All Comments (62)

Apparently, one of the references in my posting has caused some consternation. I want to set the record straight and to apologize for perpetrating any misleading information. As Laura pointed out, Mormons believe in both "Heavenly Father" and "Heavenly Mother." In my haste -- and in seeking economy of expression -- I made an inadvertent reference to Mormon belief in God as male and female.

I'm sorry if my statement caused any confusion.

As a member of Mormon church I have frequently defended my church as being Christian. Galatians' post was thoughtful and well written. I believe it has given me a better understanding of why some would not consider Mormons to be Christians. If you are using the definition given in Galatians' post, then I suppose it might be accurate to say that Mormons are not Christians.

Of course we consider ourselves to be Christian, and reject the definition given above.

One point of correction, Galatians makes the claim that, "the Jesus of the Book of Mormon is not the only begotten Son of God, the second person of the Trinity, or the one through whose death on the cross we can be saved from our sins." In fact the Book of Mormon clearly and repeatedly teaches all of these things about Jesus. (Our understanding of the Trinity is different than that of orthodox Christianity, but on that issue the text of the Book of Mormon and the Bible are similar.)

Are Mormons “Christians” as defined by traditional Christian orthodoxy? The answer to that question is easy and straightforward, and it is “no.” Nevertheless, even as the question is clear, the answer requires some explanation.

The issue is clearly framed in this case. Christianity is rightly defined in terms of “traditional Christian orthodoxy.” Thus, we have an objective standard by which to define what is and is not Christianity.

We are not talking here about the postmodern conception of Christianity that minimizes truth. We are not talking about Christianity as a mood or as a sociological movement. We are not talking about liberal Christianity that minimizes doctrine nor about sectarian Christianity which defines the faith in terms of eccentric doctrines. We are talking about historic, traditional, Christian orthodoxy.

Once that is made clear, the answer is inevitable. Furthermore, the answer is made easy, not only by the structure of Christian orthodoxy (a structure Mormonism denies) but by the central argument of Mormonism itself – that the true faith was restored through Joseph Smith in the nineteenth century in America and that the entire structure of Christian orthodoxy as affirmed by the post-apostolic church is corrupt and false.

In other words, Mormonism rejects traditional Christian orthodoxy at the onset – this rejection is the very logic of Mormonism’s existence. A contemporary observer of Mormon public relations is not going to hear this logic presented directly, but it is the very logic and message of the Book of Mormon and the structure of Mormon thought. Mormonism rejects Christian orthodoxy as the very argument for its own existence, and it clearly identifies historic Christianity as a false faith.

So, what does Mormonism reject? The orthodox consensus of the Christian church is defined in terms of its historic creeds and doctrinal affirmations. Two great doctrines stand as the central substance of that consensus. Throughout the centuries, the doctrines concerning the Trinity and the nature of Christ have constituted that foundation, and the church has used these definitional doctrines as the standard for identifying true Christianity.

The Mormon doctrine of God does not correspond to the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. Mormonism rejects the central logic of this doctrine (one God in three eternal persons) and develops its own doctrine of God – a doctrine that bears practically no resemblance to Trinitarian theology. The Mormon doctrine of God includes many gods, not one. Furthermore, Mormonism teaches that we are what God once was and are becoming what He now is. That is in direct conflict with Christian orthodoxy.

Contemporary Mormonism presents the Book of Mormon as “another testament of Jesus Christ,” but the Jesus of the Book of Mormon is not the only begotten Son of God, the second person of the Trinity, or the one through whose death on the cross we can be saved from our sins.

Normative Christianity is defined by the Apostles Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the other formulas of the doctrinal consensus. These doctrines are understood by Christians to be rooted directly within the Bible and rightly affirmed by all true believers in all places and throughout all time. As one leading figure in the early church explained, the true faith is recognized and affirmed everywhere, always, and by all (Vincent of Lérins defined the orthodox tradition as those truths affirmed “ubique, semper, ab omnibus”).

The major divisions within Christian history (Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Protestantism) disagree over important issues of doctrine, but all affirm the early church’s consensus concerning the nature of Christ and the Trinitarian faith. These are precisely what Mormonism rejects.

Without doubt, Mormonism borrows Christian themes, personalities, and narratives. Nevertheless, it rejects what orthodox Christianity affirms and it affirms what orthodox Christianity rejects. It is not Christianity in a new form or another branch of the Christian tradition. By its own teachings and claims, it rejects that very tradition.

Richard John Neuhaus, a leading Roman Catholic theologian, helpfully reminds us that “Christian” is a word that “is not honorific but descriptive.” Christians do respect the Mormon affirmation of the family and the zeal of Mormon youth in their own missionary work. Christians must affirm religious liberty and the right of Mormons to practice and share their faith.

Nevertheless, Mormonism is not Christianity by definition or description.

When non-Mormons attempt to explain Mormon doctrine they nearly always fail on some point. As has already been pointed out several times, Mormons absolutely do not believe that God is both male and female. I am not aware of any current or past teachings of the Mormon Church that even remotely hint at that idea. I am baffled as to where Mr. Balmer got this information, but I believe it is an honest mistake. A correction in the main body of the essay seems appropriate. This is a factual error and it is distracting from the main points of the article.

Jon: I'm all for not bashing Mormons for any reason. I'm just against Romney pretending he's just like a baptist by hiding behind the constitution's "no religious test" clause to run from his faith so evangelicals won't all vote for Huckabee (but oh, by the way, we do believe Jesus is our Lord and Savior - no problem mentioning that), and by the way, America is just for believers.

I'm not Mormon and I'm tired of people bashing Mormons. Let people believe in what suits them. We all have our reasons for believing in the things that we do. Right or wrong people should not pass judgement on others!!!

Mark Hoffman, that was an interesting work of fiction.

So far, I've learned from these comments that, while Mormonism is pretty nutty, it isn't much nuttier than most other religions.

That's comforting I guess if you believe having a president who is only moderately nutty is a good thing.

So far, I've learned from these comments that, while Mormonism is pretty nutty, it isn't much nuttier than most other religions.

That's comforting I guess if you believe having a president who is only moderately nutty is a good thing.

Notice that the Moromon responses on this page tend to only go towards the "we don't believe that god is a man and woman -- people just don't understand us....blah blah blah" They rarely address the utter and proveably fraudulent founding of their religion, its overarching theocracy (shown glaringly by Brother Mitt yesterday), and the negative effect it has on some societies (depression use in Utah). Mitt couldn't address his faith specifically because any attempt to do so would have had the evidence against it from history, biology, anthropology, genetics, etc. brought to full light. It is proveably made up.

Most religions are, they just happen to be older and cloaked in time passed.

Ask a mormon about scientology - they'll give you damning evidence of its fraudulence. Funny, when the same evidence is used against them they cry persecution.

Mitts talk yesterday made me decide one good thing. I will do everthing in my power to keep theocratic bullies like him out of the white house

Several posts have included slanderous comments about Joseph Smith being convicted this or that. They have called him a fraud,or a liar. Fine, everyone is entitled to an opinion. But, since the first days of the faith there has been a cottage industry for those peddling slanderous books, movies, etc. regarding the LDS church. Which again is fine, because everyone should have some way to make a living. Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons)generally have only one request-

Instead of just accepting the antagonistic view of our beliefs, doctrine, and history; how about researching both sides of Mormonism equally. Most of the charges made by otherwise intellegent individuals, are generally only hearsay, rumor, or, worse yet, rantings by disaffected individuals with an axe to grind (oft times in a profitable manner).

One thing almost always left out, is the vast degree of religious intolerance endured by the early Mormons due to a lack of honest inquiry. Mormons are one of only two or three groups of people in this country to have endured such blatent violations of basic civil liberties because of religious intolerance. Although, there are countless stories about men, women, and children being killed for just being mormons, I will refer to only one. When the then govenor of Missouri, Lilburn Boggs could not expel the Mormons from his state through various legal maneuvers (which were never successful, or legal), he made an executive order mandating the expulsion of every Mormon (by whatever means)from the State of Missouri. Even children were killed because "nits make lice". The Extermination Order remained on the books in Missouri until 1978.

Now, like I said earlier, everyone is entitled to an opinion (and earn a living). However, I hope you can see from one members perspective, what happens when ill-informed people don't take time to do a little balanced research.

In spite of all the hype and spin Mormons by definition are not Christian in their core beliefs.They are still as before a 19th century cult.

At least the nations leading newspapers editorial pages get it:

From the NY Times:

Faith vs. the Faithless

By DAVID BROOKS

...“But now the landscape of religious life has changed. Now its most prominent feature is the supposed war between the faithful and the faithless. Mitt Romney didn’t start this war, but speeches like his both exploit and solidify this divide in people’s minds. The supposed war between the faithful and the faithless has exacted casualties.

The first casualty is the national community. Romney described a community yesterday. Observant Catholics, Baptists, Methodists, Jews and Muslims are inside that community. The nonobservant are not. There was not even a perfunctory sentence showing respect for the nonreligious.”...

And again from the NY Times:

Editorial
The Crisis of Faith

“Mitt Romney obviously felt he had no choice but to give a speech yesterday on his Mormon faith. Even by the low standards of this campaign, it was a distressing moment and just what the nation’s founders wanted to head off with the immortal words of the First Amendment: A presidential candidate cowed into defending his way of worshiping God by a powerful minority determined to impose its religious tenets as a test for holding public office...

He was trying to persuade Christian fundamentalists in the Republican Party, who do want to impose their faith on the Oval Office, that he is sufficiently Christian for them to support his bid for the Republican nomination. No matter how dignified he looked, and how many times he quoted the founding fathers, he could not disguise that sad fact.

Mr. Romney tried to cloak himself in the memory of John F. Kennedy, who had to defend his Catholicism in the 1960 campaign. But Mr. Kennedy had the moral courage to do so in front of an audience of Southern Baptist leaders and to declare: “I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute.”

Mr. Romney did not even come close to that in his speech, at the George Bush Presidential Library in Texas, before a carefully selected crowd. And in his speech, he courted the most religiously intolerant sector of American political life by buying into the myths at the heart of the “cultural war,” so eagerly embraced by the extreme right.

Mr. Romney filled his speech with the first myth — that the nation’s founders, rather than seeking to protect all faiths, sought to imbue the United States with Christian orthodoxy...

CNN, shockingly, required the candidates at the recent Republican debate to answer a videotaped question from a voter holding a Christian edition of the Bible, who said: “How you answer this question will tell us everything we need to know about you. Do you believe every word of this book? Specifically, this book that I am holding in my hand, do you believe this book?”

The nation’s founders knew the answer to that question says nothing about a candidate’s fitness for office. It’s tragic to see it being asked at a time when Americans need a president who will tell the truth, lead with conviction and restore the nation’s moral standing, not one who happens to attend a particular church.

From the Washington Post:

No Freedom Without Religion?

There's a gap in Mitt Romney's admirable call for tolerance.

“RELIGIOUS liberty is, as Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney declared yesterday, "fundamental to America's greatness." With religious division inciting violence across the globe, he is right to celebrate America's tradition of religious tolerance. He's right, too, that no one should vote against him, or for him, because he is a Mormon. We only wish his empathy for religious minorities such as his own extended a bit further, to those who do not believe in God...

"Americans acknowledge that liberty is a gift of God, not an indulgence of government," Mr. Romney said. But not all Americans acknowledge that, and those who do not may be no less committed to the liberty that is the American ideal.

Perhaps there are few stories as bizarre as this one: A young well educated minister and his new wife arrive in the Massachusetts Bay Colony. He is a believer in adult baptism –antipedobaptism, the technical term – and promptly runs afoul the Puritan theocracy of the Bay Colony. His break with John Dunster – the then head of Harvard forces him to seek refuge in Rhode Island and begins the Baptist communion. He sets down the principles of the new communion and among them those of interest to us:
“Fourthly, the doctrine of persecution for cause of conscience is proved guilty of all the blood of the souls crying for vengeance under the altar.
Fifthly, all civil states with their officers of justice in their respective constitutions and administrations are proved essentially civil, and therefore not judges, governors, or defenders of the spiritual or Christian state and worship.
Sixthly, it is the will and command of God that (since the coming of his Son the Lord Jesus) a permission of the most paganish, Jewish, Turkish, or antichristian consciences and worships, be granted to all men in all nations and countries; and they are only to be fought against with that sword which is only (in soul matters) able to conquer, to wit, the sword of God's Spirit, the Word of God. “
That these principles are adhered to is unquestionable. Not only do you have the oldest in use synagogue the USA in Newport, RI, but a presence of Jewish and other religious expressions from North Carolina to Mobile, Alabama when there were none in other parts of the country
Even though we pride ourselves on religious freedom, this was only true as to the number and variety of communities, there was no such freedom inside these communities. You only have to walk in The Boston Common to find the statue of Mary Dyer, hung for “quaking while reciting the Lord’s prayer” or read the Maryland statutes where it was a crime to say anything against the Holy Trinity.
Abolition was the breaking point and concomitant with it came Brown vs. Board of Education which was to many the last nail of Reconstruction. In fact, it wasn’t till 1995 that the reality sunk in completely and other means beside terror came to be and came to be the reality we live today.
There is no question that Roger Williams was intellectually and factually the creator of the concept of religious freedom and expression as well as the “wall of separation” between Church and State. What he understood clearly has gone by the wayside and the result has been a turn in a direction which has never had a happy ending no matter where and no matter what the issues or what the religious community involved. What we should all hope is that the “genie” that has been let out of the lamp can be safely put back and we can all worship or not, and if we do want to worship to do so SSin our own minds and our own homes our places of worship and return to the only creed that made us what we are: The respect for the rights and beliefs of other and the search of justice and the common good.

"Another non-Mormon telling Mormons what they believe. ..."

In the context of a Presidential campaign, who cares what Mormons believe? Evidently there are way too many people who care.

I'm an atheist and I don't even care about what Mormons believe, even though ole Mitt thinks I can't be a good American without some silly omnipotent puppeteer secretly whispering words of wisdom in my ear from the clouds above.

What I do care about is our religious liberty and Mitt made it very clear (by advocating government entanglement with religion) that he does not respect our religious liberty and that has absolutely nothing to do with his Mormon beliefs (or does it)?

Maybe the Mormons out there can answer this ... Is opposition to separtion of church and state part of the Mormon belief system?

The Book of Mormom wasn't "found" in Palmyra, it was dictated to a gullible follower from behind a cloth screen by the infamous con artist Joseph Smith. Romney believes Smith was a Prophet of God, and all the Mormon presidents after him. Romney believes the Lost Tribes of Israel came to North America 2000 years ago in submersible boats crafted by God, as it says in the Book of Mormon. Romney believes in Joseph Smith's scam of letting "witnesses" heft iron plates hidden under fabric, pretending they were the Golden Plates of the Book of Mormon handed to him by the Angel Moroni. Later conveniently "lost" of course.

Romney knows Joseph Smith was run out of town for bank fraud by a Nauvoo, Illinois lynch mob, yet Romney still believes Smith was sincere. Romney knows Smith filled his Nauvoo Safety Society Bank vaults with crates of sand covered by a single layer of silver dollars on top, to convince depositors that the bank had massive capital. Romney believes this is all beside the point, that the Mormon doctrine is true despite its sordid history of murder, extortion, censorship and oppression. And polygamy. Actually, polygamy's not a bad idea.

Anyway, read "The Mormon Murders" about the horrendous duplicity and arrogant oppression of today's Mormon church hierarchy. Then vote for a Comet Worshipper instead, they'd be more sensible. Come on, don't be skeptical, have FAITH.

I believe that Mormonism can hardly be called Christianity any more than can Arianism - but - that doesn't matter to me in deciding who should be our president. (unless a person were obviously looney). However, I wouldn't vote for a Republican in this day and age for any reason whatsoever.

"The Mormon notion of God as both male and female."--Where do you so-called profesors of religion get your understanding of Mormon doctrine? The Church emphatically does not teach that God is both male and female. I don't even know what that means.

Another non-Mormon telling Mormons what they believe. Mormon doctrin does not teach that God is both Male and Female. If you want to know about a Ford don't go to a Honda dealer. Try the website lds.org. At least you can find out what they really believe, even if you disagree. Reading this guy is like going to a mechanic for brain surgery.

Another non-Mormon telling Mormons what they believe. Mormon doctrin does not teach that God is both Male and Female. If you want to know about a Ford don't go to a Honda dealer. Try the website lds.org. At least you can find out what they really believe, even if you disagree. Reading this guy is like going to a mechanic for brain surgery.

oh jesus maria pleeze its all so bizarre!!
it just shows us once more that religion poisons everything it touches! its a total hokus pokus scam run mostly by homophobic ministers/priest/rabis that are after your hard earned money! dear readers do yourself a favor this christmas and open your eyes and look around you and asked yourself why do we have all these religious wars in this world!

What I find interesting is this quote:

"Evangelicals, on the other hand, have an almost talismanic view the Bible (Old and New Testaments), which they often refer to as “the word of God” and which provides their sole religious authority. For another religious group to “tamper” with the canon of scripture – much less add to it at any time – strikes most evangelicals as utter blasphemy."

Protestants are in NO position to object to tampering with the Bible. Martin Luther, inventor of Protestantism, arbitrarily deleted SEVEN books of the Old Testament, on his own "authority". The Biblical Canon had existed intact for over a thousand years, solemnly defined by early Church Fathers at the Synod of Hippo in 393 AD and accepted worldwide throughout all Christendom, even in the face of schisms and doctrinal disputes.

Romney missed a chance to discuss the history of Mormon persecution in America, a bitter persecution which forced them to trek westward. Had he done so he would have made their story part of most Americans' story of this land as a refuge from persecution. He would have legitimized Mormonism a bit and made it more American. This would not have required any discussion of Mormon theology, nor would it have necessitated anti-atheist, anti-agnostic rantings. He indeed did give a good speech but it could have been better.

MORMONISM is now being looked upon as the 5th Branch of the ABRAHANIC faiths!

Will somebody please explain to me why Romney's speech is even considered news? I mean we have a person running for President who thinks Jesus is coming back to Missouri, wears white underwear for protection, thinks dead people can be saved, and thinks the Book of Mormon is the word of god. Imean the only thing as strange as Mormonism is the Christianity. Remember, Christians think that snakes talk, burning bushes speak, and two of every animal floated around on a big boat for forty days and nights.

People, please understand that this religious talk is craziness. This is like beiving inthe Flat Earth theory. What are we coming to..

Ooops. Forgot to add the 'FAMOUS-MORMONS' link! Note: Those in the CIA or Homeland Security and FBI & Military 'Little-Folk' (that make-up the back-Bone of America) are not mentioned (for Obvious Reasons).

http://www.famousmormons.net/

WE ECLATi-ON(s), not OFF(s) salute All Good American folk!

< ?: +) / Ya Ya.

SHAME SHAME SHAME on you Evangelical Religious Jealous Folk & market share hungry (like wolves in Biz Suits or in Religiou Garbs) Industrialists! Wow!

And do I really need to be the one to say it?

"He's no Jack Kennedy."

Yaknow, JJ, Carl Sagan was from our neck of the woods, originally..

Challenged me to learn this song I sing for you, now...

"I used to live in a room full of mirrors...
And and all I could see was me...
And I took my spirit and I crashed my mirror...

And now the whole world is there for me to see..."

Sagan made a better mystic of me before I even got started. That and something my father taught me about a different job: 'You're going to have to accept that when you get called, you're being called into the worst night of someone's life. You can't let that become what people are to you.'

Understand, Photon Guy?

No 'Ya, ya, Romney,' Photon Guy.

No easy answers. Except we're all yet alive, and it's time to start acting like it.

You know this. You were happier before your words here turned dark.

These words are not you.

'It's better to light a signal flare than curse the darkness.'

What do you want to do now, Photon guy?

i'm sick of these romney/jfk comparisons. its completely different! i feel like i'm on crazy pills here?!

" Att: P G A N P L A C E .

Please change your pre-Apocalyptic name to say, SAGANSPLACE, like that. Ya Ya."

Aww, you still know how to flatter a girl, Photon Guy, but I'm not worthy. Even if he did have a soft spot for Hypatia. :)

Hello Randall Balmer,

Thanks for offering your analysis. I agree Romney’s got a tougher sell than Kennedy had due to Mormonism’s relative unfamiliarity and I would add resulting misundertstandings and sometimes distortions of the faith. That is not to say that if everyone was informed on Mormonism that I think all would want to sample it but I do think that people tend to be most wary of what is unfamiliar and unknown.

I noticed a couple of LDS have pointed to your statement “The Mormon notion of God as both male and female” as being false. As a believing Mormon as well, I too thought this statement was misleading.

I think the way you have stated this, those unfamiliar with the faith are most likely to gather that Mormon’s believe that God as an individual is dually gendered which certainly would be an inaccurate portrayal of LDS doctrine.

For those who might be curious, I thought I’d offer how I would describe my LDS beliefs in God:

I worship God the Father and His Son Jesus Christ. I view them as distinct individuals united in one purpose. My conceptions of both are as glorified perfected and embodied beings who are MALE.

Further, I believe in the Holy Ghost as a distinct individual who is united with both God the Father and Jesus Christ in the purpose of mankind’s salvation and growth. I would also describe the Holy Ghost as MALE but as an unembodied Spirit.

Additionally, I believe that God the Father is the literal Father of my spirit and that He did not create me alone-- I also believe that God is married -- that I not only have a Father in Heaven but also a Heavenly Mother who is a distinct individual from my Heavenly Father but is also an equally glorified and perfected being and is FEMALE.

For LDS, one outgrowth of these doctrines is that both men and woman through the atonement of Jesus Christ have the potential to progress to become like God their Father -- this often viewed as the most notoriously heretical LDS doctrine of all.

But as for me, I think it is the most beautiful and humbling doctrine of all and I hope Evangelicals can at least entertain that perspective enough to respect it and not deem me or Romney as unfit for public office solely because of it.

Regards,

Laura

Today in his apologia for his faith Mitt Romney has formally endorsed the theocratic tradition deeply rooted in Mormon practice. Thereby he seeks to reach out to the Evangelicals' rejection of the constitutional separation of church and state. All that Romney sees as dividing him from the apostles of the religious right is that as a Mormon, he is a target of their prejudice, when all he wants is to be an ally of that prejudice. Together Mormonism and the religious right can march against the unholy forces of secularism and American constitutionalism, and a tolerance that embraces not only those of all religious faiths, but those who stand by choice outside of any particular religious tradition, or outside of religion altogether.

Today in his apologia for his faith Mitt Romney has formally endorsed the theocratic tradition deeply rooted in Mormon practice. Thereby he seeks to reach out to the Evangelicals' rejection of the constitutional separation of church and state. All that Romney sees as dividing him from the apostles of the religious right is that as a Mormon, he is a target of their prejudice, when all he wants is to be an ally of that prejudice. Together Mormonism and the religious right can march against the unholy forces of secularism and American constitutionalism, and a tolerance that embraces not only those of all religious faiths, but those who stand by choice outside of any particular religious tradition, or outside of religion altogether.

Hi, JJ.

How bout, ....the world ain't ending. What would you like to do now?

As for Mormon 'Sacred underwear,' ... it's not the *fact* of it being there, but the *form* of it.

Frankly, if you need certain areas outlined in red to call yourself sexually 'continent,' then, this is OK for you, but I suspect we could do better with public policy.

And it's *just* like when I critique Sharia law and the general Fundie idea the b*ahem* lady was asking for it cause skin was shown....

Forgive if I figure there are more mature ways to base public health policy than upon the idea 'People are evil and lecherous, repress them more and blame people's undies when it doesn't work' idea of 'abstinence works, even if it does harm!'

I dress quite modestly, myself, this doesn't mean that seeing my ankle should be fetishized in a context of 'Sex is uncontrollable unless women do this specific thing!'

Actually, a lot of Mormons don't wear 'The Garment' in their daily life, I just don't think it's a sign of being well-adjusted to public health policy to even think that way.

Frankly, it seems to me to just illustrate to extremes some badly-adjusted ideas you'd take from anyone *but* a Mormon or non-Christian.

Especially since putting red in a place on the body, anthropologically-speaking, is actually a mating display. I figure if people get off on union suits so adorned, (or worry about them) they could maybe grant me some leeway in who I can share my life with.

And 'The Defendant' is right, ...Not only that, but when the Massachusetts courts determined that denying same-sex couples marriage violated the Commonwealth's constitution, Romney dug out to enforce an obsolete law that was meant to 'limit the scope' of a similar ruling, which obsolete statute, (never taken off the books because the rest of the country came to accept interracial marriage, eventually) explicitly *states* it's about interracial marriage.

He used it against the gays he claimed his religion wouldn't lead him to oppress.

But he did.

At first opportunity.

Didn't even *see* that the law he was using was in fact *overtly racist.*

Or if he did, didn't think it was worth mentioning when he pushed it, anyway.

Not that we'd get better from the 'regular' evangelicals, but is this about religious freedom? No.

He will oppose the religious freedom of anyone who is not among his masters in the GOP.

Just like the rest.

N. Thomas and me:

""ever tried to get into the main library at Harvard,""

"Is there a speed bump there? I never actually noticed. :)"

"No, but you have to have to be a "member" - faculty or student, and you have to have a card."

In the Widener? Gods. I've been away a while, but I could wander in since I was clad in couteur de gutterpunk and say, 'Where's the Eiliade,' and not get anything but directions.

" Mormon Temples are no different. Why is it wrong for a religious organization to try and create a sacred space - a place apart from the world to contemplate spiritual things?"

I wouldn't say it's wrong.

Certainly, of my own religion, even if someone *does* put on a show for the Discovery Channel, they'll insist that 'Cause we can't show up in the middle of their rituals (with bullhorns) they must obviously be raping bunnies and defiling Bibles,' but ..then again, you won't catch a Pagan claiming what goes on there gives them authority to *legislate* what goes-on-in-that-place-you-can't-look.

There's a difference.

N. Thomas: Mormons tend to vote very clannishly even today. You know very well that there have been no African Americans, Mormons or otherwise, in Utah's Congressional representation or counted among its governors. And you know very well why not: Mormon doctrine until the Passage of the Civil Rights Act in 1968 held that anyone of African ancestry was inferior to Caucasians or other races; and that anyone of African ancestry or who appeared of African ancestry could not become a Mormon Elder or hold ministerial level office in the Mormon religion. Blacks were therefore permitted a segregated pew seat in a Mormon temple, but they were always denied the privilege of leading a Temple from a Mormon pulpit. Your alleged African Mormons aren't proselytized by readings from Mormon theological arguments for white supremacy! No matter how many Africans or people of African ancestry that Mormons claim to convert, you don't have Africans or people of African ancestry leading white Mormon congregations. Just ask Mormon Elder Mitt Romney.Read your exacrable, well-documented history of your racist origins! Stop the lies!!

And I apologize for the coarse depiction, but this is something that pretty much cuts across all religions I know of, even those who will physically handle the remains of their ancestors as a sign of attachment or non-attachment:

You do *not* retroactively rewrite the lives of the dead. You do not ritually dig them up and rebaptize them to some other view of their God or Gods when they ain't around to say different.

This is a *violation* that cannot really be talked around.

It encounters hostility because it *is* a violation. You may expect better of any Pagan descendants who were raised Mormon, and the rest of the world expects this of *you.*

You don't retroactively 'convert' the dead.

Christians will call it necromancy.

I will call it a violation of graves and names.

"Baptism for the dead is mentioned in the New Testament. It is no more "bizarre" than the practices of many so-called "mainstream" Christian religions. In fact, if one thoughtfully examines the theological basis for proxy baptism, it is (gasp!) downright sound doctrine"

I don't care who thinks it's 'sound doctrine' based on whose book, ...this is one thing Mormons *consistently fail to understand* about this *proxy baptism thing.* To, well, everyone else in the world, you may as well be digging up Granny's corpse and having your way with her.

This is *offensive* to *that degree,* *to everyone.*

I'll defend Mormons, even on polygamy to an extent, but you guys really *just don't get how offensive that is and refuse to listen.*

"ever tried to get into the main library at Harvard,"

Is there a speed bump there? I never actually noticed. :)

No, but you have to have to be a "member" - faculty or student, and you have to have a card. Mormon Temples are no different. Why is it wrong for a religious organization to try and create a sacred space - a place apart from the world to contemplate spiritual things?

"And why has not Utah, where the majority of the electorate are overwhelmingly Mormons, or members of the Church of Latter Day Saints, had nearly all or only Mormons in its congressional representatives, Senators, and Governors? Why have there been no African Americans in that missionary religion's management? Why, Mitt? Why?"

Um, you need to check your facts, too. Utah has had several non-Mormon governors, senators, and representatives. And the Mormon Church has had several African Americans in the upper echelons of its leadership - as well as at the local level. True, the overwhelming majority of leaders are from Western countries, but that reflects general Church membership. As membership in South America has grown and matured so have the number of leaders from those countries. The LDS Church does not manage by quota, it runs on revelation.

I was very inspired this summer when I attended an inner city Mormon congregation in Philadelphia. All of the leadership, speakers, and priests preparing the sacrament were African American. Every one! The LDS Church does not discriminate on the basis of race.

By the way, go to Africa where the Church is relatively new (but increasingly well established) and you will find (gasp!) entire congregations of faithful Latter-day Saints. And, guess what, their all African.

Romney could have quoted JFK himself:
"Let us remember that the Mormons of a century ago were a persecuted and prosecuted minority, harried from place to place, the victims of violence and occasionally murder, while today, in the short space of 100 years, their faith and works are known and respected the world around, and their voices heard in the highest councils of this country.
As the Mormons succeeded, so America can succeed, if we will not give up or turn back."
- September 26, 1963

Again: In the slick doublespeak of his speech, Romney argues that "A person should not be elected because of his faith nor should he be rejected because of his faith...." Does that mean Mitt would support a fundamentalist, polygamist, white supremacist Mormon for President, such as one from the Mormon communities in Arizona and Bountiful, British Columbia, Canada, who have adopted polygamy and white supremacy based on original articles of faith in the Book of Mormon? That is, would Mitt support such a Mormon if the Mormon was otherwise a political conservative Republican who could charm a snake to vote for him?

The author also writes:

"The Mormon notion of God as both male and female, baptism for the dead and even the practice of wearing Mormon underwear (thought by many to have protective powers) strike many evangelicals as unorthodox, if not downright bizarre."

AARGH! Where did he get this information? It is patently false. Mormons do not think of God as both male and female, and Mormon Temple garmets are considered sacred, not magical. Baptism for the dead is mentioned in the New Testament. It is no more "bizarre" than the practices of many so-called "mainstream" Christian religions. In fact, if one thoughtfully examines the theological basis for proxy baptism, it is (gasp!) downright sound doctrine. Get real. If you are going to write about Mormon beliefs and practices and expect to be taken seriously, please check your biases at the door.

"ever tried to get into the main library at Harvard,"

Is there a speed bump there? I never actually noticed. :)

Mitt Romney sells religious freedom as though it's the same thing as the freedom to indulge in religious intolerance. In the slick doublespeak of his speech, Romney argues that "A person should not be elected because of his faith nor should he be rejected because of his faith...." Does that mean Mitt would support a Muslim? And why has not Utah, where the majority of the electorate are overwhelmingly Mormons, or members of the Church of Latter Day Saints, had nearly all or only Mormons in its congressional representatives, Senators, and Governors? Why have there been no African Americans in that missionary religion's management? Why, Mitt? Why?

Religion is seen as merely a private affair with no place in public life," Romney said. "It is as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America -- the religion of secularism. They are wrong." Why are "they" "wrong," Mitt? What's wrong with our Constitution's First Amendment right to have freedom to choose a "religion of secularism", or any religious beliefs that we wish? Who the hell are you Mitt to tell us that our religion of choice, whatever that is, is wrong? Sez who?

The author writes:

"Americans see Mormons as secretive; their temples, for instance, are closed to “gentiles” (non-Mormons)."

Come on. Temples are closed because they are sacred to Mormons. This is basic. Other secular buildings have similar restrictions on who may enter - ever tried to get into the main library at Harvard, an exclusive country club, any private event? Mormon "chapels", on the other hand, are open to the public and anyone is welcome to attend their worship services. And the charge that Mormons are "secretive" is ludicrous. Any organization with 50,000 missionaries spreading is message across the world is anything but secretive. When will the media drop such stereotypes for real reporting?

The author writes:

"Americans see Mormons as secretive; their temples, for instance, are closed to “gentiles” (non-Mormons)."

Come on. Temples are closed because they are sacred to Mormons. This is basic. Other secular buildings have similar restrictions on who may enter - ever tried to get into the main library at Harvard, an exclusive country club, any private event? Mormon chapels are open to the public and anyone is welcome to attend their worship services. And the charge that Mormons are "secretive" is ludicrous. Any organization with 50,000 missionaries spreading is message across the world is anything but secretive. When will the media drop such stereotypes for real reporting?

" thishowiseeit:

"Mitt Romney so called JFK speech is clear to me.
He will serve the common cause of US american."

Really. Ain't seen it.

"But what is more important to me is what he has done
in his life, specially as Governor."

That's important to me, having lived there.

"He has not made the horrible mistakes of Giuliani ( failure
to understand that the attack in 1993 to the Word Trade Center Garage was the beginnig of more to come. "

Thankfully, the 'more to come' we were supposed to gut the Constitution about with his support has not materialized, but if you think he was great for security, one word:

Everett.

Randall Balmer did not get his facts right when he spoke of "The Mormon notion of God as both male and female." As a long-time active practicing Mormon, I can tell you that we do not believe God is both male and female. It is unfortunate that people writing the commentary still don't have their facts straight.

Which story do you believe. What difference does it make if Mitt Romney is the best qualified candidate for President that other denominations believe different things about Christianity? It would only make a difference if LDSaints believed things like the earth is flat or the sun revolves around the earth. Those things are obviously and scientifically proven false. But which of the following can be proven one way or the other? NONE. The different versions or concepts surrounding the various religions that accept Jesus Christ as their savior are irrelevant as they are based on faith not proven facts. Mitt is a great man and the rest is pure bigotry and stupidity and nitpicking.
DO YOU BELIEVE ALL OR ANY OF THE FOLLOWING?

God created light on day 1; the moon and sun came 3 days later
The universe comes in three parts; heaven above, the earth below and the water that the earth rests upon
God made Adam out of dust, then created Eve from Adam's rib
Adam and Eve were cast out of Eden for eating from the forbidden fruit (also encompasses "they did it")
Cain killed Abel because God rejected his gift
Noah collected 2 of each of the millions of species of animals and shoved them on an arc
The world was repopulated by Noah's 3 sons and their wives
Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego walked out of the furnace when Nebuchadnezzar threw them in there
God gave the 10 commandments to Moses
God made a bet with the Devil regarding Job's loyalty (and tested it)
God created languages because mankind was planning on building a large tower that somehow would have reached Heaven
God demands Abraham sacrifices Isaac
Ezekiel raised the dead
God sent ten plagues to Egypt
Mary was a virgin when she became pregnant with Jesus
Jesus turned water into wine and walked on water
Jesus was crucified
Jesus awoke from the dead after being crucified
Joseph Smith translated the book of mormon plates "that had the appearance of gold" (Mormon)

Which story do you believe. What difference does it make if Mitt Romney is the best qualified candidate for President that other denominations believe different things about Christianity? It would only make a difference if LDSaints believed things like the earth is flat or the sun revolves around