« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Mitt’s church shares Judeo-Christian American values. Rev. Wright’s doesn’t.

Of cults and Christians

This religious right Southern Baptist Christian gamecock from South Carolina now perched atop his Stone Mountain of Georgia roost was an early supporter of Mitt Romney in 2008 and thinks he would be a great president beginning in 2013.

Yet, Romney’s Mormon Church was founded precisely because its adherents disagreed with Protestants and Catholics on the doctrine of the nature of Christ (among many other doctrines) and specifically rejected being identified as part of traditional “Christianity”.

Moreover, one of the traditional definitions of a “cult”, before its modern day association with extreme and usually violent behavior after the Jim Jones group suicide, is that it adds to the canon. The Book of Mormon adds to the canon of traditional Christianity.

How could a Southern Baptist support a “non-Christian” for President of the United States?

Could it be because Mitt famously declared in 2007 that Jesus Christ is his “personal Savior”? No.

Many Democratic Party candidates make such declarations and attend churches that don’t add to the canon. Yet, many don’t share traditional Judeo-Christian values and/or most don’t favor conservative principles and support such policies based on same that work.

I don’t read hearts. That’s God’s job. I accept the word of Mitt Romney that he responded to John 3:16 like I have. To be a Christian in the sense of sharing eternal life, I accept him as my brother in Christ. One need not agree on theology to be saved. That is an individual matter.

But for an organized church to be lumped in with “Christian” churches, one has to look at the confession of the church and on that score, the Mormon Church is not Christian. And it is only in recent years that some lay Mormons have wanted to be labeled as such. Simply venerating Jesus “in some way” does not make up for adding to the canon and taking a radically different view of the nature of Christ. After all, Islam venerates Jesus in their texts. Must Muslims also be called Christians? Of course not.

I switched to Fred Thompson in 2008 and presently lean to Herman Cain or Rick Perry, whose Christian pastor friend’s recent ruminations on the above issues prompted this column. But my relative problems with Mitt visa vis other GOP candidates has nothing to do with his faith or church. It has to do with issue positions and trust on certain issues. That’s me and there are many like me down here in Dixie.

There are also many Republicans that, all things being equal, would choose a Christian candidate over a Mormon in the primary. But in the general election, they would happily vote for Mitt over a Christian that parked his butt in a pew at the feet of Reverend Jeremiah Hate KKK America Wright for 20 years and that, more significantly, wrecked the economy for the past 4 years.

It is liberals that are bigoted against Mormons and quite frankly, I have heard many conservative Christians often say that Mormons “are better Christians than Christians” based on their good raising of children and moral behavior.

I disagree with Mitt on some issues and don’t like politicians in general. But I respect him as a moral and competent man that would make us proud as the Chief Executive of these United States.

Mike DeVine

Editor - Hillbilly Politics

Co-Founder and Editor - Political Daily

Atlanta Law & Politics columnist –  Examiner.com

“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson

More DeVine Gamecock rooster crowings at Modern ConservativeUnified Patriots,  and Conservative Outlooks. All Charlotte Observer and Atlanta Journal-Constitution op-eds archived at Townhall.com.


COMMENTS

  • Xasteius

    I agree with you Gamecock (except I still think his record is suspicious). However, I’ll vote for Romney against Obama.

  • runner12

    Agree with everything. Mormonism is not traditional Christianity. But I would pull the lever for Mittens over Obama any day of the week if I had to.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    thx guy and I lean to Herman Cain! But I admit I have always and still do like Mitt…

  • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

    But I’ll gladly vote for any of them over Obama, including Romney (he was my 2nd choice last time after Fred!).

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    think alike…feels right

  • the_invisible_hand

    Can you imagine what that says about the GOP?

    The party opposes Obamacare. Romney was the first elected official to pass the thing. He also originally said it was a great blueprint for the nation before editing it out of his book and lying about it.

    The party opposes gay marriage. Romney in 1994 said he would be a stronger advocate for gay rights than Ted Kennedy!

    The party is the home base of evangelical christians. Romney is not even a Christian.

    I don’t see how it matters if Romney’s church shares the values of the Christian church. Muslims are supportive of traditional family values and are pro-life. The issue for Christians is what you say about Jesus. Mitt Romney’s faith is counter to Christianity in many ways.

  • CincoSolas_del_Bronx

    ;)

  • http://www.itsaboutliberty.com IronDioPriest

    Romney’s Mormonism was front and center last go-round because Huckabee made it an issue. And the sad reality is that there are a lot of evangelical Christians who will never, ever vote for a Mormon. There’s a lot of reasons not to vote for Mitt Romney in my mind, and Mormonism is not on the list.

    If you look at Mormons as a “community” (man, I hate that word in this context, but sometimes it’s the best word), by-and-large they are the kinds of people you want as your neighbors. Hard-working, family oriented, traditional values, giving, high-achievers…

    Some evangelical Christians can’t get over the “cult” thing they’ve been taught about Mormonism. And technically, because it is an extra-Biblical variation of Christianity, I can see justification for Christians rejecting the religion.

    But the connotation of a “cult” is a negative one. Cults are harmful to people here, on this earth. Mormonism harms no one, except the soul of the Mormon on Judgment Day – and that is between a man and his God.

    In regards to a President, I’m concerned with how his faith impacts his decision making, and in that regard, I see nothing to fear from Mitt Romney or any other Mormon based on religion alone.

    The threat of Mitt Romney is in the fact that the United States faces an existential crisis right now. Our constitution and our liberty are under attack like never before. Liberty and the constitution need a champion who recognizes the threat, and approaches it without the middling political calculation that will surely be a prime characteristic of a Romney Presidency.

    No. Mitt. Romney.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    smile

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    of faith

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    considered a cult! try again

  • snowshooze

    I will use that.

  • http://www.itsaboutliberty.com IronDioPriest

    We’re not talking about JFK, 1960, politics and media of 50 years ago, or Catholicism.

    We’re talking about Mitt Romney, 2012, politics and media of today, and Mormonism.

    To reiterate, I believe that eschewing Mitt Romney based on his faith is nonsensical and bigoted. That does not change the reality that there are millions of evangelical Christians who believe Mormonism is a cult, in spite of the “fruits” of good living evident in the Mormon community.

    You couple THAT subtraction from the electorate with the fact that millions of conservatives cannot and will not become energized and enthusiastic over the prospect of having to choose between a RINO and a Leftist YET AGAIN – at this moment, when a conservative response is the ONLY response that can save our nation – and you set up a situation where the only way Romney can win is by appealing to Leftists. Which will doom the country.

    No. Mitt. Romney.

  • CincoSolas_del_Bronx

    that you’ll be at the head of the flock he’s expecting to come home and roost!

  • conservativecurmudgeon

    Mormons are outstanding, moral, solid, traditional American citizens.

    But, without regard to the truth about Mitt Romney’s faith, I submit the following:

    When questions about Reverend Wright pop up again (as well they ought, with his anti-Semitic dogma, his Anti-American agitprop spilling out of his mouth like sewage), what will the answers be from Governor Romney and his supporters when the hard-left media say, “Well, at least Reverend Wright didn’t claim to divine his religious texts by using Magic Peep Stones. Does Mitt Romney really believe there are men that live on the surface of the sun, as Joseph Smith and Brigham Young once claimed? ”

    However much these statements might be a stretching of LDS scripture or teaching, we ought to steel ourselves for the Body Cavity Exam the leftist media will give to Romney and to Mormonism, should he earn the nomination. It will be grotesque beyond all calculation. REMEMBER: The truth will mean NOTHING to the leftist calculus. They will attempt to destroy Mormonism if they have to, in order to destroy Romney.

    Furthermore, it will have the effect of blunting the extreme nature of Rev. Wright and his brand of hate, and how it has informed Barack Obama’s world-view.

    Tread light here… We shouldn’t bend to the humanist-scented view of the world of the hard left. But we need to be fore-armed.

  • OregonConservative

    I have never seen a quote where Romney claims to support gay marriage. In 1994, gay rights was not about gay marriage. . . it simply wasn’t on the table at the time. Rather, it was about non-discrimination in employment and housing. Romney has never stated that he supports gay marriage. He didn’t support it in 1994 and he still doesn’t.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    smile guy

  • http://www.whyromney.com Ryan Larsen

    His position has remained the same, and it is now the standard position of the GOP. Republicans have come around to Mitt’s 1994 position on this, even as some of the less informed ones attack him for holding it.

  • http://www.whyromney.com Ryan Larsen

    We Mormons do consider ourselves Christian and always have.

    Mike, I greatly appreciate your post, both in terms of content and tone. However, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints declares itself to be the restoration of the Church which Jesus Christ founded on the earth 2,000 years ago.

    We acknowledge that we are not part of the tree from which other Christian churches trace their roots. And we acknowledge this fact makes us culturally distinct and different. But we do not believe these cultural roots have bearing on the doctrinal question of our Christianity.

    In terms of adding to the canon of scripture, our perspective is that does not exclude us from being Christian. Although I certainly can understand why it would be an issue for members of other faiths.

    A man named Stephen E. Robinson wrote a book called, “Are Mormons Christians?” In this book, he discusses reasons why we ought not be excluded. He addresses virtually all the reasons people have given for excluding us. Here is his explanation regarding the Canon, which is the issue you raise:

    http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/response/general/christians/ser5.htm

    I realize some will want to argue other points, such as obscure statements made by previous church leaders, or the plausibility of a Mesoamerican setting for the Book of Mormon, and I know those are interesting questions, but I don’t know if I have time to engage in a protracted debate on those issues right now.

  • http://www.whyromney.com Ryan Larsen

    Reading Romney’s book. I think you’ll find it’s quite substantive and conservative and may set your mind at ease regarding his ability to set our nation on course. He outlines many of the things he would do as president.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    But I would say that while I?m not going to judge the venality of a pastor?s intentions based on less than a full transcript and/or video for technically accurate statements, it is also true that a better judgment would have been to decline to answer the questions on Romney at a political event. A pastor?s main concern is people?s souls however. What Mitt should do is get real technical and state that it is not an attack to say he is not a Christian in the way it is meant.

    Plus, if Jesus, Peter or Paul were alive and quoted on this matter and many others or if one reads all of Christ?s sayings on Hell, he and they would be crucified anew. The main mission of pastors is people?s souls, not politics and the sensitivities of bloggers engaged in semantics. That said, the above should give pastor?s pause when they participate in politics and I would say that the pastor should have declined to answer the questions re cult and who is Christian esp immediately after Perry?s speech

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    look it up

  • http://www.itsaboutliberty.com IronDioPriest

    I’m looking at the governor’s record, his statements made and positions defined as recently as 2006.

    Unless you’re willing to make the case that Romney is guided by no principle aside from political expediency, I do not know how a conservative could support him with a clean conscience.

    How do you trust someone that says one thing to get elected in one circumstance, and then says the opposite in another – and not only with one issue, but a wide array of issues?

    No thank you.

    No. Mitt. Romney.

  • http://www.whyromney.com Ryan Larsen

    “not only with one issue, but a wide array of issues?”

    Because I don’t believe he’s done that. I think he’s been smeared. But I’m open to being proven wrong. Give me an example, maybe? (just one, to keep things organized)

  • http://www.whyromney.com Ryan Larsen

    Mike, I’m interested in the quote but I don’t think it’s fair to make me look it up. For one thing, even if I come across a quote I wouldn’t know if it’s the one you’re referring to. You don’t have to provide a quote, but until you I have no reason to accept what you’ve said.

  • aesthete

    I’d point out that it’s no less crazy than a Jewish carpenter having any bearing on my afterlife, or that a donkey talked to someone — the truth is, any religion will sound insane to those who have no acclimated themselves to its teachings, and this is certainly no less true of Christianity than it is of Mormonism. The only question is whether or not Christianity is a “true myth” (the memorable phrase that CS Lewis used to characterize Christianity).

    “For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.”
    1 Cor 1:18

  • http://www.whyromney.com Ryan Larsen

    :)

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    Catholics and other traditional Christians that he formed a NEW religion called Mormonism and he (also Young and all Mormon theologians) denounced us as a cult! I’m not offended.

    Look it up bother if you care about your own religion more than you do being called Christian.

    moving on to issues in politics…smile

  • http://www.whyromney.com Ryan Larsen

    Then that’s your choice :)

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    is infinetesimal and that all of them would be liberal democrats!

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    perfectly stated

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    seriously

  • David123

    Any quasi-religious/religious group that believes:
    1. that its members should have preferencial standing in any Federal, state, or local court over members of other faiths.

    or

    2. that members of the cult have the right to harm, in this life, any member of the cult who converts to another faith.

    Cults should not receive the First Amendment protections that religions do, because prefering one faith above another violates the First Amendment as does harming someone who converts.

    In the modern era, using the common modern usage of the term “cult” LDS is not a cult.

  • http://lukos.com Ed54

    by that definition.

  • aesthete

    and, more importantly, we already have plenty of laws prohibiting anyone, religious group or otherwise, from forcibly converting or keeping someone from converting. There is no distinction between religions and cults in the 1st Am, and some religions which have longstanding precedent for 1st Am protection (Islam, for example) meets both of the criterion which you set forth.

  • GregInFla

    and not a religion. I am not agreeing here, just pointing this out and trying to further the discussion here. And if you truly believe that defintion (2) matches Islam, then Islam should not be given protected religion status under the US Constitution. This same principle prevents all religions from engaging in illegal activities (such as using peyote or slaughtering birds) under the guise of religious freedom.

    Then again, I do agree that Islam is much more than a religion, and its adherents would agree with me on this, since sharia is a non-negotiable aspect of Islam.

    However, we have gotten way off topic here.. Apologies to GC.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    For instance, we could talk about the Gamecocks 54-3 record SEC margin-of-victory win over Kentucky yesterday and I would admit that the roosters are a cult! smile

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    happy pappy? smile

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    But I admit I have always and still do like Mitt?

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    thx guy and I lean to Herman Cain! But I admit I have always and still do like Mitt?

    more later

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    X marks my spot and I lean to Cain.
    But have always liked Mitt as a person and leader.

  • http://www.itsaboutliberty.com IronDioPriest

    How do we assess the character of the man?

    More than anything right now, I believe that the character of our President is of primary importance.

    Who is he as a man and a human being? What guides him? What is his rudder? His anchor? When tough decisions with no apparent good answer present themselves, to what principles will he turn to guide his decision?

    We often accuse Barack Hussein Obama of having been a “blank slate” upon which he convinced people to project their own hopes and dreams. He had no character. No principle. He somehow made himself a reflection of what his supporters wanted him to see, but beneath it all, there was no substance.

    Mitt Romney has a record, and yet is trying to do that FOR US. He doesn’t even give people the “grace” that Obama did, by allowing voters to see a reflection of themselves in him. Instead of offering a “blank slate”, Romney has painted a portrait of himself that does not exist in reality, and is asking us to accept that it is a real reflection of the man.

    Romney is a man of substance. But his character is rudderless, void of principle. He asks us to believe that when and where the substance we see in him is positive, we take it at face value, and that when that substance appears negative, that we believe the portrait he is trying to sell.

    You may swallow that if you wish. I will not.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    I would add that I disagree with my fellow Southern Baptist on the importance of electing a fellow born again Christian and I think most all Southern Baptists would abandon such a position if the choice is a non-Christian vs a Born Again Christian liberal. Most voters, including Christians, Evangelicals and Southerners, vote based on policies. It is the Democrats that appeal to and attract identity politics voters.

    I would say that I do respect those minority of voters who want the President to be a role model that reflects their desire for saving souls to be enhanced in that way, but simply don’t agree that is an important factor in the admonition to Go Ye and convert.

  • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

    Give me a conservative Mormon, or heck even a conservative atheist over JC any day of the week.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    I totally agree

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    records. He was an obvious radical liberal.

    I trust Mitt’s move to the right on social issues and lifelong competence in running businesses and in being for conservative economic policies favoring a free market.

    I want to here more on his willingness to cut the budget and reduce the size of government.

  • http://www.itsaboutliberty.com IronDioPriest

    nt.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    Romney’s history indicates a strong commitment to American exceptionalism, free market job producing capitalism,, traditional marriage, and post-epiphany pro-life advocacy. He has been successful in business, the Olympics he ran and did temper the liberalism of the blue-state legislature he governed with as Chief Executive.

    I trust his pro-life conversion and I take his word on his commitments on policy in the campaign. I think he would keep his word on promises. I favor forcing him to promise in specifics on cutting govt programs and the deficit.

  • porkandcheese

    And some guys in white shirts and ties were standing there with brochures. “Oh, yeah. Mitt loves babies and was always pro-life despite his saying otherwise. He created millions of jobs through Staples, and Bain Capital never fired anyone.” When Mitt was promising to out-do Ted Kennedy on homosexual rights, he was talking about government funded literature about fisting and golden showers, not Adam and Steve getting marriage licenses issued by the governor’s executive order to the Department of Health. When Romney told Log Cabin Republicans he would bob and weave like a boxer when a court case came up, it didn’t mean anything. They were just having whiskey sours during happy hour. Every GOP candidate marches in the gay parade, because just tolerating gays isn’t enough.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    sequitur posting? smile

  • Change Jar Conservative

    You said this much more eloquently than my attempt in a previous pro-Romney post.

    I agree with the theological views expressed here and would gladly take Romney over Huckabee despite how the fact that I would take Huck’s theology over Romney.

    I was with Fred until I spent 2 hours in his campaign office in South Carolina. After you’ve worked campaigns for a while, you get a feeling for momentum and caring and even the leaders didn’t seem to care.

    After that I moved to Romney.

    For now, I have Romney, Huntsman, and Gingrich.

    Just can’t bite on Cain’s 9-9-9.

    Would love for Perry to give me some financial detailed plans and a good debate performance so that I can come back to him.

    Love Cain as a person … am afraid he is Fred-ing us right now and would prefer him to just go to a flat tax as a way of moving towards the Fair Tax.

  • porkandcheese

    So why even try to engage the Romneybots? You can give them quotes, and they will parse it a million ways.

    Even you accept Romney converted to the pro-life position. Larsen says it’s a smear on his candidate, though there is abundant footage of Romney swearing to codify Roe v. Wade and describing himself as a pro-choice candidate.

  • rightwingmom52

    rather I think God has a wicked sense of humor. After all, we are created in his image, aren’t we? (And before I get a theological response from anyone, I know that’s not what created in his image actually means).

    Kudos for a good diary. While many of my Christian friends have said Romney isn’t their first choice, not a one of them have brought up his religion. It’s his conservative credentials they question.

    Congrats on the gamecock win. Didn’t get to watch much of the game, but seems the change in offense & QB was working.

  • snowshooze

    Was many years ago. I was single, and had partied to the wee hours.
    Knockknock…
    Yeh what.
    ( Red eyed, hung over, and not happy )
    Have you heard of God?

    You…. get off my porch before I shoot you off it.
    Anyway, I must be on some Satin list now… no more visits.
    Yeah, I really told them that.
    But I would have told anyone that, I wasn’t singling them out.
    I am an equal opportunity hater.
    Except if it were some gay right activist trying to marry some kid out from under their parents roof… I would have shot first. ( And then drug them in the house )
    But this whole thing is a sick joke.
    And those few that understand that cannot get a word in.
    If you are all freaked out about Religion and Mormons being cultist’s…
    That was the idea to start with. You are being played like a fish.
    Would Romney be a better choice than Obama?
    Fine.

  • gekster

    I told them no thanks, I’m a Christian.

  • snowshooze

    At least I didn’t make my insult Personal…

  • gekster

    And I don’t look good in white shirt, black suit.
    And if someone tells me thats what I got to wear, well, Jesus didn’t wear one.
    Why should I.

  • Flagstaff

    I’m not an expert in this area by any means. I live in the near suburbs of the primary Mormon population base in the US, and I don’t find them to be any different from anybody else in their civilian lives, except they may be a bit more religious in their approach to certain issues. That can’t be considered a negative by any “Christian,” can it, considering they’re on the same side, and Christians are often heard to admit they rely on their faith in times of trouble and when making important decisions?

    I don’t know exactly how a church that calls itself “the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints” is not considered and does not clam to be a “Christian” Church. But I admit it is possible, in that a name isn’t the same as the thing itself. I haven’t the time or inclination to research it further.

    There is a major split-off of the Mormon Church headquartered in Independence, Missouri, called the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. I wonder what other “Christians” think about them. They are not affiliated with the Mormon Church in any way.

    One need not agree on theology to be saved. That is an individual matter.

    Indeed. What is it that the detractors want? Must all politicians belong to one of their approved list of churches to be approved themselves? Is it enough that the politician himself says he is a Christian? If not, why not? A Christian in Iran is currently in danger of death because he won’t renounce his faith. Does a profession of Christian faith have less credibility in the US because there is not threat of death either way (so far)? Is there some reason, given the complexity of all modern religious doctrine, that a Christian could not belong to a so-called non-Christian church?

    At one time the knock against Catholics like John Kennedy was that “he’ll take orders from the Vatican.” Do the detractors today think Romney will take orders from Salt Lake City? AFAIK, there is nothing anti-social or anti-American in Mormon doctrine. What is the problem here?

    I find it very distasteful that some politicians are trying to make political hay out of the church affiliation of anybody (as long as that affiliation hasn’t been one of fomenting hatred of fellow Americans or fellow men in general). That lets Mormons in general off the hook, I admit, and it indicts the Most un-Reverend Jeremiah Wright and other anti-American clerics, and anti-semites too, for that matter. Scientologists? Who knows, but it shouldn’t be considered a church; rather, it’s a secret society, and how many of them are in the public arena? Only one, seriously, Greta van Susteren, and she isn’t running for office (do your own isearch).

    From my perspective, all religious beliefs are just that, beliefs, and they all deserve equal respect and fear. As long as they don’t force themselves on others, what do I care about what they believe. When they start forcing their beliefs into public law, that is where the fear comes in.

    It really takes more than a “non-Christian” set of beliefs (as defined, of course, by defenders of the faith) to get me upset. Among other nuances, “more” means a political/social movement disguising itself as a religion, using freedom of religion rules now to help it gain a position where it could deny religious freedom to others later.

    Like pornography, we all claim to know right from wrong when we see it, at least in most cases, even though we might be hard pressed to describe just how we know it. Preaching hatred of other humans, especially if its preached in a language most of us don’t understand, is wrong, IMHO, even if it isn’t illegal and can be defended on constitutional grounds. We seem to have lost the ability to differentiate between illegal and wrong, accepting the wrong if it isn’t illegal; therefore, some of us strike out at the different just because they’re different, as if that somehow translates into a defense against the “wrong.”

    Sorry if this is too abstract, I just don’t have it in me to be more clear right now. I’m working on taxes (or avoiding it).

  • Flagstaff

    One is never enough.

  • Flagstaff

    Even a Gamecock should have been cackling at that word, newly coined, just for him.

    A Dyslexicography of Gamecockery would be a very entertaining treatise.

  • CincoSolas_del_Bronx

    Your idea is great but would prove a massive tome, having to include the pun-itive damages he has inflicted on the name of everyone he has ever responded to here.

  • porkandcheese

    She made us be polite, even if we didn’t have to stick around for the whole thing. Eventually with the Mormons, they would just watch Sister Act together. But she is now an active Jehovah’s Witness. So is Prince, so I can live with it. She likes keeping busy, and she’s happy, which is most important.

  • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

    Boy: Dad Can I drive your car now that I have a license?
    Father: Son, if you will do 3 things for me I’ll let you drive my car…
    1. Raise your grades
    2. Keep your room clean for a month
    3. Cut your hippy-length hair.

    A month later…
    Boy: Dady, I’ve raised my grades and kept my room clean, can I drive your car?
    Father: Yes and I’m proud of you, but you still haven’t cut your hair…
    Boy: Yes, well I’ve been thinking about that, and I realized Jesus had long hair…
    Father: Yes son, and Jesus also walked everywhere!

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    trolls. I was converted to the GOP over time partly because people took the time to refute false arguments within my hearing.

    Its not about the ‘bots. Its about those that hear the conversations that are undecided. Its about the issues, not personalities with me.

    Plus, even ‘bots can be re-deemed.

    I do set time limits on my patience. Larsen did not exceed them and actually contacted me offline and we have had a pleasant conversation. I am not obsessed with blamming people prematurely.

    The GOP can’t become the default majority party absent conversions.

    I am a convert from 2000 ad.

  • earlgrey

    people is really honorable. I can’t say that I have converted anyone (except in grad school — and Rush Limbaugh did the work there — I just took over the radio dial).

    How do you decide who is worth bothering to try with and who to not bother with?

    I was on Yahoo last weekend, and I was appalled at the lack of any thinking behind their hard anit-republican attitudes. Basically ALL REPUBLICANS are ALL “insert insult here” all the time. They are very much uninformed, and I found myself replying to some of these posts in what I consider to be an unproductive way. I only go after the argument. I didn’t get personal. However, I questioned later, why I could not have treaded a little lighter and been more civil in the dialogue.

  • westcoastpatriette

    Unless you are overtly trying to be destructive and violating RS rules, you never know whose minds are being changed on prominent issues of the day and candidates as well. It’s a waste of energy trying to figure out everyones’ motives so I keep my focus on making my arguments and making them well.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    Yes, I got caught up in the snark against trolls and between our own several years ago and then got called out for it by Erick and Pilgrim in a constructive way, and I stopped the destructive egotistic snark and returned to my superior brand of humor! smile…I still love me and God is dealing with my humility problem still, but I digress.

    How do I decide? I address the actual words and plain meaning of what is said. I especially like to address those that spout the liberal talking points because so many non-political people hear the stuff all the time and come to accept it for reasons of laziness or comity. I don’t fault people for being non-political.

    I like to give people a chance to hear logical refutations of some length and uninterrupted rather than just Hannity’s talking points shouted between commercials.

    Of course, many of the trolls ignore arguments that refute and repeat the same questions. I usually warn the troll that I won’t suffer a fool once and then address any new points and remind them that I know how to walk a way from conversations and over the past 3 years, I have stuck to that self-imposed rule.

    I never ask to ban anyone. I suggest that others simply stop replying rather than complain about bandwidth waste while using more bandwidth calling for same.

    In other words, I grew up! But there are lots of people that read Redstate and hear political arguments that can be converted and we shouldn’t assume that non-political types that vote don’t need to hear lib lies refuted my sober arguments.

    imho

    smile

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    so much. The main reason for a label is to warn of what someone would do in office. But if they already have a record of voting for liberal policies that are failures, then we can simply cite that record and to how people like living under the consequences of that record.

    hence, Americans don’t like the results of Obama’s policies so there is no need to call him names to warn of what he might do. We simply point to what he has done and their own lives!

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    I judge actions.

  • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

    It is no secret that I’m a Mormon. I hope its also no secret that there is no love lost in my heart for Romney and Huntsman as brothers in our shared faith in Jesus Christ…but I CERTAINLY disagree with some key decisions they made in their political records, which is WHY I can’t support them in the primary, but should they get the nomination, I will vote for them… I would have voted for Huckabee last round if he won the nomination, instead I had to hold my nose like every other self-respecting conservative that understands you vote conservative in the primary, and Republican in the general. To this extent, I AGREE with your Diary.

    However your Diary is filled with a false premise! I reject your views of Mormonism, and your interpretation of our Doctrines.

    Example #1:

    Yet, Romney?s Mormon Church was founded precisely because its adherents disagreed with Protestants and Catholics on the doctrine of the nature of Christ (among many other doctrines) and specifically rejected being identified as part of traditional ?Christianity?.

    WRONG! The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints(not the Mormon Church) was founded precisely because God the Father, and Jesus Christ appeared to a 14 yr old boy in up state new york in April 1820. From that time forward Joseph Smith followed the revelation he received from heaven, both by prayer, and by visiting angels, and even additional visits from Jesus Christ, Noah, Elijah, and Moses, Peter, James, John the beloved, and John the Baptist.

    Now… you may think that’s all hullabaloo… or shenanigans by a very socially talented sociopath, or just a misguided attempt to build a church on false pretenses, or you may think that our church was founded by the Devil himself… I DON’T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH YOUR OPINION ON THE MATTER… I know what I believe… but I WON’T STAND BY IDLY AND HEAR NONSENSE BEING SPEWED ABOUT OUR POSITIONS AND OUR DOCTRINES.

    We believe in Jesus Christ, we reject labels made by the world, because WE KNOW WHO THE AUTHOR AND FINISHER OF OUR FAITH IS… WE DO NOT APPRECIATE THE MUD SLINGING, or the DOCTRINAL arguments that other try to make to Marginalize our faith in Jesus Christ. HOW PATHETIC IS IT TO SUGGEST THAT YOUR FAITH IS GREATER THAN MY FAITH IN THE SAVIOR OF ALL MANKIND?!?!?!?

    I don’t care what Evangelicals believe about Jesus Christ, I don’t care what Protestants believe about Jesus Christ, I don’t care about what Catholics believe about Jesus Christ, I don’t care what Jehovah’s Witnesses believe about Jesus Christ, I don’t care what Pentacostals believe about Jesus Christ, I don’t care what Methodists believe about Jesus Christ, I CERTAINLY don’t care what Black Liberation Theologian Christians believe about in Jesus Christ, and I even put less confidence in what Muslims, Buddhists, Bahhai’s, Hindi’s and other denominations of other religions and faiths believe about Jesus Christ… and finally… just so we don’t leave anyone out… I don’t care what Atheists, and Agnostics DON’T believe about Jesus Christ.

    MY FAITH IN CHRIST IS PERSONAL. I REJECT THE ATTEMPTS OF IGNORANT FOOLS THAT WANT TO TELL ME WHAT I CAN OR CAN’T BELIEVE ABOUT JESUS CHRIST!!! I REJECT YOUR CLAIM THAT MY CHURCH IS A CULT ON THE GROUNDS THAT POLYTHEISTIC ROMANS REJECTED CHRISTIANITY AS A CULT ca. AD 33. THEN EVENTUALLY CAME TO ACCEPT IT BY CHANGING ITS DOCTRINES ca. AD 325 in Nicea of Bythinia under the direction of a heretical would be convert named Constantine! DEAL WITH IT!!

    I really don’t spend a lot of time denigrating ANYONE else’s faith or the origins of THEIR doctrines. I don’t piss on other people’s beliefs… and frankly I don’t care what LABELS they choose to represent themselves… EVEN apostate polygamist Mormons!

    Let them worship how, where, or what they may.

    Now….

    Example #2:

    Simply venerating Jesus ?in some way? does not make up for adding to the canon and taking a radically different view of the nature of Christ. After all, Islam venerates Jesus in their texts. Must Muslims also be called Christians? Of course not.

    emphasis mine.

    Yes, Muslims may venerate Jesus as a prophet, but not as a SAVIOR… which is why THIS IS FALSE! We don’t just “venerate” Jesus in “some way”. He is unequivocally our SAVIOR, as our doctrine lays out, Jesus Christ created this world, Jesus Christ is Yahweh and Jehovah of the Old Testament, Jesus Christ is the same Jesus of Nazareth, born at Bethlehem, where a new star at his birth marked the sky so that the World may witness that the Messiah, Counselor, the Mighty God, the Prince of Peace was born!… Not one Mormon would get to heaven without the Atonement of Jesus Christ, and as such they must confessed with bowed knee and with holiness in their mouth that Jesus is the very Christ, the Son of God, the Only Begotten. AND I DEFY ANY WOULD BE CHRISTIAN and their WELL TRAINED PASTOR/PREACHER/PRIEST that would suggest that Mormons are not Christians and I would do it with authority having it been given to me by the laying on of hands by those in authority, and by the spirit of prophecy, and by the Power of the Holy Ghost.

    I speak my faith, I live my faith, and I am a servant of Jesus Christ, and I do my duty without purse or script… but for the Love of God and Mankind!

    AND THIS IS VENERATION!?!?!?! I’ll stand as a witness of Christ to my death, but probably more importantly with MY LIFE… I will do all that is within the breath of my lungs, and the love of my heart, I WILL WITNESS FOR CHRIST, ALL MY DAYS AS THE LORD SEES FIT!!!!

    I TOLD YOU MIKE, DON’T GO DOWN THIS ROAD!!!

    I am a member of Redstate, and I have what I believe are friendships with others at this site. I RESPECT this site, and its Purposes… IT IS NOT MY PLACE to PREACH the Gospel on this site… that is NOT the purpose on this SITE…. BUT WHEN YOU OPEN IT UP TO THIS CONVERSATION… YOU’RE DAMNED RIGHT I’M GONNA UNLEASH ON YOU LIKE A GEORGIAN THUNDERSTORM… damned be the consequences.

    I DO NOT MEAN TO OFFEND CHRISTIANS with my words, or MY beliefs… I DO NOT MEAN TO THREADJACK and EXPOUND on MY BELIEFS… but you brought it out… and I do NOT care to “BASH” out the bible, or history, or dogmatic, doctrinal, dichotomies, or diction…

    I have withstood ridiculous commentary on my Mormon faith… I have withstood denigrating, foul mouthed, blasphemous attitudes in the comments of this site…

    I will continue to do so… I know there will likely be some dim-witted moron that will follow up on my post with some inane “fact” from the theology of my faith regarding Polygamy, Blacks in the Priesthood, Joseph Smith, Golden Plates, Angels, “the adding to or taking away from this book” as is laid out in Revelations, and every other moot point that can be conjured up by the imaginations of FOOLISH MEN that seem to think they need to “PUT DOWN THE FALSE RELIGION” rather that standing for JESUS CHRIST AS A WITNESS…

    Mr. Mike Devine… I consider you a friend… I agree with you 99% of the time, and I think this may be the ONLY time I’ve taken issue with your words… Please I mean no offense… but I speak my peace regarding the matter…

    NOW — FOR THE REST OF YOU YELLOW BELLIED-TURNCOAT WOULD BE DEMOCRATS!!!!

    Please ALLOW ME to introduce you to your FALLACY!!!

    If you will choose a Christian over a Mormon for Political Office due to THEOSOPHICAL, THEOLOGICAL, DOCTRINAL, differences… Then let me Air the reality of your IGNORANCE.

    You DANCE on a MIGHTY slippery slope.

    I am NOT defending MITT ROMNEY politically… I am on Record as a Perry supporter, and secondary CAIN supporter… so let’s get that issue out of the way…

    But I simply ask you this… If Mitt Romney is unfit to be your president due to his religion… than WHAT PUBLIC OFFICE is ANY MORMON fit for?

    Where do you draw the line?
    Is it in the Senate? TOO LATE.
    Is it in the House? TOO LATE.
    Is it in a prominent cabinet position in any Presidential Administration? TOO LATE.
    Is it in an Ambassadorship? TOO LATE.
    Is it in a Governorship? TOO LATE.
    Is it in a State Legislature? TOO LATE.
    Is it in a Municipal Governmental role? TOO LATE.

    DO MORMONS FAIL TO QUALIFY FOR MILITARY SERVICE? TOO LATE.

    DO MORMONS FAIL TO BE GOOD CITIZENS AND PROTECTORS OF LIBERTY? TOO LATE.

    DO MORMONS FAIL TO BE GOOD MEMBERS OF REDSTATE? TOO LATE.

    You’re TOO DAMNED LATE FOLKS… NOW IF YOU WANT TO VOTE FOR A CHRISTIAN OVER A MORMON FOR RELIGIOUS REASONS…

    YOU’RE IGNORANT OF THE LIBERTY THAT OUR FOUNDING FATHERS GAVE YOU!!! AND IN MY MIND YOU DO NOT DESERVE TO CALL YOURSELF A CONSERVATIVE… BECAUSE CONSERVATIVES ESPOUSE CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS, and INTENDED TO PREVENT ESTABLISHING A CHURCH RUNNED STATE… DESPITE THE ARGUMENT THAT THERE ARE DENOMINATIONAL DIFFERENCES AMONG CHRISTIANS… YOU CAN’T TELL ME THAT WE’RE NOT A CHRISTIAN NATION… AT THE SAME TIME… YOU CAN NOT TELL ME THAT THE FOUNDERS WOULD REJECT ANY MAN OR WOMAN FOR OFFICE BY RELIGIOUS TEST!!!

    DEAL WITH IT YOU LACKLUSTER TURNCOATS…

    You want to prove to me that you are a Conservative and a GOODLY Christian? THEN SPEAK ABOUT THE ISSUES, SPEAK ABOUT THE POLICIES, SPEAK ABOUT THE OPPOSITION TO LIBERTY…

    AND LIVE BY THE 11th Commandment… THOU SHALT NOT SPEAK ILL OF ANY FELLOW REPUBLICAN.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    Not sure that Herman is lazy, but have been astounded at his lack of homework done on too many occasions. I do think that 9-9-9 would need to be tweaked for lower income workers with an exemption of the first $8-14K. And yes, I want Perry to do better in debates, defend himself better on immigration and tell my fellow Baptists to keep theological discussions inside the church.

    But Perry’s long record of excellence keeps him ahead of Newt and Huntsman.

    I actually barely lean to Cain but think Perry will improve and win.

    I am a longtime fan of Mitt and remain so but have major questions about his reliability to cut big government. But I trust his word, so I want to pin him down on promises!

    Newt has too much personal ego baggage and too much tendency yo eventually suck up tot he beltway elites.

    Huntsman not on my radar. Just doesn’t seem presidential and is too left on too many issues as I understand him..

    Bachmann lost me with her looseness with facts and unjustified attacks.

    Santorum lost badly in PA and backed Specter.

    Johnson is a flake.

    Ron Paul won’t defend the country.

    Still wish we could clone Reagan!

    But I would be very happy with Cain, Perry or Mitt.

  • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

    Reco’d for the GAME COCKINESS… I’m Still a Great FAN.

    :)

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    No reason to get into semantic arguments over words like cult and Christian. If a Mormon wants to call himself a Christian, then fine. I would reserve theological discussions for the churches either within same or in conferences between faiths and NOT in politics.

    You make excellent points and I agree with them all brother.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    and with Mitt in the same town in 2008. Fred was going thru the motions.

    Mitt wowed a large room filled with Evangelicals, all of whom agreed he and most of his church were better Christians that our Baptists etc in terms of moral behavior…

    There are lots of legitimate uses of the term “Christian”. One relates to the eternal destination of one’s soul that no man can know. Others relate to church membership and others to behavior.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    “was too lazy to crow for days” but kept all the hens in the barnyard upset in every way…

    my theme song

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    No one owns that word and while I disagree with the confession of the LDS Church, I have always said that any individual that asks Jesus to be his Lord, he will inherit eternal life. John 3:16

    Gamecock remains a great fan of standard’, now more enlightened by ‘candle!

    I have also expressed my disappointment in comments above, after reading a more detailed WashPo story, with the SBC Pastor for his veiled allusion to Mitt as not born again but yet admitting after the speech that he would vote for Mitt over Obama. He and most all Evangelicals are the same and I don’t appreciate him pretending that being born again is a significant qualification for President.

    Judeo-Christian values, character and smart policy is what matters in choosing the national leader and that a person is born again simply doesn’t guarantee any of that.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    cock-a-doodle-do
    we beat a basketball school…..smile

  • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

    By all means… I am agreed with the accord…

    As Joseph Smith once said “I see no faults in the Church, and therefore let me be resurrected with the Saints, whether I ascend to heaven or descend to hell, or go to any other place. And if we go to hell, we will turn the devils out of doors and make a heaven of it.”

    And when all is said and done in all sincerity… Jesus Christ shall proffer us all.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    nt

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/10/09/pastor-jeffress-mormonism/

  • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

    I just released my diary on the subject above… if this is my last comment on Redstate due to the inflammatory discussion it may create… I just wanted to say thanks…

    P.S. It may just be a tempest in a teacup kind of diary… but I’m curious what my credibility if any may stir the in hearts of my fellows that have spoken at length on the matter at hand.

  • David123

    nt

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    Actually I have had them in at times and had long conversations…kind of like I do with what get called trolls here at RS!

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    to upset the establishment? smile

  • porkandcheese

    Only roughly 30% of voters actually like Republicans. You lost the culture war a long time ago. For the GOP to win, you need someone who can convincingly argue the conservative position and has the record to back their argument up. The only candidate you have right now is Perry, though conservatives are worried how effectively communicate. Cain, Romney, Bachmann, Santorum, Gingrich, Huntsman — none of them have the record. Huntsman would have until he took a job from Obama. Romney has the worst record of all of them. His electability argument boils down to, “Vote for me, because I don’t actually mean what I say.” He has always been the “new kind of Republican” he was when Kennedy took his lunch. Romney loses and loses consistently. Values voters and the most active among the party base cannot relate to him. For independents, he actually personifies the worst stereotype of uptight soulless smarmy corporate creeps. We’re actually debating his faith? He believes in one thing: Mitt Romney, and the rest of you plebes can go to hell. As for Mormonism, John 3:16 means one only Son. Not the firstborn. Not the “savior” we all voted for in pre-mortal draft picks. God Himself among us, His creations, as a token of His love.

  • porkandcheese

    He promised the Log Cabin Republicans he would not stand in the way of implementing gay marriage. In fact, absent the necessary action from the state legislature, Romney issued an executive order to his Department of Public Health to issue same sex licenses instead of rocking the boat. Romney’s Department of Education distributed The Little Black Book: Queer in the 21st Century, which includes the following practical information: “There is little riskof STD infection and no risk of HIV infection from playing with pee.” None of what I’m saying is news. Hannity and O’Reilly covered Fistgate. Romney did not just happen to be at the vanguard of the gay rights movement. He is to the left of Barack Obama. He promised to do more for gays than Ted Kennedy. He appointed a gay activist judge committed to upholding same sex marriage in MA, not to mention 30 odd other Democrats.

    Romney has worked to ensure Planned Parenthood has a seat at the table and gets subsidies in Romneycare. He supports punitive gun laws, or did before he lied about an NRA endorsement in 2008. There is no end to his effrontery. On every single issue that matters to values voters, he has burned them many times over the years. Then like some horror movie psychopath he just gets up and does it again next election. It would test the patience of Job.

  • porkandcheese

    You sure throw around “troll” a lot. I’m not dazzled by your rhetorical skills.

  • porkandcheese

    They were, “all wrong … all their creeds were an admonition in his sight, and that those professors (Christians) were all corrupt” (Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith, 2:18-19).

    To the Mormons, Jesus is the firstborn son of an exalted “man” who became the god of this world. The man-god of Mormonism was made the god of this world because of his good works on another planet somewhere out in the universe. He “earned” godhood and was thus appointed by a counsel of gods in the heavens to his high position as the god of planet Earth. The Mormon god of this world was a man, like all men, who became a god. This is what the celestial marriage and the temple vows are all about. LDS men, by doing their temple work, are striving for exaltation by which they, too, shall one day become gods. Their wives will be the matriarchs of “their” world and with their husband will produce the population of their world. This is the Mormon doctrine of “eternal progression.”

    Note the following quote from the Mormon Journal of Discourses, vol. 1, page 123, made by the LDS Apostle Orson Hyde:

    “Remember that God, our heavenly Father, was perhaps once a child, a mortal like we ourselves, and rose step by step in the scale of progress, in the school of advancement; has moved forward and overcome, until He has arrived at the point were He is.”

    Lorenzo Snow, late President of the Mormon church, made this statement in the second verse of his famous poem entitled, “Man’s Destiny”:

    “As Abra’m, Isaac, Jacob, too, babes, then men–to gods they grew. As man now is, our God once was; As now God is, so man may be,– Which doth unfold man’s destiny. . .”

    The God of the Bible is not an exalted man, but omnipresent, omnipotent and omniscient. The Bible says He is the only God and there are no other Gods. He had no beginning or end and he is a spirit being and never was a man.

    Numbers 23:19, “God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?”

    Psalms 102:26-27, “They shall perish, but thou shalt endure: yea, all of them shall wax old like a garment; as a vesture shalt thou change them, and they shall be changed: But thou art the same, and thy years shall have no end.”

    Isaiah 43:10-11, “Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour.”

    Isaiah 44:6, “Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.”

    Isaiah 44:8, “Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any.”

    Isaiah 45:21-22, “Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I the LORD? and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me. Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else.”

    Jeremiah 23:24, “Can any hide himself in secret places that I shall not see him? saith the LORD. Do not I fill heaven and earth? saith the LORD.”

    Malachi 3:6, “For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.”

    John 1:16-18, “And of his fullness have all we received, and grace for grace. For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.”

    John 4:24, “God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.”

    Romans 1:22, “Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.”

    Colossians 1:15, “Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:”

    1 Timothy 1:17, “Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen.”

    1 Timothy 6:16, “Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen.”

  • Tom Anderson

    Joseph Smith didn’t say that about Christianity…he said it about the Christian churches of the day.

  • porkandcheese

    That is a small point, and I understand its significance.

  • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

    I will continue to do so? I know there will likely be some dim-witted moron that will follow up on my post with some inane ?fact? from the theology of my faith regarding Polygamy, Blacks in the Priesthood, Joseph Smith, Golden Plates, Angels, ?the adding to or taking away from this book? as is laid out in Revelations, and every other moot point that can be conjured up by the imaginations of FOOLISH MEN that seem to think they need to ?PUT DOWN THE FALSE RELIGION? rather that standing for JESUS CHRIST AS A WITNESS?

  • porkandcheese

    .