Feddie over at Southern Appeal has
The post concerns, among other things, the fact that Romney is a Mormon, and there is a question of whether the Republican party’s base will support him enough for him to be the nominee–and, if not, how Mormon Republicans will react to that.
I’m not a Republican. I’m not a member of any political party–nor do I want to be. But I do have some thoughts on this issue.
I don’t know whether the Republican base is willing to support Romney enough to make him the ’08 nominee (though I doubt it, for a variety of reasons, including the fact he’s apparently a bit soft on life issues–which is common for Mormons). Nor do I know how Mormon Republicans might perceive this or what action they might take.
But I do know this: Mitt Romney is not going to be president.
Even if he’s put up against a polarizing figure like Hillary Clinton, he’s not going to be president.
Why?
Because the nation is too narrowly divided at the moment. George Bush lost the popular vote in ’00 because of the drunk driving issue that surfaced at the last minute and caused a percentage of Evangelical voters to get disillusioned with him and stay home on Election Day. He easily could have lost the popular vote (and the electoral vote) if his opponent in ’04 hadn’t been such a walking disaster of a candidate.
Things are just too tight right now for a Republican presidential candidate to be able to get into office if a significant chunk of the Evangelical or Catholic vote decides to just stay home.
Having a Mormon on the ticket is just the thing to cause that to happen.
Sure, many Evangelicals and Catholics will hold their nose and vote for a Mormon if the alternative is an abortion harpy like Hillary. Many would conclude that, as bad as having a polytheist with aspirations to godhood would be as Commander In Chief, it’s something that must be endured for the sake of the babies who’ll get killed through the extension of the abortion holocaust.
That’s assuming Roe is still in place in ’08, which it may not be. If it’s not then Evangelicals and Catholics have even LESS incentive to vote for a Mormon.
But while many would vote for him, many would also stay home.
Think about it from the perspective of the stay-homers: "Despite claims to the contrary, Mormons are not just other Christians. They’re not Christians at all. They are polytheists who themselves believe that they can become gods, running planets or universes with billions of people worshipping them for all eternity," the stay-homers would say. "Worse, they are polytheists with aspirations to godhood who ARE MASQUERADING AS CHRISTIANS, saying that true Christianity IS polytheism with the possibility of becoming the god of your own planet or universe."
"Can you imagine what it would do to validate Mormonism in the public eye if a Mormon were elected president?" the stay-homers would say. "It would cause VAST numbers of people–all over the world–would be duped into thinking that Mormons are Christians and that their religion is ‘okay.’ Many would even convert."
That’s something that is so frightening a prospect that a significant number of Evangelicals and Catholics will conclude–no matter who the opposing nominee is–is simply unacceptable, even if it means delaying the end of the abortion holocaust.
I’m not saying that such folks would be right or wrong. I’m simply saying that they exist–and that they exist in significant enough numbers to cause the Republicans to lose the election.
Mormons may be electable as governors in states like Utah, where Mormons are a majority, or Massachusetts, where people don’t take religion seriously. But you need more than Utah and Massachusetts to win the presidency as a Republican.
You also need Georgia and the Carolinas and Mississippi and Louisiana and Texas and Arkansas and Tennessee and Kentucky and Oklahoma and all kinds of places like that where they take religion much more seriously and where Mormons are only a tiny percentage of the state population.
There’s also the collateral loss of votes from the fact that a Mormon standardbearer would depress the base.
The Republican base depends heavily on Evangelicals and Catholics to give money, get out the vote, and talk up their candiates. If a significant chunk of the base is holding their noses about their nominee, that’s going to have an effect. Even if hardcore partisans are willing to hold their noses and vote for a Mormon, they won’t be excitedly and enthusiastically behind him. They won’t be motivated to give money or put up yard signs or make phone calls or stuff envelopes, or what have you. The energized get-out-the-vote effort that won the election for Bush in ’04 simply won’t be there for a Mormon.
In his post, Feddie remarks that Mormons are important allies in the culture war. That’s true. We need all the votes we can get to end abortion, and while the Mormon church is softer on abortion than it should be, Mormons are important allies in the fight to end abortion.
But there’s a difference between having someone as an ally and having him as a leader. Coalitions need all kinds of people as allies who wouldn’t be acceptable as leaders. That’s the nature of things.
And there are many Evangelicals and Catholics who would find a polytheist who is open to the idea of his own eventual godhood to be unacceptable as a leader.
Enough to cost the Republicans the election.
Romney will not get the GOP nod, and it won’t have anything to do with his faith either. He is a RHINO (Republican In Name Only). In short, he is way too left of where the party base is. Take a look at the following URL for his position on some issues:
http://www.issues2000.org/Mitt_Romney.htm
Fascinating post, Jimmy. Thanks, I’ve never thought of it like that. This will be a very interesting election to follow.
And, being the visual thinker I am, this phrase will be giving me nightmares for years: “abortion harpy like Hillary.”
To tell you where the Catholic church stands on all of this, I was baptized Mormon and to come into the Catholic church on Easter Vigil this year, I have to be rebaptized. The Catholic church does not consider a Mormon baptism to be valid.
And I think if Mitt even gets close to being nominated, all of the dirty little secrets about the church, especially the ones that tick off the ex-Mormons like me so much (temples, etc) will take front and center and the Mormon church will have to answer questions they have no desire to answer to the general public.
I had written the following about Gov. Mitt in my post “stem cell research and trust in princes“:
I think this “ambivalence” on life issues will be enough to tip the scales against him, but I disagree with your assessment of his religion being a factor. I don’t think enough people are aware of the inherent polytheism in Mormonism (unless “South Park” does some parody of it as well).
Then again, I suppose that’s our job as faithful Christians. Keep up the good work, Jimmy.
Cynthia, congratulations and welcome home in advance!
Jimmy, if you ever take on a complex topic (that I know anything about) and DON’T handle it excellently, I’ll let you know. Superb political post. Folks, what you see here is the power of logical thought and good philosophy to take one safely into waters where others flounder all their lives.
I don’t know whether the Republican base is willing to support Romney enough to make him the ’08 nominee (though I doubt it, for a variety of reasons, including the fact he’s apparently a bit soft on life issues–which is common for Mormons).
Similarly, it’s common for Catholic politicians to be soft on life issues.
South Park has already done Mormonism. Season 7, Episode 12.
I am LDS and the church excommunicates anyone who has had an abortion or has paid for an abortion. They won’t excommunicate you if you were raped or life was in jeopardy, but even then they stongly encourage you put the baby up for adoption. If you have ever had an abortion or paid for one and want to be baptized, approval has to come from the first presidency. I am not sure where you get that the church is soft on abortion. Harry Reid is not a typical Mormon.
Why is the Mormon doctrine of deification so controversial?
Here’s what CS Lewis has to say about the subject:
“The command `Be ye perfect’ is not idealistic gas. Nor is it a command to do the impossible. He is going to make us into creatures that can obey that command. He said (in the Bible) that we were “gods” and He is going to make good his words. If we let Him – for we can prevent Him, if we choose – He will make the feeblest and filthiest of us into a god or goddess, dazzling, radiant, immortal creatures, pulsating all through with such energy and joy and wisdom and love as we cannot now imagine, a bright stainless mirror which reflects back to Him perfectly (though, of course, on a smaller scale) His own boundless power and delight and goodness. The process will be long and in parts very painful; but that is what we are in for. Nothing less. He meant what he said.”
C. S. Lewis, “Mere Christianity,” Macmillan, 1952, p. 174.
What’s so controversial about taking Christ at his word?
//Why is the Mormon doctrine of deification so controversial?//
You’re kidding, right? Well, it’s been a subject of intense flux in the history of Mormonism:
http://www.catholic.com/library/Gods_of_the_Mormon_Church.asp
If “God” changes from perfection or to perfection, then he isn’t/wasn’t God.
“What’s so controversial about taking Christ at His word?”
Jesus didn’t say we would become gods.
And Lewis was engaging in hyperbole.
Snake,
Here is what your Prophet, Gordon B. Hinckley said on abortion:
“While we denounce it, we make allowance in such circumstances as when pregnancy is the result of incest or rape, when the life or health of the mother is judged by competent medical authority to be in serious jeopardy, or when the fetus is known by competent medical authority to have serious defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth. But such instances are rare, and there is only a negligible probability of their occurring. In these circumstances those who face the question are asked to consult with their local ecclesiastical leaders and to pray in great earnestness, receiving a confirmation through prayer before proceeding.” Nov. 1998 Ensign
So the Mormon Church allows for abortions in all 5 classic “exceptions.” Not only does this mean that a Mormon woman can rationalize abortion for just about anything (“health” of the mother allows for any psychological trauma they may want to claim), but he also states that a Mormon woman can get an abortion after getting “confirmation through prayer.”
God, giving confirmation for (at least some) abortions? Does that make God a situational ethicist, or just unsure of His own position on abortion?
This post was hard to read because I recently went to school in Boston, am a big of Romney’s, and would love to see him be President… yet I think Jimmy might be right.
In every respect BUT his Mormonism, Romney is a wonderful candidate. He is highly intelligent (MBA and JD dual degree from Harvard), articulate, good-looking. He has shown fantastic managerial ability (founding Bain Capital, saving the Salt Lake Olympics, turning Mass from defecit to surplus).
He’s also not as liberal as he’s often accused. I do believe he had a conversion from ‘privately opposed but publicly for abortion’ to an honest pro-life conviction. Don’t fault the man for having a conversion in his thoughts when confronted by events that made him think again about first principles (i.e., the stem-cell debate forcing the question of when life beings). Isn’t that how we all learn?
He’s obviously fiscally conservative, he speaks out forcefully against the threat of ‘jihadists’ (his term) who seek our destruction, and he strongly opposed the redefinition of marriage in Mass at great political cost.
He’s nearly everything we could possibly want.. but he’s Mormon.
And if he is the nominee you will see at least 6 cover stories in TIME and Newsweek asking “Are Mormons Christian?” or “Joseph Smith: American Saint?” or “Romney’s Religion”, etc, etc.
In all of those article the reporters will have to interview the Rich Lambs, the Rick Warrens, the Franklin Grahams, et al, who will feel duty-bound (rightly so) to confess that Mormonism is false Christianity.
The NYTimes will blare, “Evangelical Leaders Declare Mormonism a Cult; GOP Base Fractured”.
It’ll be a mess.
But…
Could it be managed? Is there anything Romney could do to offset the “cult” problem? Could he give a major speech explaining that while LDS is the church of his fathers, the church of his youth, he considers himself a “non-denominational Christian” and distance himself from the polytheistic garbage?
Many Evangelicals, when pressed, don’t have kind things to say about Catholicism either, but wouldn’t they vote for a socially conservative Catholic they considered to be a saved believer?
Also, the crazy thing about Presidential politics is that you just have to get the right combination of states. Not even the most states, just the states with the right electoral votes.
For Romney to lose any of the solid Bush states at this point (say Texas or Alabama) there’d have to be a substantial stay-at-home element. While stay-at-homers might bring the GOP numbers in those states from 62% down to 57%, a win there is still a win.
What about the less secure states like Arkansas (54%) or Missouri (53%)? Or the razor-thin states like Ohio (51%)? Well, those Romney might lose.
But, look at some of the razor-thin Kerry states: Pennsylvania (51%), New Hampshire (50%). Or the less secure Kerry states like NJ (53%), Michigan (51%) or Minnesota (51%). Romney has a ‘Northeastern feel’ (no accent, sophisticated and eloquent speaking) to him that would endear him to those states. He already has a New England presence and a Michigan background (his father was Governor there).
Even if he loses some of the South, if he can flip a few blue states he would be in the clear. Honestly, the man reminds me of Reagan.. I think Romney could take California (only 54% for Kerry).
Of course, if the Dems nominate former Virginia Gov Mark Warner and New Mexico (Hispanic) Gov Bill Richardson.. Romney could be toast.
While I think an Evangelical backlash could occur as a result of their repugnance for Mormonism’s doctrines, I wouldn’t be too sure about Catholics. SO many Catholics are SO woefully undereducated in their own Faith (let alone in the serious differences between Catholicism and Mormonism) they would be at a loss to see any qaulitative difference between an LDS or an Evangelical. Heck, most of them couldn’t tell you the difference between a Catholic and an Evangelical.
Rob–Because the Mormon teaching erases the ontological distinction between Creator and creature.
Or, as I’ve heard Mormons put it, “As man is, God was; as God is, man may become”.
Jimmy, what are some good Catholic resources for understanding the LDS faith?
As a Mass. Independent voter who believes in what you could call “Realpolitik” I voted for Romney for the simple reason that as he ran he put himself a shade to the right (the best that can be hoped for here) of the Dem. candidate. By “Realpolitik” I mean that you vote for the best you can get under the circumstances. Romney was not doing well in the polls until the last debate just before election day when he said parents should be notified if their child were to have an abortion–the Dem candidate favored letting very young girls getting abortions behind their parents back. That swung enough pro-life Dems his way to squeak through.
Thus I believe on the national level-if he got the nomination-he could win because Dems are sure to put a wide-eyed liberal Yahoo on their ticket. Whether he will or not I do not think his Mormon religion should be made such a big deal of as in this posting. It reminds me of all the anti-Catholic stuff directed at Catholics over the years. Where he personally stands and his record on the issues is what should count. And then both Mormons and non-Mormons have to decide whether he fits the profile of who they want for president.
I know enough about Mormonism, to know that it is a non-Christian religion, and that it is or can be destructive to people living inside. If Mr. Romney were nominated for President, I would vote for him because of his other stands.
“In every respect BUT his Mormonism, Romney is a wonderful candidate. “
Maybe if you’re willing to take a razor blade to the Bill of Rights, and excise the Second amendment. But a few million NRA members, and ten or twenty million gun owners who follow that organization’s endorsements, might just hold a different opinion. And a Republican can’t get elected President without showing some respect for that opinion. Even if a lot of Republican activists wish otherwise.
I am suprised by the vehemence against Mormon doctrine that is on this (primarily?) Catholic website. Anyways, I thought you all might be interested in this quote from a Catholic prelate who visited Salt Lake City in the early 1900s:
“You Mormons are all ignoramuses. You don’t even know the strength of your own position. It is so strong that there is only one other tenable in the whole Christian world, and that is the position of the Catholic Church. . . . If we are right, you are wrong; if you are right, we are wrong; and that’s all there is to it. The Protestants haven’t a leg to stand on. For, if we are wrong, they are wrong with us, since they . . . went out from us; while if we are right, they are apostates whom we cut off long ago.”
[quoted in LeGrand Richards, A Marvelous Work and a Wonder, p. 3]
“And Lewis was engaging in hyperbole.”
And so was . . .
1. Christ
“Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.” (Matthew 5:48)
Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, YE ARE GODS? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and THE SCRIPTURE CANNOT BE BROKEN;” (John 10:34-35, emphasis added)
2. John
“Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, WE SHALL BE LIKE HIM; for we shall see him as he is” (1 John 3:2, emphasis added)
3. Paul
“The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that WE ARE THE CHILDREN OF GOD: AND IF CHILDREN, THEN HEIRS; HEIRS OF GOD, AND JOINT-HEIRS WITH CHRIST; if so be that we suffer with him, THAT WE MAY BE ALSO GLORIFIED TOGETHER. For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us” (Romans 8:16-18, emphasis added)
Once again, what is so controversial about the doctrine of deification? Christ commanded us to be perfect and promised to make us so, if we’ll let him. I believe him.
this quote from a Catholic prelate who visited Salt Lake City in the early 1900s:
Oh, for the love of Pete. Even if the quote that follows the above ISN’T spurious, it is utterly meaningless and is NOT the position of the Catholic Church!
Mr. Anderson,
No one is saying that it is the position of the Catholic church. My point is that, early on, a person who was Catholic (I don’t even know his name.) realized that if the Catholic church no longer held the proper priesthood authority to act for God on the earth (like Protestants and Mormons believe), then a mere reformation would not be enough. Heavenly messengers would be required to RESTORE the priesthood authority to mankind (like only Mormons believe).
if the Catholic church no longer held the proper priesthood authority to act for God on the earth
It does, though, deo gratias. The Catholic Church IS the Church Christ founded, and the gates of hell – include Joseph Smith and his demonic minions -shall not prevail against it. We have His promise until the end of time.
And yes, we will be glorified, but if we ever become “gods” it will be with a small g, like adopted sons; but we will never become another God with a capital G. There is not a shred – a SHRED – of Biblical or traditional evidence to the contrary. So-called “proof texts” alone will not suffice.
Logging off this thread because of the troll….
The quote just states what we have known at my message boards for a while: the Mormon position concerning Catholicism is more consistent than the Fundamentalist position that denies Catholicism is Christian.
Concerning theosis, I am not sure Rob knows the teaching as received and understood by the Catholic Church.
“Not only in this present age but also in the Age to come, God will always have something to teach man, and man will always have something to learn from God.” – St Irenaeus
“…having become imitators of His works as well as doers of His words, we may have communion with Him, receiving increase from the perfect One, and from Him who is prior to all creation … and has also poured out the Spirit of the Father for the union and communion of God and man, imparting indeed God to men by means of the Spirit, and, on the other hand, attaching man to God by His own incarnation, and bestowing upon us at His coming immortality durably and truly, by means of communion with God, – [it is upon this truth that] all the doctrines of the heretics fall to ruin.” – St. Irenaeus
Theosis can never change our nature from man to God. Theosis is restoring our nature to the union with God we once had, and to a union closer still, established through the incarnation of Jesus Christ.
Careful, Rob. According to St. Paul (in Philipians 2:5-7),
“Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness.”
So it is Jesus human nature that is “the very nature of a servant”, and his Divine nature is of the one and only Trinity. He was no human raised to Godhood, but God stooping, as it were, to become human. We become like Him in as much (and only as much) as we share in His divine grace. There is but one God.
If a Mormon is deified in the next life, and gets his own universe (or planet, or whatever), where does said universe (or planet) come from? Does he create it himself, or does he inherit it from the One and Only Creator God?
Unless the deified Mormon can create his own universe ex nihilo, he can’t properly claim to be “like God” in the way that you claim, because he can never be equal to the Creator God. Is this what the Mormons teach?
” . . . or when the fetus is known by competent medical authority to have serious defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth.”
This is actually from The Church Handbook of Instructions, approved in September, 1998. It is a totally indefensible position. It’s OK to abort a pre-born baby just because it might not survive long, robbing the parents of being able to actually hold their own child for even a brief moment? The fact that Hinkley believes this & would ever allow it to be stated in a public document that explains what Mormons believe & that Mormons could possibly receive “confirmation through prayer” from God that abortion, under any circumstance, would be apporved of by God (ie. God saying it’s OK to abort one of His own creation!) is directly contradictory of Christ’s words in the Bible that were anyone to harm one of His “little ones” it would be better that a millstone were tied to their neck & . . . well, I think we all know the rest. As far as I’m concerned, this statement alone negates the “Mormons are Christians” arguement.
Rob, in your post of 4:27:12 you make a very fundamental mistake. The Catholic “prelate” you curiously neglected to name does not speak for the Catholic Church at large. His opinion is most definitely not that of the Catholic Church. He may have believed what he said & he may not have had all the information, either. Perhaps he did not know that Mormons preach polytheism. If he did, he sure didn’t know his own faith very well. Or 2000 years of Catholic thought regarding the understanding of Scripture.
“My point is that, early on, a person who was Catholic (I don’t even know his name.) realized that if the Catholic church no longer held the proper priesthood authority to act for God on the earth . . .”
And he was wrong! Spurious quote to say the least!
Sorry to have gone off track, here. This is not the proper forum in which to discuss the doctinal and philosophical weaknesses of Mormonism.
I will try not to do that again. I don’t know anything about Romney, but pretty much agree with everything Jimmy has said in the subject, in general.
To be truthful, I think one of his main weaknesses might be that America is just not ready for a President named “Mitt”. It’s just a marketing thing, the same way thay voters will not be electing a bearded president any time soon.
One thing about Mormonism vs. Catholicism as a viable presidential trait… I think the more Evangelical Christians learned about Mormonism, the more alien it would seem to become.
I believe the opposite is true of Catholicism. Laid out in plain language, I think most Evangelicals would find themselves surprised at how truly Christian it is (or, more accurately, they might be surprised at how Catholic they are).
Perhaps if we loved our neighbors as ourself, we’d see how alike we all are.
I agree that this comment thread should be primarily about Mitt Romney as a presidential candidate. In that vein, let me just say that the candidate that convinces me that he or she will best deliver originalist judges has my vote! And, John McCain is NOT that candidate! He would appoint judicial supremicists like O’connor and Kennedy.
Let me encourage everyone to do their best not to mistate Mormon beliefs. Jimmy does that (perhaps unententionally) when he says that Mormons believe they will rule over planets and have billions of worshippers. (I would think Catholics would have enough experience having their own beliefs distorted, to be extra sensitive on that score.) If you are looking for a quick reference to make sure that you are correctly stating Mormon doctrine let me suggest:
http://www.mormon.org/ and
http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/
Thanks! And, let’s hope that the candidate most committed to originalist judges (and the overturning of Roe v. Wade) wins!
SO many Catholics are SO woefully undereducated in their own Faith
The question is whether the fraction of Catholics who are educated would be enough to shift things.
Once again, what is so controversial about the doctrine of deification?
But you quote, “THAT WE MAY BE ALSO GLORIFIED TOGETHER.”
Together.
Not as a separate gods, but as part of Him, as part of His body, in fact.
When the whole is glorified, which individual part does not also bask in the glory?
Romney is an ideal candidate in many ways as has been alluded to above: socially conservative, a governor, well spoken, etc.
I found myself agreeing with a large portion of Jimmy’s post, but the more I think about it the more it seems that every single candidate – Democrat and Republican alike – has the same problem. All of them would seem to have the potential to drive away large portions of their base. Giuliani’s problems are largely documented, McCain is anethema to many conservatives, Allen is nice but underwhelming, Clinton scares a lot of people in her own party, Kerry is a dog, etc. Long story short, it’s difficult to see how any of the theoretical candidates has any shot at the nomination of their party or to win a general election. But somebody has to win. Right?
Well, I see it again. Mormons are polytheists, because they believe Christ when He said He is the Son of God (and Mary). Isn’t it strange to see Christians persecuting someone because he believes Jesus is the Son of God.
If Jimmy will permit (and I hope he’ll drop the delete hammer if he doesn’t):
Folks, I run a blog on which the main focus is comparison, contrast, discussion, and so on of Catholic-Mormon issues. It’s one of three such blogs that I’m aware of (though if you know of any other Catholic/Mormon blogs, I’d love to see them!). Judging by the bajillions of comments that people make about Mormonism here and on other blogs, there’s ample interest in the topic. Well, a blog does exist to serve all your Catholic/Mormon discussion needs. Juuuuuust pointing that out.
Jimmy Akin: Will Mitt Romney be president?
I detest politics, so other than making fun of John Kerry or that sort of thing, you wont hear me say much on the subject. Ill be informed and Ill vote, but talking about it can be like pulling teeth.
However, this Mitt Romney fe…
Carl Loeber: Name one Christian who is persecuting a Mormon.
And Mormons don’t believe that Jesus is the Son of God the way Christians do. They believe that God the Father was a man on another world who lived a good Mormon life and became the god of his own world. They believe that he had sexual relations with Mary as a man, and that was how Jesus was conceived.
Mormons made a majorm turn out at the Southern Republican Leadership Conference. That put Romney in second place after Bill Frist who bused people in to vote for him.
If Romney picked someone like Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee as his VP, he could win. Huckabee is a former Baptist minister and could carry the South for Romney. Think of the irony of the home state of the Kennedy family and the home state of Bill Clinton providing the Republican candidates for President and Vice President.
Bill 912,
I don’t have the statistics to back it up, but I have no doubt that there are more abortions per capita in the Catholic Church than in the LDS church. While the LDS church does allow for exceptions for the life of the mother, that is only half of the story. The other half is the active steps the church practices prevent abortion from happening including the close relationship to local leadership and their counsel to the members. I have been a member my whole life and I don’t know of a single incidence of an LDS person getting an abortion. I knew evangelicals were hostile and intolerant of LDS beliefs, I just didn’t know the intolerance was so strong in the Catholics Church. I for one have a great respect for the Catholic Church and its members, although perhaps slightly less so after reading Jimmy’s attack.
C’mon, Snake. You label disagreement as intolerance?
You are very likely right in you analysis of abortion rates among PROFESSING Mormons and Catholics.
There are a raftload of people in this country who call themselves “Catholic” and long ago ceased to live anything like a Catholic lifestyle. I doubt you would see this to the same degree among self-identifying Mormons. Ex-Mormons? Sure, but they would hardly identify themselves as such.
The weird thing about Catholicism is that even our apostates tend to want to stick around and wear the nametag.
Although I agree with the post that we should try to discuss our faiths in a reasonable and considerate manner, it should be noted that the LDS church leaders have often made some very anti-Catholic statements. It does go both ways. The following quote from the late Apostle McConkie speaks for itself:
Bruce R. McConkie – “It is also to the Book of Mormon to which we turn for the plainest description of the Catholic Church as the great and abominable church. Nephi saw this ‘church which is the most abominable above all other churches’ in vision. He ‘saw the devil that he was the foundation of it’ and also the murders, wealth, harlotry, persecutions, and evil desires that historically have been a part of this satanic organization. (1 Nephi 13:1-10)” Mormon Doctrine, p. 130 (1958)
I know the current LDS president has backed away from such statements but there is a historical anti-Catholic element to LDS doctrine.
Snake: What do the comments you addressed to me have anything to do with anything I posted?
JG said:
You mean how JFK gave a major speech distancing himself from Catholic beliefs? Sure it could be managed successfully, but do we want that?
I think we’d rather have someone honest about their faith (or lack of belief in their religion), who is consistent in what they say and do. The last thing we want is someone who is willing to bend their faith (no matter what that faith is) so as to try to please everyone everywhere.
I for one have a great respect for the Catholic Church and its members, although perhaps slightly less so after reading Jimmy’s attack.
What attack?
bill912 says:
“And Mormons don’t believe that Jesus is the Son of God the way Christians do. They believe that God the Father was a man on another world who lived a good Mormon life and became the god of his own world. They believe that he had sexual relations with Mary as a man, and that was how Jesus was conceived.”
bill912,
I am a Mormon. Thanks for telling me what I believe. I am pretty sure, though, that I am the absolute world authority on what I believe and that I don’t believe what you say I believe.
Let me suggest that Mormons are probably in the best position to explain what they believe. They do so here http://www.mormon.org/ and here
http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/.
Or maybe you’d prefer hearing how crassly a Mormon can explain the Catholic doctrine of Transubstantiation of the Eucharist.
A quote from Joseph Smith, Jr., Founder of the LD Church, King Follet Discourse (from lightplanet.com)
“God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! That is the great secret. If the veil were rent today, and the great God who holds this world in its orbit, and who upholds all worlds and all things by his power, was to make himself visible,—I say, if you were to see him today, you would see him like a man in form—like yourselves in all the person, image, and very form as a man; for Adam was created in the very fashion, image and likeness of God, and received instruction from, and walked, talked and conversed with him, as one man talks and communes with another.
In order to understand the subject of the dead, for consolation of those who mourn for the loss of their friends, it is necessary we should understand the character and being of God and how he came to be so; for I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see.
These are incomprehensible ideas to some, but they are simple. It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the Character of God, and to know that we may converse with him as one man converses with another, and that he was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did; and I will show it from the Bible.”
Are you kidding me? The South will NOT vote for Hillary Clinton over anyone. A Mormon may not have won the presidency 40 years ago, but we live in a post JFK world. Romney’s a likeable candidate who happens to be Mormon. Jimmy’s arguments are an unrealistic portrayal of the Mormon Church and only look at Romney’s religion as a reason for candidacy. If Romney was to be ruled out of the running it would be because of his lack of elected experience, especially with regards to foreign policy. These would be reasons to take issue with Romney. Taking issue with his religion is as bigoted as taking issue with JFK’s religion in the 60’s. This is the era of prominent people doing great things and they happen to be Mormon (Steve Young, Dell CEO Kevin Rollins, etc. What’s the issue with Romney’s religion? It’s something for Jimmy to write about
RE: Bill 912,
Mormons wishy-washy and soft on Abortion?
While LDS statements and “official” policy may reflect an accepting, non-judgemental, open tone which allows for one to use thier personal free will/agency and choice to have abortions under more extreme circumstances (rather than just elective post-conception birth control), you bring up a good point: What do the numbers say?
Well according to many online sources and groups like the Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI), statistics show that the abortion rates in Utah and heavily laden Mormon Idaho, are consistently a few points lower than “bible-belt” Christian areas in the south. For example 8% in Utah, 9% in Idaho while 20% in GA, 20% in TX, and 11% in OK, SC, & AK. Granted large minority populations in larger cities in southern states may affect these numbers, but then again, all of Utah or Idaho is not exclusively active LDS. I think the numbers would show that Mormons may have a “more soft position” on abortion, but probably rarely practice the procedure and perhaps do so less then thier evangelical counterparts. Actions say a lot more than words.
Seth:
Jimmy wasn’t taking personal issue with Romney’s Mormonism, only pointing out the uncomfortable political reality that a certain segment of the population will themselves be turned off by Romney’s religion, an assessment that is unfortunately correct. Will a lot of southerners vote for Hillary? No. But they may not vote at all if a Mormon is on the ticket.
Yes, we’ve come a long way as a nation, but when the margin is as close as it is between the two parties, it does not take that much to make a difference.
“Christ is the Only Begotten Son…of the Father….Each of the words is to be understood literally. Only means only. Begotten means begotten; and Son means son. Christ was begotten by an immortal Father in the same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers.”–McConkie, Bruce R., “Mormon Doctrine”, 546-547.
“And Christ was born into the world as the literal Son of this Holy Being; he was born in the same personal, real, and literal sense that any mortal son is born to a mortal father. There is nothing figurative about his paternity; he was conceived and born in the normal and natural course of events, for he is the son of God, and that designation means what it says.”–Ibid, 742.
Above quotes included in Isaiah Bennett’s “Inside Mormonism”.
To our anonymous LDS poster: I am not responsible for your ignorance of your own religion.
Above
Josh Daniels, I’ll ask you the same question I asked Snake: What do the comments you directed to me have anything to do with anything I posted?
I hate to jump back into this, but Anonymous Poster, if bill912 has mistated or misrepresented the Mormon position, please indicate how he has done so.
If you maintain that he has got it wrong, then put him (and the rest of us) right.
Ok bill912, tell me if I’ve got this right:
Catholics believe that the Eucharist is transformed into the literal body of Christ when eaten. Right? That must mean that your mouth is literally full of the blood and flesh of Christ, and if you spit the Eucharist out on a plate, the blood and flesh of Christ will remain on the plate. Better not let it sit to long, or botulism will start to form. Right?
Don’t you feel icky doing that to someone elses religion, bill912?
Mormons believe that God’s DNA and Mary’s DNA combined to form Christ’s body. But this does not mean that Mormon’s believe that God and Mary had sex, like you assert. How God’s DNA entered Mary’s body, we have no idea. Was it a miraculous form of in vitro fertilization? Who knows.
This much is clear: your assertion that Mormons believe that God and Mary had sex, is no more defensible than my assertion that Catholics believe that botulism will eventually form in the Eucharist if it is spit from someone’s mouth.
Tell that to McConkie. Your argument is with him.
Here is a good Brigham Young quote on Jesus’ conception:
”The birth of the Savior was as natural as are the births of our children ; it was the result of natural action. He partook of flesh and blood–was begotten of his Father, as we were of our fathers” (Journal of Discourses Vol. 8 page 115)
I think McCain, Romney, Rice, and Guiliani would be poor candidates, though Romney is better than the other three.
Surveying the field right now, the best candidate I see who is a solid social conservative and would have a good chance to win the general election is George Allen. My dream candidate is Sam Brownback, but I really don’t think he’ll get an opportunity, as the media would be all over him.
Most of the names out there as GOP candidates frankly scare me, and some of those who I thought might have been good candidates are not running, such as Gov. Bill Owens and Gov. Tim Pawlenty. Frist doesn’t do a thing for me either.
I don’t see any other viable choice but George Allen. Please let me know if I am wrong!
NFC and Tim J,
What do Mormons mean when they say that God was once a man?
Try looking here: http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/basic/godhead/farms_man.htm
I have read this before. From what I get of the argument, it says that God was once a mortal being and he is eternal because he abides by eternal principles, such as Love, etc. and because he existed before all other humans beings existed
Is this accurate from your understanding?
Of course, what’s funny is that the following piece was posted up at NRO’s “The Corner” the same day that this current discussion takes place.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/06_03_19_corner-archive.asp#093248
Obviously K-Lo doesn’t read Jimmy’s site. 😉
Again, this post ABOUT THE CANDIDACY OF MITT ROMNEY is not the place to hash out the Catholic/Mormon debate.
That there is a debate should be a surprise to no one.
This is a Catholic blog, and people should not feign shock and indignation that most of the visitors will comment from a Catholic perspective.
Catholics should also focus (as much as possible) on the political implications of Romney’s religion, and refrain from debating the pros and cons of Mormonism itself. I know that may be difficult, as it will be the specifics of Romney’s religion that many Christians will find off-putting, and so it will become a political issue, in the end.
Suffice it to say that many American Christians will find Mormonism really weird, not much less weird than Scientology. This is a fact of politics. Can we discuss that without getting into the debate over whether or not Christians are justified in feeling this way about the claims of Mormonism (no matter how well expressed)?
I don’t think it can all be put down to matters of sensitivity and semantics, Anonymous. Okay, so we might be a bit ham-fisted in our summations of certain LDS doctrines. The fact is, they are WAY different than any historical form of Christianity, no matter what kind of face may be put on them.
NFC and bill192,
I don’t understand why insist on saying that Mormons believe that God and Mary had sex. First of all, the sources you cite, do not say that. Brigham Young allegedly said: “The birth of the Savior was as natural as are the births of our children.” Ok, assuming that is what he said, that means Christ passed through the birth canal like all the rest of us, when he was born. There’s no statement that God had sex with Mary in that quote.
Bruce R. McKonkie wrote, in Mormon Doctrine:
“Christ is the Only Begotten Son…of the Father….Each of the words is to be understood literally. Only means only. Begotten means begotten; and Son means son. Christ was begotten by an immortal Father in the same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers.”
“And Christ was born into the world as the literal Son of this Holy Being; he was born in the same personal, real, and literal sense that any mortal son is born to a mortal father. There is nothing figurative about his paternity; he was conceived and born in the normal and natural course of events, for he is the son of God, and that designation means what it says.”
Once again, nothing that says God had sex with Mary in either of those quotes. A miraculous in vitro fertilization is fully consistent with what Bruce R. McKonkie wrote.
Why are you two so sure of yourselves on this point?
I read the link you posted, Anonymous, and maintain that the more Christians find out about LDS doctine, the more alien it will seem.
There are enough quotes in that short piece alone to put off most Christians. Completely foreign to Judeo-Christian thought, history and revelation.
Tim J.,
Feel alienated if you like, but please don’t mistate our beliefs.
“the more Christians find out about LDS doctine, the more alien it will seem.”
The more one loves his neighbors, the more familiar they will seem.
Annonymous LDS Person: We quoted your own Prophets and teachers.
“Annonymous LDS Person: We quoted your own Prophets and teachers.”
. . . and proceeded to put words in their mouth, and infer things they did not say, and . . .
It’s probably hopeless to try wading into this discussion now, but here goes:
In regards to abortion and the “approved exeptions” (for lack of a better term), the “health of the mother” exeption is not necessarily the same exeption that exists in US law. Bishops are taught that they will be held accountable at Judgement Day (seriously) if they misapply these terms.
In regards to McConkie, he wrote “Mormon Doctrine” before he was an “General Authority” (the rough equivalent of a Catholic cardinal), and he even edited that portion out before he was a General Authority (replacing it with the statement that the church of the devil was not a single church but, rather, anything meant to prevent people from following the Gospel). That’s not to say that he started liking Catholic teaching. Get a copy of the second edition of “Mormon Doctrine” and look up Idolatry. However, his statements in that book have no more weight as to true church doctrine than my statements as a lay member.
In regards to whether it’s helpful to portray a religion in incredibly ridiculous terms, and then attack those terms, I can’t remember a single instance of Christ doing it.
You’ll have an incredible time finding any credible source claiming that God had sex with Mary. You can claim that McConkie said it, but that’s not a source without a cite. And the two citations provided don’t say it.
/* Christ was begotten by an immortal Father in the same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers.
*/
This is only meant as a critique for those people who claim that Christ wasn’t actually, honestly, truly a son in the way we use the word, but rather a symbolic son, or he may have said he was a son but he didn’t mean it. No, there aren’t many people who claim that, but they do exist. The same critique would apply ot people trying to explain away Romans 8:16 (we are the children of God).
/* There is nothing figurative about his paternity; he was conceived and born in the normal and natural course of events, for he is the son of God, and that designation means what it says.
*/
But, in Mormonism, all “miracles” are “natural courses of events.” That is, Christ could heal the blind man through a better understanding of natural law than we have coupled with his authority over nature. But it wasn’t supernatural, per se.
Likewise, my two dogs are convinced I have supernatural abilities. It’s not so, I simply understand the world much better than they do, and I simply rely on natural laws, but to the dogs it’s supernatural.
“The more one loves his neighbors, the more familiar they will seem.”
And your point is…?
If I really love my neighbor, I won’t question their Mormonism? I will accept whatever they say?
What?
I try hard to love my neighbor, and sometimes that means “speaking the truth in love”, whether it is received or not. It can be difficult to do. I am not a person who enjoys conflict, and I am sometimes tempted to keep my mouth shut when I should speak.
Here is McConkie on the issue:
“There is nothing figurative about his paternity; he was begotten, conceived and born in the normal and natural course of events…” (Mormon Doctrine, by Bruce McConkie, page 742.)
McConkie, although an Apostle, I will acknowedge is not considered a prophet. I prefer to focus more on what the prophets say, as opposed to other LDS church leaders. Although the fact that this idea was discussed in official circles is, I think, somewhat telling.
Anonymous, I do not mean to offend you nor be contentious- I am just looking at the documents and the doctrines. I know that there is a lot of stuff out there which treats the LDS unfairly but I do not think that analyzing the works of the prophets and the Apostles of your church is unfair. Where else can we learn what the LDS doctrine is?
“If I really love my neighbor, I won’t question their Mormonism? I will accept whatever they say?”
When you love your neighbor AS YOURSELF, who is right and who is wrong?
“sometimes that means “speaking the truth in love””
Let God be true, and every man a liar. As it is written:
“So that you may be proved right when you speak and prevail when you judge.”(Romans 3:4)
As for Romney, I have to admit I don’t think any Mormon currently has the following needed to win the Presidency. Romney, Hatch, Leavitt might all be good VP candidates, but I simply don’t think that they are well-known enough to win the Presidency. Ditto for several people who aren’t Mormon too (including Elizabeth Dole, my State Senator, btw).
Well, Harry Reid may be well-known enough to win the Presidency, but I’d rather not have him run. Because Reid is associated with the liberal side of the Democratic Party, there would be quite a few articles about how the Mormons are all believe they ought to “pray pay and obey” (much like there are articles that Evangelicals, Protestants and Catholics have each been brainwashed into the same mindset) regardless of evidence to the contrary.
So, no I don’t think Romney’s going anywhere as President, but I do think he’d be a fine VP (as would Hatch or Leavitt).
/* McConkie, although an Apostle, I will acknowedge is not considered a prophet.
*/
I said it before, and I’ll say it again:
/* In regards to McConkie, he wrote “Mormon Doctrine” before he was an “General Authority” (the rough equivalent of a Catholic cardinal), and he even edited that portion out before he was a General Authority (replacing it with the statement that the church of the devil was not a single church but, rather, anything meant to prevent people from following the Gospel). That’s not to say that he started liking Catholic teaching. Get a copy of the second edition of “Mormon Doctrine” and look up Idolatry. However, his statements in that book have no more weight as to true church doctrine than my statements as a lay member.
*/
“When you love your neighbor AS YOURSELF, who is right and who is wrong?”
Oh, please…
That sounds like something I heard Ramtha say once…
“When you love your neighbor AS YOURSELF, who is right and who is wrong?”
That’s easy. Love is right. And love covers all wrongs.
Huh?
NFC,
“Where else can we learn what the LDS doctrine is?”
First of all, let me commend you on recognizing the limited authority of Bruce R. McConkie’s Mormon Doctrine. McConkie wasn’t speaking for the Church, only himself, when he wrote the book. While McCokie’s opinion is generally held in high esteem by members of the Church, the book “Mormon Doctrine” should not be used, and is not used by the Church of Jesus Christ, as an official statement of Church doctrine.
Now let me explain how official LDS Doctrine can be found.
1. The canonized scripture–Old Testament, New Testament, The Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and The Pearl of Great Price. See here: http://scriptures.lds.org/
2. Official Church Proclamations and Statements–Two recent Statements can be found here: http://www.lds.org/library/display/0,4945,161-1-11-1,00.html, and here: http://www.lds.org/library/display/0,4945,163-1-10-1,FF.html
3. Statements by General Authorities (Prophets, Apostles, Seventies) in General Conference–see here: http://www.lds.org/conference/display/0,5234,23-1,00.html
and,
4. http://www.mormons.org–A website maintained by the church to explain Mormon beliefs to others.
And if, after reading the above sources, you don’t find any find any of the cooky doctrines that you have been told that Mormons believe, feel free to talk to our missionaries about it. More often than not, I think you will find that Mormons do not in fact believe what you have been told they believe.
I have entertained missionary discusions, read the Book of Mormon, most of the Book of Abraham,some of the Book of Moses, and many revelations contained in the Doctrine & Covenants, as well as various parts of the Journal of Discourses and the History of the Church.
After researching this material (especially the Book of Abraham contained in the Pearl of Great Price), it became very clear to me that the LDS do believe in multiple gods.
In my experience, the missionaries, although certainly sincere and well meaning are usually not capable of an in-depth discussion of any given LDS doctrine. Most have not read the King Follet Discourse, knew little of the historcial controversy regarding Joeseph Smith’s alleged first vision, and many other important issues.
I do not mean to be contentious in my posts (we are supposed to avoid contention, right?) but to a large degree, i think the LDS documents speak for themselves.
We should be careful not to attribute beliefs to people based on unofficial or questionable sources.
That happens to Catholics all the time. Someone will say, “Well, I read where some saint (or theologian, or bishop, etc…) said thus-and-so…” and they will happily present that as “What Catholics Believe”, rather than refering to the Catechism or some other authoritative document.
So, I understand the frustration there.
I still maintain that, even presented in the most innocuous way, the whole Mormon understanding of God amounts to a total departure from anything resembling Christianity. It has a very Gnostic “secret knowledge” sense to it, and makes all of historic Christianity (especially Catholicism) into a Giant Conspiracy To Cover Up The Truth.
In the event of a Romney candidacy, this will all be examined in both the secular and Christian press (not to mention the blogosphere). I just don’t think many Evangelical Christians would or could ignore it.
NFC,
When you say “the LDS documents speak for themselves,” I agree; they do. And, they do not say that God had sex with Mary. Will you concede on this point? If not, I’ll know that I am wasting my time here.
/* Most have not read the King Follet Discourse,
*/
For those following along, “King” was his first name. Joseph Smith may have run for President, but he didn’t speak at any royal funerals.
Oh, and for those following along, the King Follet sermon is readily available in the book “Teachings of Joseph Smith.”
I will stand by the quotation of Brigham Young I made above. So, It depends on how you interpret “natural action” and “result” and what that meant in the 1850s when BY made that statement. We can throw out the McConkie quotation for purposes of this argument. If you want to read “result” as the actions leading up to the mere birth, and not the act of conception itself, I will not quibble with you.
”The birth of the Savior was as natural as are the births of our children; it was the result of natural action. He partook of flesh and blood–was begotten of his Father, as we were of our fathers” (Journal of Discourses Vol. 8 page 115)
Joseph Smith: “Jesus Christ is the heir of this Kingdom–the only begotten of the Father according to the flesh.” History of the Church 5:556
Brigham Young: “The man Joseph, the husband of Mary, did not, that we know of, have more than one wife, but Mary the wife of Joseph had another husband. (Jesus) was begotten, not by Joseph, the husband or Mary, but by another Being. Do you inquire by whom? He was begotten by God our heavenly Father.” Journal of Discourses 2:268
Mormon Prophet Joseph F. Smith (speaking to children): “You all know that your fathers are indeed your fathers and that your mothers are indeed your mothers….You cannot deny it. Now, we are told in Scriptures that Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of God in the flesh. Well, for the benefit of the older ones, how are children begotten? I answer JUST AS JESUS CHRIST WAS BEGOTTEN OF HIS FATHER.” Family Home Evening, 1972, 125.
Anonymous,
What is fair is fair. Will you conceed that the LDS doctrine holds that many gods exist and that God was once a man?
Ok. I see I’m wasting my time. Any fair minded person who is interested in reading my refutation to NFC’s and bill912’s assertion that Mormons believe that God had sex with Mary can look to my comments posted at 9:26:26 AM, 10:33:55 AM, and 11:07:59 AM.
Thanks!
Anonymous,
I largely gave you what you wanted in my second to last comment. I allow for such an interpretation. I just asked an additional question about multiple gods and whether God was once a man..
Mitt is good looking, that’s all the chicks need to know 😉
Perhaps that’s all that makes a difference after all- thanks for easing up this discussion Buzz.
Yeah, but George Allen seems to be even better looking, but then again, I’m a guy, so what do I know?
Well, they all have Rudy G. beat I think. You can be a guy and still notice that.
In reality, I don’t think the LDS issue will be very big in the general election. Other than Evangelicals, strong liberals (who will not vote Republican anyway), and the Catholics who are probably reading this board, i don’t think that most people would care very much whether Romney is LDS. Romney’s problem may arise in the primaries, where the LDS factor will be an issue with the southern Evangelicals.
Max,
You stated, “In regards to abortion and the “approved exeptions” (for lack of a better term), the “health of the mother” exeption is not necessarily the same exeption that exists in US law. Bishops are taught that they will be held accountable at Judgement Day (seriously) if they misapply these terms.”
All due respect, you’re missing the point. The numerous exceptions that Mormons allow (and it’s not just “health of the mother”) are going to alienate a huge number of voters, especially when it comes out in the news (and it will) that the Mormons have changed their views on abortion 3 times in 5 years:
Prior to 1988: Mormon church is anti-abortion (presumably with no exceptions, or so I was told)
1988: “There is no excuse for abortion unless the life of the mother is seriously threatened” (Gospel Principles [a 1988 basic manual for church members], 241.)
1992: “There is seldom any excuse for abortion. The only exceptions are when (1) pregnancy has resulted from incest or rape; (2) the life or health of the woman is in jeopardy in the opinion of competent medical authority; or (3) the fetus is known, by competent medical authority, to have severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth” (Gospel Principles [1992], 251.)
This is what Jimmy correctly refers to as Mormons being “soft” on abortion.
The point is, those who are staunchly anti-abortion are going to have a problem with a candidate who belongs to a church which not only allows abortion under numerous exceptions, but also seems to keep changing its mind on the subject.
I’m with whoever finds the current crop of potentials from BOTH parties to be really depressing.
Alan Keyes is my guy, but he speaks too plainly to make it in today’s political climate.
I DO think it’s possible that Hillary could overcome her negatives, especially when Bill goes out stumping for her. This sickens me, but it’s true.
Just what are the Republicans going to run on? The Anti-Hillary platform? Not that there’s anything wrong with that…
They have shown themselves to be profligate spenders. They (like the Dems) back the Iraq war only as much as they feel they have to. I don’t think that the “One More Justice” mantra will be enough to stir up the middle.
Oh well, sometimes the best thing for Republicans is to have a Democrat in office for a bit to remind people of what it is like.
Chances are that I just won’t be happy with the next Prez, no matter what I do. I suppose if I lived through Carter, I can stand anything.
I have a General Handbook from the late ’80s that I picked up while a missionary in Brazil (in the late ’90s). Anyhow, the three exceptions listed there are the same three listed in the current Church Handbook of Instructions.
But, to explain the exceptions better: they are listed in the chapter on church discipline (eg., excommunication). The LDS church never *encourages* abortion in any case; but in those three cases there will be no church disciplinary action. The bishop will tell the couple to fast and pray and make their own decision (*not* because the bishop thinks that the answer will be “abort, abort, abort” but because any hard decision should be made in spirit of prayer).
*But* members who counsel others to have an abortion, perform abortions, submit to abortions (outside of the three exceptions), pay for abortions, etc. can be excommunicated.
Now, yes, some people consider that soft on abortion. Some consider it incredibly strict. I think it’s more strict than what most Americans think is middle of the road.
For the record, the only case I would consider an abortion would be if the mother’s life were in danger. In rape, I’d encourage adoption, if the child will not survive past birth, I’d still give the child a few moments of life.
Two at once (but this will probably be my last post here):
/* [NFC] ”The birth of the Savior was as natural as are the births of our children; it was the result of natural action. He partook of flesh and blood–was begotten of his Father, as we were of our fathers”
*/
The “He” here both partook of flesh and was begotten of his Father. That is, we’re talking about Jesus. So “partook of flesh” means “was born into a mortal body.” Nothing unusual here.
/* [bill912] Joseph Smith: “Jesus Christ is the heir of this Kingdom–the only begotten of the Father according to the flesh.”
*/
We still say that. Mormons believe we are all “children of God.” I know some other churches believe the same, I know that many churches don’t. Either way, there’s a difference between how we are children of God and how Christ is the Son of God. This quotation is about that difference — our spirits are God’s children, while our bodies are our parents’ children; only Christ could say that his body was God’s child.
/* Brigham Young: “… Mary the wife of Joseph had another husband. (Jesus) was begotten, not by Joseph, the husband or Mary, but by another Being. Do you inquire by whom? He was begotten by God our heavenly Father.” Journal of Discourses 2:268
*/
Do you disagree that Christ was the Son of God? If he was the Son of God, doesn’t it stand to reason that he was not the son of Joseph? Isn’t that the meaning of “virgin birth”?
I know, you seem really tied up on the chance that God and Mary had sex. But Mormons *do* believe in the virgin birth, which would rule that out (Book of Mormon, 1 Nephi 11). The Bible simply says that Mary was overcome with the Spirit, and conceived. My understanding of that is that through what somebody else here called “divine in vitro fertilization” (that is, without sex, but through spiritual means) Mary conceived God’s Son.
I understood the Catholic position to be similar. Otherwise, Christ would have only had Mary’s DNA. Am I wrong?
/* Joseph F. Smith (speaking to children): “… Now, we are told in Scriptures that Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of God in the flesh. Well, for the benefit of the older ones, how are children begotten? I answer JUST AS JESUS CHRIST WAS BEGOTTEN OF HIS FATHER.” Family Home Evening, 1972, 125.
*/
He was speaking to children for crying out loud! What kind of church do you think this is? Why would the head of the church try to work “God had sex” into a speech to children? This, like the first quotation, is only about “Christ was the Son of God, really, truly. You may find people who say that he wasn’t completely, truly, honestly the Son of God, but that maybe he had good ideas. Those people are wrong.”
If you really want to go to ridiculous lengths, what about all the kids in the audience that were adopted? Was Joseph F. Smith lying to them?
It seems a bit silly that we now live in a climate where everything is poltics and permanent campaigning 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. We’re trying to handicap a primary race that happens in 2 years while everyone pretty much agrees that there’s no great way to predict what’s going to be happening in the midterm elections later this year.
That said, I don’t know if Romney’s religion would be that big of a liability for him. Ignoring all the other factors of right, wrong, etc. it seems there would be a large number of people who would vote for him in the general election just because they want to vote against the other guy. I just can’t see that the issue would be a make or break deal for the entire election.
I could maybe see how it might cause problems in the primary, but he really does seem like one of the best options out there right now.
Max,
I guess the point I was trying to make was that the phrase “it was the result of natural action” was amobiguous and I more or less accepted the possibility that that phrase could mean that the birth was natural as opposed to the conception- I am not arguing against you on this point if that is what you are trying to say.
Although none of the LDS posters answered my question as to whether LDS doctrine: (1) holds that multiple gods exist and (2) that God the Father was once a mortal man.
Anyway, thanks for the dialogue Max. I was not trying to offend you and I hope you stop by again sometime.
This is a confusing item of doctrine to many people. Mostly, because, although most mormons don’t want to admit, the fact is we just don’t know enough at this point. The LDS church states “We believe in everything that has been revealed, is being revealed, or will be revealed”
Basically this means that LDS church beleives in continual revelation and that the mysteries of God will always be explained.
for the first question
1)holds that multiple gods exist
The LDS church beleives in the the passage 1 corithians 8: 5-6
5For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)
6But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him
Now, this passage can be interpreted many ways, however, the lds church understands it to mean that regardless of what may or may not occur, there is one God and one Son. It is more important to focus on that to ensure your eternal salvation. While MANY people speculate, it is just that, speculation.
That brings us to the other question
that God the Father was once a mortal man
the King Follet speech. The issue here is the question of the nature of God. Joseph Smith stated the infamous words as Man is God was; and as God is man shall be; (i.e. glorified)
However, he never said specifically of any crimes, sins, or misdeeds that God might have done. IN fact, we know nothing of this situation. Speculating as to the nature of any incarnate life of God would be just that speculation. It would insulting to claim we knew the answer. Jesus came to the earth, and this is accepted as a fact. So to answer the questions, regardless what people (both authority and lay) might have speculated, Mormons beleive that if we live Righteous lives, God will sort it all out in the end. So we will continue to wait for more revelation.
On a final note, I can never understand why catholics have such a problem with this. Afterall, catholics beleive Jesus came to the earth and was able to interact with people as a man would. They also accept him in the trinity. Catholics accept Mary was woman, and now has a place as mother of God to be worshipped and prayed too. The question of multiple gods could well be asked to catholics.(and often is by evangelicals) Surprisingly, Mormons and catholics have many similiarities if only we could do away with nearsighted sectarian issues.
So a mormon poster did answer you..and yes, I do think mitt will be a good candidate but ultimately will loose to Mccain. A more conservative candidate will be selected to the post of VP for vote securing.But I am still going to convince everyone in arkansas to vote for him.
Whoa, there!
Catholics don’t worship Mary. We do pay her reverence and ask for her prayers (as we do all the saints), but she is not to be worshipped because she is one of God’s creatures, and only the Creator is to be worshipped. She is not a Goddess and never will be.
Also-
“So to answer the questions, regardless what people (both authority and lay) might have speculated, Mormons beleive that if we live Righteous lives, God will sort it all out in the end.”
That’s answering the question?
Thanks for the post, although I do not understand the ambiguity or speculative nature of the LDS idea about the possibiloity of many gods-the Fourth Chapter of the Book of Abraham clearly sets forth the creation with multiple gods in mind, please see the following:
“AND then the Lord said: Let us go down. And they went down at the beginning, and they, that is the a Gods•, borganized• and formed the cheavens• and the earth.
2 And the earth, after it was formed, was empty and desolate, because they had not formed anything but the earth; and adarkness reigned upon the face of the deep, and the Spirit of the Gods bwas• brooding upon the face of the waters.
3 And they (the Gods) said: Let there be light; and there was light.
4 And they (the Gods) comprehended the light, for it was abright•; and they divided the light, or caused it to be divided, from the darkness.
5 And the Gods called the light Day, and the darkness they called Night. And it came to pass that from the evening until morning they called anight•; and from the morning until the evening they called day; and this was the first, or the beginning, of that which they called day and night.
6 And the Gods also said: Let there be an aexpanse• in the midst of the waters, and it shall divide the waters from the waters.
7 And the Gods ordered the expanse, so that it divided the waters which were under the expanse from the waters which were above the expanse; and it was so, even as they ordered.
8 And the Gods called the expanse, Heaven. And it came to pass that it was from evening until morning that they called night; and it came to pass that it was from morning until evening that they called day; and this was the second atime• that they called night and day.
9 And the Gods ordered, saying: Let the awaters• under the heaven be gathered together unto bone• place, and let the earth come up dry; and it was so as they ordered;
10 And the Gods pronounced the dry land, Earth; and the gathering together of the waters, pronounced they, aGreat• Waters; and the Gods saw that they were obeyed.
11 And the Gods said: Let us prepare the earth to bring forth agrass•; the herb yielding seed; the fruit tree yielding fruit, after his kind, whose seed in itself yieldeth its own likeness upon the earth; and it was so, even as they ordered.
12 And the Gods organized the aearth• to bring forth grass from its own seed, and the herb to bring forth herb from its own seed, yielding seed after his kind; and the earth to bring forth the tree from its own seed, yielding fruit, whose seed could only bring forth the same in itself, after his kind; and the Gods saw that they were obeyed.
13 And it came to pass that they numbered the days; from the evening until the morning they called night; and it came to pass, from the morning until the evening they called day; and it was the third time.
14 And the Gods organized the alights• in the expanse of the heaven, and caused them to divide the day from the night; and organized them to be for signs and for seasons, and for days and for years;
15 And organized them to be for lights in the expanse of the heaven to give light upon the earth; and it was so.
16 And the Gods organized the two great lights, the agreater• light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night; with the lesser light they set the stars also;
17 And the Gods set them in the expanse of the heavens, to give light upon the earth, and to rule over the day and over the night, and to cause to divide the light from the adarkness.
18 And the Gods watched those things which they had aordered until they obeyed.
19 And it came to pass that it was from evening until morning that it was night; and it came to pass that it was from morning until evening that it was day; and it was the fourth time.
20 And the Gods said: Let us prepare the waters to bring forth abundantly the moving creatures that have life; and the fowl, that they may fly above the earth in the open expanse of heaven.
21 And the Gods prepared the waters that they might bring forth great awhales•, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters were to bring forth abundantly after their kind; and every winged fowl after their kind. And the Gods saw that they would be obeyed, and that their plan was good.
22 And the Gods said: We will bless them, and cause them to be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas or agreat• waters; and cause the fowl to multiply in the earth.
23 And it came to pass that it was from evening until morning that they called night; and it came to pass that it was from morning until evening that they called day; and it was the fifth time.
24 And the Gods prepared the earth to bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth after their kind; and it was so, as they had said.
25 And the Gods organized the earth to bring forth the beasts after their kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after its kind; and the Gods saw they would obey.
26 And the Gods took acounsel among themselves and said: Let us go down and bform man in our cimage•, after our likeness; and we will give them dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27 So the aGods• went down to organize man in their own bimage, in the image of the Gods to form they him, male and female to form they them.
28 And the Gods said: We will bless them. And the Gods said: We will cause them to be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it, and to have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
29 And the Gods said: Behold, we will give them every herb bearing seed that shall come upon the face of all the earth, and every tree which shall have fruit upon it; yea, the fruit of the tree yielding seed to them we will give it; it shall be for their ameat•.
30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, behold, we will give them life, and also we will give to them every green herb for meat, and all these things shall be thus organized.
31 And the Gods said: We will do everything that we have said, and organize them; and behold, they shall be very obedient. And it came to pass that it was from evening until morning they called night; and it came to pass that it was from morning until evening that they called day; and they numbered the asixth• time.”
As to you second ideas, that Catholics believe in multiple gods, I believe it is without foundation: (1) Mary is never to be worshipped, although she is venerated and there is a belief that, because of her close relationship with God, her intercession on our behalf is frequently effective. Mary, it should be clear, is a created and contingent being and is not worshipped. (2)although God did become incarnate through Jesus, Jesus is not considered a separate god under Catholic doctrine. The following quote from John A. Hardon, S.J., I think, summarizes this concept relatively well:
“He [Jesus]is of the same substance of the Father, which is in the original Greek says that he is “out of the being (ousia) of the Father.” This affirms that, unlike mere creatures, who may be said to be from God, his only-begotten Son comes literally out of the Father’s own being. Creatures come from God, indeed, because he wills them to exists. Not so the Son of God, who cannot not exist. His existence does not depend on the free will of the Creator. He is God of God, in the sense that he is as much God as the Father, sharing perfectly in the one and same divine nature.”
I am no expert, by any means, on the Holy Trinity, but it seems that the LDS idea of Jesus is very different from the Catholic idea and that Jesus is a contingent and created being of a completely different nature from the Heavenly Father.
As to whether, under the LDS view, the Heavenly Father actually sinned during the course of his mortal life is not the issue (although I know that Brigham Young, as the second LDS prophet, taught that the Heavenly Father was Adam, which would mean, of course, that God did in fact sin- I know that the current presidents of the LDS church have attempted to distance themselves from this doctrine and no longer espouse it). The question is whether there was a time where God was not in fact God under the LDS doctrine. The answer appears to be yes.
Thanks for the post.
“I am no expert, by any means, on the Holy Trinity, but it seems that the LDS idea of Jesus is very different from the Catholic idea and that Jesus is a contingent and created being of a completely different nature from the Heavenly Father.”
Of course, I meant that Jesus is considered a contingent being under LDS doctrine, not Catholic.
NFC-
You may not be aware, but cutting and pasting large amounts of text into the combox is a violation of Jimmy’s blog rules.
It’s also just bad form, especially when it’s off-topic (I didn’t see any reference to Mitt Romney).
I know it is difficult not to discuss Mormon doctrine in relation to Romney, but if you want to paste in text, please isolate the passages that are most relevant and keep it brief.
I agree that it is not the possibility of God sinning in his former existence that is the kicker, it is the idea that God was once NOT God. God, to BE God, has no potential, does not change and has no parts. If Mormons pray to a God that was once mortal, changeable or limited in any sense, then they are not praying to the same God that we are.
Fair enough. I will rest the issue. Sorry about the cut and paste. I was not aware of the rule. Anyways, I have strayed off topic and will try to keep on topic from now on.
Well, NFC, I am the worst about “chasing rabbits” in the combox, and sooner or later any discussion of Romney will probably come down to a debate about religion.
I thought maybe you weren’t aware of Jimmy’s rules.
For everyone who ain’t… see “Da Rulz” over in the PERMAPOSTS section in the left-hand column.
“I meant that Jesus is considered a contingent being under LDS doctrine, not Catholic.”
What do you mean by “contingent”? Can the Son be without the Father? Does the Son not come from the Father? Is the Son not dependent upon the Father?
OK. Here is LDS doctrine, and what Christ said of Himself. He is the Son of God.
OK. This is what that means. God is His Father. Mary is His mother.
OK. This is how it could happen. The Holy parents had sex. (Is there something un-Holy about sex?) or. . . Mary was inseminated with the seed of the Father without sex, that is the seed was put into her in another way. (Artifical insemination is not complicated and is very common. In-vitro fertization means that the sperm and ovum join outside the body and after conception the zygote is then placed into the woman. That is the terminology as I have heard it used.)
Elohim I believe means something like “Chief of the Gods.” And yes LDS are polytheists if you like. They do believe that Jesus is the Son of the Father.
That God was once a man is not really official LDS doctrine. However in some sense the term Man is applied as a name of diety. By the way the fact that all Mankind are children of God implies that the terms God and Man are related.
By contingency I mean that under LDS doctrine, Jesus is contingent in the sense that he does not need to be- the fact that he was at one time created (and therefore did not exist) shows that this is so. Under Catholic doctrine, although the Son cannot be without the Father, the Father is never without the Son. Under Catholic doctrine, neither of these persons (as well as the Holy Spirit for that matter) ever existed independent of one another. We consider God to be the Holy Trinity and that all three persons always existed in this Trinity. I am digressing off the topic again, but wanted to address the poster’s question. Maybe we should wait for a post from Jimmy specifically regarding LDS v. Catholic doctrine for a more in-depth discussion of these issues.
“the fact that he was at one time created”
Do they say “created”, or do they say “born”? And how is that different from Colossians 1:15, “He is… the firstborn over all creation.”
It would be nice for some information on this, preferably without an agenda or bias either way.
Sure. But I don’t think the “born” vs. “created” is t he issue (I was born but I was also created, after all). I guess the question should be whether the LDS beleive that Jesus was the first born of the Heavenly Father’s sprititual children. Was there a time when the Heavenly Father existed but Jesus did not? I think the answer is in the affirmative. The LDS posters can correct me if they think I am wrong.
“Was there a time when the Heavenly Father existed but Jesus did not? I think the answer is in the affirmative.”
Did God need time to create?
Time, I believe, is ordinarily considered a measure of change. Therefore, accepting this definition, if God is in fact changeless, the answer to your question is no. If God changes, the answer to your question is yes. If God was a mortal at one time, the answer to your question is yes. If he took a heavenly wife at some time, the answer is yes (the Heavenly Father’s sealing to a wife would be a change of sorts). If God created all things out of nothing, both spirit and matter, time would commence at the time of the Creation.
Yes LDS doctrine confirms that Christ Jesus was the first born spirit child of God the Father.
What I read is that the god of earth, according to LDS teaching, was once intelligence, then spirit child, then a man who lived on some planet out in the universe, who, because he was faithful and worthy, was resurrected after he died into a Celestial heaven and became a god of flesh and bone. This man-god then was given the rule of planet Earth by the counsel of gods that meet near the center of the universe near (not on) the star (some say planet) Kolob.
“He is… the firstborn over all creation.”
That ‘firstborn’ is referring to his legal status as ‘primogeniture’, as it were. He is the Son to whom God has given all things as inheritance.
It is NOT used in the sense that of all creatures he was the first one born.
For those interested in LDS v. Catholic doctrine, Brad Haas’ blog has a post relating to whether Mormons should be considered Christians- this is probably a better place to take these topics, since we all have seemed to digress off-topic. His blog is at http://blog.defensorveritatis.net/
OK, for the record, I wasn’t driven away, and I did not feel offended. Some of my posts could have been taken in a somewhat offensive manner after the Internet stripped them of any emotion or visual cues. I simply felt that the discussion wasn’t progressing and I usually take weekends off.
Anyhow.
For those curious as to why so many early LDS leaders made a big deal about God being Christ’s father in a very real way, let me mention that for a good amount of time the Reorganized LDS Church (now known as the Community of Christ) made some statements that the LDS leaders took to mean that Christ was the Son of the Holy Spirit. I’ve never spoken to an RLDS member, so I really don’t know if they taught this. Either way, this lead to a big emphasis on Christ’s physical parentage.
/* Although none of the LDS posters answered my question as to whether LDS doctrine: (1) holds that multiple gods exist and (2) that God the Father was once a mortal man.
*/
Yes, we were somewhat distracted by abortion and Christ’s parentage.
I am not aware of any LDS scriptures that state God was once mortal, that there are other gods that we don’t worship, and/or that we become gods in the eternities. I have heard many opinions to that effect, but I’ve also heard opinions directly opposite to this. The main source for these opinions is the King Follett sermon, which does say if we saw God today, we would recognize him as a man. That’s not surprising, given that God created man in his own image way back in Genesis.
I guess it’s clear that we believe God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit are each separate beings, and are each gods as well (this is definitely one of the biggest bones of contention between the LDS church and other religions). So in a strict sense, we would say that at least three gods exist. I’m not aware of any scriptures speaking about gods aside from these three, but the main reason for that is that even if such gods existed, they would have no bearing on our salvation. Our salvation can only come through Jesus Christ.
But looking back to the Big Three, it’s clear that the Holy Spirit (even though he’s a god) has a very different role than Christ, who (even though he’s a god) has a very different role that God the Father. So I don’t expect every good person to eventually create their own worlds.
I can say, without reservation, that we believe God, Christ and the Holy Spirit created more than just our world. The Pearl of Great Price states that they created world without end. Because we were created in God’ image, I’ve always assumed any other “intelligent life” on those worlds would look just like us — created in God’s image as well. Even so, I enjoy reading science fiction stories about all those strange critters like Klingons or Banthas, etc.
Thanks, Max.
It is helpful to remember that LDS folks are not monolithic in their beliefs, either. 🙂
The way I have come to understand Catholic teaching is that the “image of God” in which we were created is not in any sense a physical resemblance, owing to the fact that God has no body.
He created us “after His likeness” in different ways; freewill, an eternal spirit, and (importantly) also in the fact that we each exist as part of a family. A man does exist as an individual, but mankind comes about and subsists in families. No families = no mankind.
Father, Mother and Child in some way reflect the fundamental structure (the “image”) of the Trinity. A loving family presents a picture of God to the world. Divorce, adultery, fornication, artificial contraception and human cloning all distort the image of God in which mankind was created. Alot of other things do, too, but these all relate to God’s image in the family.
So the complementarity of the sexes is part of the image of God. JPII had a great deal to say about this in his Theology of the Body.
/* It is helpful to remember that LDS folks are not monolithic in their beliefs, either. 🙂
*/
That’s true. Although, to be fair, the LDS church often acts more like a corporation than other churches (which often act somewhat like franchises). I don’t mean that from a funding standpoint, but rather from the standpoint that if a student at a university’s school of theology wants to be a Baptist minister, he can open his own church and attract his own congregation, so long as he teaches certain Baptist doctrines. OTOH, the LDS leadership assigns a local member to be the bishop in a particular neighborhood for five years, and gives him handbooks and training and a budget to follow.
Even so, there are issues that have been authoritatively answered, and issues that people like to talk about. This happens in the Catholic church as well, but over the course of 2000 years +/- a lot more issues have been hashed out in great detail.
/* The way I have come to understand Catholic teaching is that the “image of God” in which we were created is not in any sense a physical resemblance, owing to the fact that God has no body.
*/
I served as a missionary in Brazil, and I was constantly reminded that Brazil is the largest Catholic country. While I own a copy of the cathecism (in Portuguese), I’m the first to realize my understanding of Catholic teaching is not first rate. Even so, yes, we disagree on “image of God” and the nature of Christ’s resurrection, among other things.
When I returned from Brazil, however, I remember working side-by-side with Catholic organizations to get California’s Proposition 22 (Defense of Marriage Act) passed.
Now, in the spirit of full disclosure, after writing my previous post, I remembered a scripture that talks about gods other than God the Father: Doctrine & Covenants 132:34-37 (http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/132#34). This is part of the revelation regarding plural marriage, and the portion I’m focusing on begins by discussing how the Lord can give different commandments at different times in history. The example given is that God commanded Abraham to kill Isaac, and Abraham’s willingness to do so was a good thing, even though there is a commandment against killing people. This is important because we belive that, unless otherwise commanded, plural marriage is wrong (see Jacob 2:27, 30 http://scriptures.lds.org/jacob/2#27).
The part I’m focusing on in this scripture is the end of D&C 132:37: Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob “have entered into their exaltation, according to the promises, and sit upon thrones, and are not angels but are gods.”
A full treatment of this is beyond the scope of a comment on a blog, but it’s important to note that this states clearly that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob have received full exaltation. This is apparently the reason they are labeled “gods,” although what they do as gods isn’t really talked about in this scripture. Of course most Mormons remember God promised Abraham eternal posterity, more numerous than the stars or the sands of the shore, etc., and tie this directly to “we’ll have kids forever.”
However, some recent discussions I’ve had on this subject have me rethinking this first reaction. Even so, it’s something I wasn’t thinking about in my previous comment.
I doubt that my comments will get read I am pretty far down on this forum but as a Mormon I wanted to respond to the challenge given earlier in the post.
Are Mormons Polytheists? Yes.
We believe that God the Father God the Son and the Holy Spirit are three seperate and distinct beings with independant bodies minds and wills. They are unified in intent and goals, but are in fact seperate beings. Those are the only ( Big G) Gods we believe in. But according to my count that makes 3 so that makes us polytheists.
Was God a mortal man? Probably not. Did he ever sin? Definately not.
This one is much trickier to answer, not because I want to mince words or be an apologist, but because there is little written on the subject in the actual Cannon. The LDS church’s structure is set up dramatically different from that of the Catholic Church. In the Catholic church if the Pope says something it is pretty much docterine (as far as my understanding goes). The same is not the case in the LDS church. Every member including the Prophet has the right to be wrong. And every docterine, announcement and proclamation should be prayed about by the individual church member for confirmation of its accuracy. That is the reason why we “vote” on the revelations and confirmations that are brought before the church. It is so each of us can say “God has revealed to me by his holy spirit that this is a good idea and I will support it”. The flip side of this is that sources such as McConkie’s “Mormon Docterine” “The Journal of Discourses” and even the “King Follet Discourse” given by Joeseph Smith himself are in fact NOT ANY MORE DOCTERINAL THAN THIS POST! And all of the statements about the “Manhood of God” are from sources simmilar to the ones mentioned. In the same vein the idea of “Deification” is also not Docterinal. We believe that we will continue to learn and progress after this life, but all Cannonical Mormon sources say that we will become (small g) gods. They also specifically state that we will retain the same relationship of adoration and worship of God that we experience here on earth. In my mind that excludes the possability of becoming ominscient or omnipotant (despite what evangelicals claim and optamistic Mormons hope). Additionally claims that mormons believe that they will get their own Universe to Lord over actually contradicts Cannonical Mormon doctrine (see the articles of Faith for that one).
That being said a lot of Mormons believe differently than me, but like I said we all have the right to be wrong (including Brigham Young).
But Back onto the subject of Mitt. I like him, and will vote for him. I think he will likely give us a constructionist Supreme court justice and that is more important to me than his religion. I also think that if he does run the explanation given above about our beliefs will be plastered all over the media and will finally let people either drop their predgudices of us, or adopt new predgudices that are at least based on fact.
“Every member including the Prophet has the right to be wrong. And every docterine, announcement and proclamation should be prayed about by the individual church member for confirmation of its accuracy.”
“Additionally claims that mormons believe that they will get their own Universe to Lord over actually contradicts Cannonical Mormon doctrine”
Aren’t these two statements just a bit self-contadictory? Or WAY contradictory?
If the first statement is true, then I think that would be a pretty much fatal flaw in any meaningful Mormon theology.
I do appreciate your post, Forscience, as well as your demeanor.
I was not aware of how – fluid? – Mormon doctrine can be.
Gotcha. I said “Every Docterine should be prayed over to determine accuracy” but in the same arguement used the term “Cannonical” which would imply infalliability. I can see why you would think that would be contradictory. Forgive me for being unclear.
While every peice of Mormon theology can and should be questioned, some can be trusted a bit more than others. The Bible, The Book Of Mormon, the Docterine and Covenants are obviously given a lot of weight. But we do not believe that there is any point that you can stop verifying ( through prayer and subsequent personal revelation) the accuracy of the revealed word. The book of Mormon itself ivites us to pray concerning its veracity.
So say for example Gordon B. Hinkley ( Prophet of God ) said that 2+2=11. It is my responsability to then pray and determine whether the prophet was speaking the truth or whether he has some erroneous oppinions about sums. If I pray and the spirit tells me that that is not the case it does not invallidate his authority or his capacity as a prophet, but when he is speaking by the spirit the spirit confirms what he has to say, if he is speaking as a man then he is as falliable as any of the rest of us.
Concerning your observation of the “Fluidity” of Mormon Docterine, I would argue that that isnt the case. The core of the chuch ( Faith, Repentance, Baptism, The Gift of the Holy Ghost, and that a restoration of the Priesthood was neccessary to accomlish these things) is very immutable. It was established by Christ and in my experience as a missionary was confirmed by the Holy Spirit to anyone that earnestly asked. But as Christ says anything that is more or less than this cometh of evil. I am afraid that that even our best and brightest have occassionaly swam out into the deep waters of speculation, but their musings are not docterine and must be taken with a grain of salt, if they are to be taken at all.
What you see as a fatal flaw, is in my mind the greatest thing about the Church. Our Chruch was formed because a 14 year old boy had the faith and courage to ask God which church was true with the belief that a loving God would not leave him in ignorance. Each faithful member of the church should approach the Gospel and his religion with this same inquisitiveness. We each need to find out for ourselves, just as Joseph did, whether or not this church is true. This inquiry is not an event but a process, and each new “docterine” that we encounter needs to me examined with this same scrutiny.
And as I said before I pray that Mitt’s campaign is successful. I think he is the best candidate we have at the moment, but also because the lies that have been told about us will not stand up in the light of scrutiny. And the speculative ideas that some hold, that have formed a barrier between us and other churches will shatter away when brought to light.
Isn’t this America? Where a man is judged by his character, and not his religious beliefs?
After hearing some of these comments, it sounds like a good portion of the people here want a theocracy.
All this religious crap for a political race should have died with Kennedy, but I see it is still alive and well (which sickens me.)
Not wanting to take a strong stand on either side of that issue, but is it not clear that religious beliefs are a part of a person’s character? I for one would not be thrilled with a polytheist as President, though that is only one part of his “character.” To take an extreem example, if he were a Satanist I am sure you would be hesitant about him. If being a Satanist would be a major concern, would being a polytheist be at least a minor concern?
Even if you are right in not thinking someone being a Mormon is very relevent, if I were you I would wonder what made me so repulsed by the idea of someone taking religious belief into consideration in evaluating a politician.
“The Catholic Church IS the Church Christ founded, and the gates of hell – include Joseph Smith and his demonic minions -shall not prevail against it.”
What a good message a member of the “Church Christ founded” is sending. Good job truly portraying your faith by degrading the nicest and most moral people there are. You sound like a winner!
“The Catholic Church IS the Church Christ founded, and the gates of hell – include Joseph Smith and his demonic minions -shall not prevail against it.”
What a good message a member of the “Church Christ founded” is sending. Good job truly portraying your faith by degrading the nicest and most moral people there are. You sound like a winner!
“The Catholic Church IS the Church Christ founded, and the gates of hell – include Joseph Smith and his demonic minions -shall not prevail against it.”
What a good message a member of the “Church Christ founded” is sending. Good job truly portraying your faith by degrading the nicest and most moral people there are. You sound like a winner!
“The Catholic Church IS the Church Christ founded, and the gates of hell – include Joseph Smith and his demonic minions -shall not prevail against it.”
What a good message a member of the “Church Christ founded” is sending. Good job truly portraying your faith by degrading the nicest and most moral people there are. You sound like a winner!
“The Catholic Church IS the Church Christ founded, and the gates of hell – include Joseph Smith and his demonic minions -shall not prevail against it.”
What a good message a member of the “Church Christ founded” is sending. Good job truly portraying your faith by degrading the nicest and most moral people there are. You sound like a winner!
“The Catholic Church IS the Church Christ founded, and the gates of hell – include Joseph Smith and his demonic minions -shall not prevail against it.”
What a good message a member of the “Church Christ founded” is sending. Good job truly portraying your faith by degrading the nicest and most moral people there are. You sound like a winner!
what is being added to amoxicillin
what is being added to amoxicillin
party cocktail
party cocktail
la voce del violino
la voce del violino
film on the line
film on the line
fear of horse valium
fear of horse valium
tabs dream theater
tabs dream theater
orologio sector
orologio sector
disney the incredibles
disney the incredibles
de la ferme ca la
de la ferme ca la
Nev1-nev.blackman@sympatico.ca
does the book of mormon entice lucifer to pass judgement on heaven becuase there is no language for I know God?