board, I take that to mean it is not just politically conservative. If it was just political and not religiously conservative, it would be a Libertarian board.
All these posters claiming they don’t care if they have Mormonism for their president are not conservatives, plain and simple. Are they Libertarians? Perhaps, whatever they are it is not conservative.
“Conservative,” to me, means one who seeks to conserve, or preserve, true values, whether political or religious, and is opposed to the corruption of either. If Mormonism isn’t a departure from the Pilgrim heritage and Christian values of this country, I’ll eat my hat.
Truth is, we have, as a nation, degenerated into a irreligious people. Even so called conservatives, just read the posts. The only thing that matters nowadays is the political side of things, most could care less about what is happening to the religious side of things. A sign of the times, the “falling away” that must come first in order to prepare the way of antichrist.
What? You mean I can't even compliment the Billy Graham Evangelistic Asso. for having that info up for how many yrs now -- and conversely removing it for the less-than-past-month?
Now even any and all critiques of this nature have to be scrubbed as well?...To supposedly be censored by the anti-First Amendment types like yourself???
Are you the "Big Brother" of political commentators...telling people what they should or shouldn't comment upon?
(Show me your divine "badge" that wields such authority)
FR is not exclusively a Christian board. Period. Christians have no monopoly on conservatism or morality.
What a nonsensical statement...
Are you saying there's some sort of "anti-admiration" society goin' 'round telling you who you can't personally admire?
Because if there isn't, you're addressing some sort of comments that aren't even out there floating around.
Hahahaha! Yeah, I’m the one that pressured Billy Graham to remeove references to Mormonism on his site. Remind me, was that before or after I aimed a hurricane at New York city and caused Mr. Obama’s poll numbers to drop? Excuse me for lighting your straw men on fire.
YOU MEAN THIS MORMON?
PRESIDENT MITT
I guess what I said went over your head. Let me break it down for you:
1. This is not Japan or some similar type country having no Christian heritage. The Pilgrims were here first, their types played a major role in the founding of this country.
2. When Joseph Smith started his golden plates religion, the 19th century, Christian America was appalled, everyone knew it was a fraud and not the Christianity of our predecessors. Which is why, to find them a place apart from Christian opposition, they moved to Utah.
3. “Conservative,” by definition, seeks to conserve. FR being an American conservative site, would seek to conserve America’s Christian heritage, and would be opposed to such things as Mormonism, a departure from Christian beliefs that long predated Mormonism.
3. Hence, your assertion that FR is not a Christian board is false by definition. This being America with a Christian heritage going back to the Pilgrims, and FR being a conservative board, by definition it is Christian.
This Christian will enthusiastically vote for the decent Mormon over the Obamination.
You have no idea what FR management says about this subject, do you?
(Well, you've certainly sanctioned/embraced it after-the-fact by critiquing those who critique that scrubbing of truth from his site)
(I clicked on the original link to Newsbusters, and read the portion Shepherd cited Prothero...which was 11 of Prothero's 15 paragraphs...so I read most of it)
Apparently Mr. Prothero thinks that Christians endorsing Romney are going against their own beliefs by doing so, that they are endorsing Mormonism and forsaking their own religion for political purposes (he calls them shills for the GOP). That is what I'm objecting to: his intimation that endorsing someone whom is of beliefs that your own religion condemns is somehow apostasy.
#1...re: "endorsing" Mormonism...I don't see most of the Christian groups or individuals openly endorsing Romney giving any qualifications or caveats re: his Mormonism, do you? (So what else do they leave others to conclude?)
Analogy: If you endorsed a pro-abort candidate because they were semi-conservative on a lot of issues, and the other major candidate was even worse abortion wise, if you endorsed that candidate without acknowledging at least some problems with their abortion stance, aren't you embracing/elevating/endorsing pro-abortionism to some extent?
*************************
#2 Allow me to use this other analogy (from the Old Testament):
Saul was Israel's first king (they had "judges" before then, but were clamoring for a king to be like the people groups around them).
The Lord relented, and Saul, who eventually fell out of kilter relationship-wise with both God and David, became that first king.
A Biblical commentator notes in 1 Samuel that the writer of 1 Samuel's narrative "show[s] the people's and God's initial approval of him. Saul is presented as Israel's deliverer, remarkably similar to the judges. While all Israel cowered at the threat of the Ammonites, Saul rallied the tribes and defeated the enemy. Just as during the time of the judges, the Spirit of God came upon him and he had victory in the battle. At the conclusion of the story, we see again that Saul's mighty deeds were known and acknowledged by the people. It is in light of these narratives that the subsequent failure of Saul is explained. A valiant and mighty leader is not necessarily a godly one...Saul failed as king because he did not provide the spiritual leadership for the nation." (NIV Compact Bible Commentary, p. 225)
So, just as the Israelites cowered at the threat of the Ammonites of that time, today's conservatives cower at the threat of another four Obama years and the threat of Muslim terrorists. Just as Saul alleviated some of that threat, "King Romney" is likewise seen as a threat alleviator.
And, just as Saul failed to provide spiritual leadership, so will Romney, whose beliefs are closer to polytheistic paganism than to Christianity.
Somehow, Christian voters for Romney don't seem to mind that they are openly endorsing -- without qualification or caveat -- a man who...
...(a) like 15-20% of all Mormons, believes he is a competitor to THE God as a rival god [otherwise known as open idolatry];
...and (b) would "feature" a man in the White House...as THE Leader of the Free World...praying -- in a crisis situation -- to a foreign god who is no god at all.
What kind of "leadership" is it when a nation forgoes the ONE AND ONLY TRUE God as its Ultimate Leader?
Good post, at least to those of us who are curious as to what the Bible might have to say concerning the current situation. To the atheists, the irreligious (they seem to be legion around here), those of non-Christian religions, Mormons and such like, once they saw your post used scripture they probably read no more than the first few lines.
Their last hope is to suppress the GOP vote.
You support the CNN blogger and repost your anti-Mormon spam.
Now *there’s* a surprise!
Not.
Believe me, we get you point now - for the hundredth time.
Give it a rest.
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.