Redstate

I'm not an evangelical Christian, but this is what I think anyway: I don't think most evangelicals who might oppose Romney for religious reasons would do so because they would fear Mormon influence on Romney's decisions. I think it would be due one, to fear that having a Mormon as the president would help convert more folks to the Mormon faith, and two, that some of their own children might be attracted to Mormonism. Basically, I think a few evangelicals would be afraid of stronger competition from Mormonism. I think this is a reasonable fear for evangelicals, actually, though I hope with all my heart that they look past this issue and support the candidate in the general election who's better on the issues they care most about.

A few of you might be interested to know that as a secular, politically conservative person of Jewish background, I feel that Romney's religion is a slight plus for me. Mormons were very big contributors to the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, and they seem to have a lot of love and respect generally for Judaism. I also admire the values, work ethic and love of family that seem very common among Mormons.

if you have ever hired a Mormon, you'll look around and your office is comprised of Latter Day Saints.  They are good, hard working people, no doubt, but they view Gentiles the way some other religions view Infidels; they're just nicer about it.

The only reason I would vote for him is if he were the best candidate for the job.  (So far, I think he is.)

Yes, the LDS church does have high standards.  But so do most other churches.  Sadly, none of them seem to be able to prevent their members from being human.  So we see devout public servants taking bribes, cheating on their spouses, lying for political gain, etc..  No one is immune to temptation.  Power has a tendency to corrupt, after all.

What should be most important about Romney and his religion's high standards is if he keeps them or not.  So far he seems to be.

One more thing.  Remember that religous devoution has little to do with job competancy.  Jimmy Carter has been a devout Christian his entire life.  He was one before he was elected, during his Presidency, and has remained so since leaving office.  All that piety, and he still was one of the worst Presidents (and ex-Presidents for that matter) we've ever had.

It would be a mistake to vote for Romney solely on the basis of his religion.  It would also be a mistake to vote against Romney solely on the basis of his religion.  It does, however, make a good tie-breaker if all things are equal.  

Since Romney is by far the best candidate for the job, I'm not too concerned about his religion.

Wasn't there a newsweek article on mormons that pointed out Harry Reid was a mormon too?

Reid and Romney are both against neutering marriage, but Reid does not support the FMA which the LDS church strongly supports. I guess this is just important to note for people who want to claim puppet strings on politicians. Which, IMHO, was always a stupid argument. If they make a good choice, who cares who strong-armed them. If they make a bad choice, then we can look at who pressured them and perhaps complain about them caving to a bad choice. But as I understand it Reid and Romney are both convinced of their views, and the buck stops with them.

Actually, the LDS church did not explicitly come out in favor of it.  What they did do was state their support of tradional marriage, and then urged their members, "... to express themselves on this urgent matter to their elected representatives in the Senate."

Yes, support for the amendment was certainly implied but it was not explicitly stated.  This is important because the Mormon Church is very careful about inserting itself into the political process.

Here is the link if you are interested.

So Reid and Romney could be on both sides of the issue and still be right with their Church.

As a Mormon, I'd like to set you straight on your incorrect comment.  You said, "They are good, hard working people, no doubt, but they view Gentiles the way some other religions view Infidels; they're just nicer about it."

Aside from being contradictory about being nice and yet offended by others, I can assure you that the reason you're seeing many LDS folks at your place of business was not because LDS people shun or hate or fear Gentiles or Infidels.  Here are the reasons:

1. The majority of Mormons are Gentiles since the dictionary says: A Gentile is: One who is not of the Jewish faith or is of a non-Jewish nation. A Christian (let's set aside the argument of many that Mormon's are not Christians)
   
2. Mormon's like to get to know others not of their faith because they like to share they're beliefs when appropriate.  We are a proselyting people and if we keep to ourselves, then to whom do we share our beliefs with?
   
3. Mormon's have a well established Employment system.  Every chapel has access to volunteers that help unemployed members find jobs.  The interesting thing is that this help is open to non-mormon's too along with the Church's Welfare support, all one has to do is talk to a Bishop of any ward for either of those services and he'll help you out, Mormon or not.  So far, mainly Mormon's are taking advantage of those volunteer services
   
4. As one who hires people at my job, I've hired three people for my software engineering team that are all non-Mormon's, even though I knew of a Mormon that could have filled the position, I went for the best talent, which is the free market thing to do.  I'm not an anomoly in the church
   
5. Some non-Mormons who have lived in Utah have complained as you have.  I admit that no Mormon is perfect and may hire a friend and not the best worker for a job, and that is to their business's detriment.  Since the Ward Employment system in cities in Utah has so many Volunteers working for it, it may appear difficult to break in that market.  If you want, you can alway ask a Mormon Bishop for help in that market as the service is free and open to those that talk to a Bishop, you'll find we are a kind people even to non Mormons as we believe you are our spiritual brother or sister whether or not you believe as we do

As an additional note, this help I speak of is available online to Mormons and non Mormons at http://www.providentliving.org/.  

You can click on the Employment link on the left hand side and if you wish, you can click on the "Contact an Employment Specialist for help" link on the next page.  See how you don't have to add any Mormon membership information to gain access to this resource.  Now, you may be contacted by representatives of the church if you use this system, but you are not obligated to buy, join, or read anything to receive the help you may be looking for.

The results are here for comparison.

I'm not sold on Mitt Romney yet.

It isn't the Moromonism that holds me back, while we don't have the exact same beliefs, we share common values, and it is the common values that I find more important.

But I can't say that I am on any Romney bandwagon either, I am not convinced at this point that he is the best candidate the GOP can nominate.

was to show that Romney being Mormon wasn't neccessarily all that bad. It should be seen as an added bonus. Neither did I mean to imply that you should vote for Romney solely because he is Mormon. I may have not made those points clear enough.

I don't know if people who like Mitt, should try and convince those who won't vote for him because he is a Mormon, that Mormonism isn't so bad. Sure you might convince some of them that they are bigots for not voting for someone of their religion, but you will get the rest of the potential romney supporters tired of hearing about Mormonism.

People don't want to hear about religion when talking about politics, even if it is the truth, even when it is about a less-understood religion.

If we want to say anything at all about mormonism, I believe it should be the stuff about seperation of church and state...

In trying to convince the people that wouldn't ever vote for a Mormon that they are wrong, the rest of the people will think you are trying to convince them to BE mormon.

We don't want that. I want Mitt to Win. I don't want Harry Read to win. I want Republicans to win. I don't want Hillary to win. John McCain would be better than Hillary. Allen would be better than Hillary. But Allen is a senetor, and he sounds kind of like gomer pile. I don't think he would win against hillary. He's not very smart. And McCain is a great guy, but he agrees with democrats on all the wrong issues.

I probably like Reagan better than Romney, but Romney is darn close. I think Lincoln and John Adams were our best presidents. I don't think Romney will ever be as good as them, but he is the best I can see amungst those who are running.

I know what you mean, but I think it's important to counter those who say his religion is weight on his candidacy by showing the positives of that religion. Obviously these positives that I listed in my article are found in a great many other religions.

Re: but they view Gentiles the way some other religions view Infidels; they're just nicer about it.

My older step-sister is a Mormon, albeit an atypical one (twice-divorced career woman with a single daughter). Also, we have some old family friends who are Mormons. While they occasionally srop some fairly subtle hints that they would love for me to take an interest in the LDS I have never once caught a whiff of that sort of superiority or arrogance.

IMO, Mormon theology is off the rails, but the Mormons I have known have been good people to whom I would entrust my life's savings or any difficult confidence.

Would I viote for Mitt Romney? At thsi point it's a definite maybe because I would need to know more about hsi positions on various issues. I disagree with him on the FMA, but I am heartened hat he had the guts to tackle health care in MA without caving to the liberal socialized medicine folks.

This is were I try to figure out how much his religion will hurt him:

http://myclob.pbwiki.com/Mormon

Please help me brain storm reasons to agree. Our discusions are fine, but lets be organized and summerize all of the good points, and put the best points first, in a way that will help people deside for themselves, or submit their reasons to agree or disagree in an organized maner.

If you know the password, feel free to change. If you don't know the password, e-mail me and I'll post your argument (reason to agree or disagree) or I can try to copy and paste your argument from here...

Evangelicals, in particular, will certainly draw caution with him.  Many people find comfort in their President's faith.  In times of tragedy, they look to the President for reassurance and guidance.  

Having a President speak about "looking to God for hope in this time of trial," is something uniquely American.  Reagan was wonderful in quoting Scripture.  President Bush, as well, has also incorporated that into his addresses.  

I wonder if it will be hard for some Christians to imagine Romney in that role.  As much as Americans want to find comfort in their President's disposition and leadership, I think they also, to an extent, want to find comfort in his faith.  

We'll have to wait and see if Romney can pull that off.  If so, I think he's the man in 2008.

It is well written and I have thoughts in agreement and disagreement.  I also am recommending your post because while I disagree with much of it I find it well thought out, civil, and fairminded.

First, I could vote for a Mormon (in fact most Mormons would be politicaly conservative and a good pick in my book.  Even H. Reid wasn't so bad until he became the senate minority leader).  I could not vote for this one (Mitt Romney).  My biggest gripe is that he has flipped too much, and the very existence of an argument over his conservative credentials make his credentials at question.

I know you don't want to bring up doctrine.  But you are drawing the line between evangelicals and Mormons.  It is a wider divide than that and I can only point that out by discussing some doctrinal elements.  Classical Christianity (both Catholic and Protestant ranging from evangelical to fundamentalist to to even liberal theology) holds many Mormon doctrines as heretical.  The definition of a cult (in my mind) raises men to gods and God down to man.  Careful study of Mormon history (discouraged when I was a member because they don't like what they call "anti-literature") changed a lot of my thinking (I was most drawn to a book that was not even about  Mormonism but was about exegetical analysis.  It used the Book of Mormon as an example of peoples names and language type that doesn't even begin to fit the time and place Smith purports them too).  Also the belief that there is more than one God.  Also the belief that Jesus is just a big brother to us (and not God's only begotten son).  Also the universalist belief in salvation.  Nor atoning for sins of the dead through proxie.  Nor the changes made to the Bible (to make it the Smith version).  The former (changed) belief that blacks couldn't be in church leadership was tragic, and the excuses made when they say God changed his mind are comic.  I could go on and on.  The point is that this is not a branch of Christianity, but something entirely different.  Heck, the Muslims believe in a historical prophet Christ too, that doesn't make them Christian.  So I wouldn't put up evangelicals as the example, since every type of Christian theology rejects Mormon theology.

I don't want to engae in a lengthy debate about doctrine.  I just want to point out that the doctrines of the LDS are heretical not just to evangelicals, but Christians of all stripes.

I also disagree with the assertion about Mormons fighting for their country.  Mormons are (in my opinion) more patriotic than many Americans.  They believe that the founding of our country and the deliverence of a constitution were purposeful acts of an intervening God (as you correctly point out).  I admire that, and think there is some truth to it).  But while there are stories of Mormons who have bravely served this country in war (and also silly stories of them being protected by the special underwear that they have to wear that they claim is not magic but kind of is) the truth is that Mormons do not generaly serve in the armed forces, being encouraged instead to on a mssionary trip (recruiting) and then to college.  These are noble pursuits, and again admirable.  But while they are strong supporters of our military they rarely enter the service, so I disagree with your point.  You don't have to serve to be a good American, and a disproportionate number of Mormon young people serve their church, communities and gain an education instead.  There's nothing wrong with that.

I also very much would disagree with your point on article six.  It has nothing to do with private citizens voting in an election, and is a red herring.  It would be appropriate to, let's say, a senator voting on a confirmation.  I don't really believe the proponents of this position would consider filing federal charges against the person who openly states they won't vote Mormon and then votes anti-Mormon.

I agree with your points on clean living.  Mormons are clearly active in their communities and civic ventures.  Their family ties (being the basic unit of their church) are above question.  Still, it is a strectch to say that the FBI and CIA recruits from their communities.  I'd be interested in non-church sourcing.  I'll conceed that a Mormon (based on his clean lifestyle) is a good catch, but the CIA and FBI also heavily recruit from our university systems (not the seats of high morals there).  You might say that a Mormon (particulary one who has gone on a missionary trip) is more likely than many to get an acceptance, but to say our government seeks them out?

I agree that Romney wouldn't take his instructions from Salt Lake.  I think that those who think he might are misinformed.  My experience is that Mormons are active and encouraged to vote, but not encouraged to vote for one side or the other.  I also agree that Mormons are naturaly free market.

I do think one thing that you didn't bring up that is interesting.  Some Christians (Mormons often identify themselves as Mormon, not Christian) will not vote for Romney simply based on his faith.  That is unfortunate.  But let's level with one another.  I'll wager that the vast majority of dem Mormons vote for Romney because he IS Mormon.  I remember when Romney was up against Kennedy, and Mormons I had previously gone to church with (including democrats) were thrilled for him.  I don't get thrilled over Presbyterians running.  I just look at the person.

I would vote for either of the two senators now from Utah (Bennet and Hatch).  They are both solid conservatives.  Romney doesn't do it for me.

He would make a great appointment though.  HUD, OMB, Treasury, or Commerce.

Just my opinion.

I would point out that your second point is what the commentor is refering too.  I'll never forget a missionary telling me that the running joke with the missionaries was "Flirt with 'em, Convert 'em, dunk 'em (baptize), dump 'em".  

The prostelyzing isn't so bad by itself, but there is a reason many people feel Mormons see asscoiates more as potential converts than friends.  I understand that the intent is good.

Because I am not a Southern evangelical.

Maybe its just me, but I find the demographics for those who wouldn't vote for a Mormon is Southern Senior Citizen Evangelicals.

I'd like to see how Moe Lane would weigh in on this topic.

Learned a lot, thanks.

But I'm happy to hear that your gripe with Romney isn't mormonism, despite your obvious gripes with mormonism itself.

As for your statements about doctrine, I just can't breeze over those.  Your experience as a mormon makes this even more unsettling, as you either never understood some of the basics or you're intentionally trying to mislead readers of this blog due to some fairly major character flaws.  I'll assume the prior.

For those of you who aren't interested in doctrine stuff, please skip the rest of this post.  I'm just trying to keep this topic accurate when it surfaces.

1. "It used the Book of Mormon as an example of peoples names and language type that doesn't even begin to fit the time and place Smith purports them too)."

-- Check out Jeff Lindsay's analysis of this topic for some very authoritative counter-arguments to this book you read.  http://www.jefflindsay.com/BMEvidences.shtml#names

2. "Also the belief that there is more than one God."

-- We worship God the Father, and NO OTHER GOD above him.  His children, resurrected and glorified, would be well described as gods with god-like characteristics.  

3. "Also the belief that Jesus is just a big brother to us (and not God's only begotten son)."

-- Jesus is infinitely more than "just" a big brother.  He IS God's only begotten, our personal savior.  Your statement is flat wrong.

4. "Also the universalist belief in salvation."

-- Misleading of you to write this, as it connotates the "everyone is saved no matter what you do" doctrine.  If you mean saved in the sense of resurrected, yes.  If you mean saved in the sense of glorification and heavenly reward, no.

5. "Nor atoning for sins of the dead through proxie."

-- Check your Bible.  1 Cor 15:29.

6. "Nor the changes made to the Bible (to make it the Smith version)."

-- The Bible has been re-written so many times through translation, do you suggest it has been done so perfectly?  And if so, which version?

7. "The former (changed) belief that blacks couldn't be in church leadership was tragic, and the excuses made when they say God changed his mind are comic."

-- Read the Old Testament.  God from time to time commanded one thing, only to rescind that command at a later time.  What about the tribe of Levi being the only priesthood bearers, which restriction was later rescinded?  This restriction on African bloodlines (not dark skin) did in no way hamper their church membership nor participation.  

8. "The point is that this is not a branch of Christianity, but something entirely different."  

-- You can easily say "mormons aren't traditional trinitarian Christians", or "they're not infant baptizing Christians", etc.  But you can not say "mormons aren't Christian" without making biased, emotional, or arbitrary defininitions of what is Christian and what is not.

9. "I don't want to engae in a lengthy debate about doctrine."

-- So don't write false claims about mormon doctrine and then pass it off as if you're any kind of authority on it.

10. "Some Christians (Mormons often identify themselves as Mormon, not Christian)..."

-- This isn't because mormons don't think they're Christian.  It's because they're specificying a denomination.  

I'm really sorry a missionary told you a joke like that.  It was in bad taste and not representative of proselyting efforts.  As for mormons seeing associates as potential converts instead of friends, it's true that some mormons are not perfect.  

But I have many non-mormon friends, some of whom I share my faith with (unobtrusively) based on my fondness of them and on what happiness my faith brings my life.  For me to not share would signify that I don't appreciate my faith, that it doesn't make me happy, or that I don't think it would make others happy.  

I'm also not the exception.

1. I think Mormonism is heretical. They think the same of us, so there is no question we disagree doctrinally.
   
2. I think a politician's religious beliefs are an essential key in deciding who to vote for. They explain that person's worldview. Religion also often plays a key role in character development. I would disqualify Howard Dean on his religious beliefs alone, seeing as how he switched churches over a bikepath.
   
3. However, I would have no problem voting for a Mormon. Romney has my consideration. In fact my only reservations about Romney's religion are that I've heard he is Mormon more by family tradition, not by heart's desire. In other words, he isn't Mormon enough. Catholics worried about Kerry in the same fashion.

What Romney will have to do is convince me that he is a die-hard pro-lifer. He's convinced me he can balance a budget without tax increases, now he just needs to come out solidly pro-life, which he has thus far failed to do.

Lapsed Mormon myself.

1. If the Book of Mormon has historical inaccuracies or unverifiables, it is in good company with the Good Book.
   
2.  That's technically true... but checking the D&C, or the other, I forget, will show that Hoosier is technically correct also.

3, 4, 5.  Correct, Hoosier is "flat wrong."  The Mormon scriptures provide in the main an extrapolation, not a contradiction, of the Old & to some extent New Testaments.

6. We used a King James Bible, printed by the Mormons.
   
7. Yes, God's will is indeed mysterious, and man's interpretations thereof equally so...
   
8. "arbitrary"
   
9. "doctrine"
   
10. Mormons will generally say that they are Mormon instead of saying they are Christian, but they believe in the whole passion, and the whole Bible, so that makes them Christian, I thought.

I can attest to the fact that these agencies actively recruit from LDS communities.  As a student at BYU I had the opportunity to attend a recruiting meeting for the CIA and NSA.  In that meeting the recruiters, both nonmormons, stated that there was a close relationship between BYU and their respective agencies.  They also said that they spend a significant amount of time "actively recruiting" at my school specifically because of those qualities that you mentioned and disregarded.

I also disagree with your statement on LDS military service.  Guess where the 2nd ranked(behind the Academy) Air Force ROTC is located.  That's right. At BYU.  I have known many mormon military personal including officers and soldiers who would also disagree with your mistaken opinions.

if he was born a mormon. I think as far as activity is concerned he is doing pretty well. He was a full time misisonary for 2 years and then has also served (I only know this second hand) as a LDS bishop- like a pastor except the LDS Church has no paid clergy. Beyond that I guess I am not realy in a position to decide how mormon he really is.

I will vouch for what you said concerning active recruitment of Mormans.  One reason is that they tend to be easier to get cleared.  They tend to have clean backgrounds and are known to a large number of other people with clean backgrounds who can be counted on to give honest answers to background investigation questions.

Hiring an avarage kid out of Berkeley is a pain in the ass because he probably lived right next door to people for 10 years and never talked to them, half his friends are recreational drug users, he probably gave his teachers a hard time in school, and has never attended church in his life so it is difficult to find other adults that aren't direct associates that know him to interview.

Mormans tend not to blab things that are supposed to be secret as that is kind of a part of their culture too (which is a different subject entirely).

Basically, they tend to be clean, verifyable, and keep their mouths shut.

That many Mormons have gone on missions to foreign countries and have a second language under their belt.  The LDS church has a rather good language institute for training its missionaries.

I've supported and campaigned for lots of Mormon candidates for public office in the West.

But Romney's political record is anathema to Mormons' social and cultural values.

The LDS Church is pro-life.  Romney said we should "sustain and support" Roe v. Wade.  His 2002 gubernatorial campaign website said under "Abortion Rights" that he believes "women should be free to choose (an abortion) based on their own beliefs, not the government's."  He was endorsed by the pro-abortion Majority for Choice PAC.

The LDS Church opposes homosexual activists' political agenda and strongly supports the Boy Scouts' membership standards and moral code.  Romney supports allowing openly homosexual Scoutmasters and was publicly rebuked by the BSA for that stand.  He supports tax-financed same-sex benefits for govt employees, endorsed Kennedy's federal "gay rights" legislation, and appointed two homosexual activists to the bench who favor so-called homosexual "marriage."  He was endorsed (twice) by the homosexual Log Cabin Republicans.

A Mormon whose public policy record was actually consistent with LDS social and cultural and moral values, yes.

Mitt Romney, no way.

The Romney Camnpaign has to love that people keep talking about this. Look, I have a Mormon US Senator and I voted to re-elect him last time and will probably do so as often as he runs, because he does a great job. I won't vote for Romney because he's a man who remakes himself to fit what other people want. I've written about that here.

If you want the discussion let's have it.

Your points accuse me of being misleading at best.  Let's examine your points one at a time.

1)  My whole point in emphasising that the book I was refering to was not on Mormonism is that there are biased books for (as you site) and anti-books (intended soley to discredit Mormonism) that are against.  A look at books that don't deal with pro or anti messages is instructional, and I mentioned en passent a book that was nuetral, where you chose to mention a site that is dedicated to defending Mormonism versus nuetral scholarly research.

The reasoning in the article is flawed and deserves a diary of its own.  My point (which you fell into) is that nuetral research yields research that doesn't align with Mormonism, which is why Mormons typicaly read their own stuff (like Jeff Lindsay) and are strongly discouraged from reading nuetral material (which by definition is anti).  Lindsay often assumes arguments for the other side then knocks them down (called the strawman argument).  His flaw in the article you link is that I wouldn't make the specific claims he makes for claims about errors in the Book of Mormon.

2.  I didn't say that you don't worship "Heavenly Father" and no ther God above Him.  I said you believe in many Gods.  In fact, you believe there are many Gods.  You also believe in the attainment of Godhood, whereas classical Chritianity looks forward to the eternal worship of God.  I said nothing here that is incorrect, and you should apologize for saying that I said anything to the contrary.
   
3.  My statment is not flat wrong.  You believe in pre-existence, and that Jesus was begat before everyone else.  You also believe we have a heavenly mother who is married to God.  So my statement is true.  One of the false claims against Mormonism is that they don't believe in the divine nature of Christ.  I'm not doing that.  I'm aware of all of the ignorant claims against Mormonism that are not true.  The statement that we are in the same lineage of Christ however is heretical.  We were made not begotten, while Christ was begotten not made.  That is your heresy, it it was I posted, and it is not "flat out wrong".
   
4.  Universalist in the sense that you believe that everyone will eventualy have the ritual for proxi babtism done for them after death so they can choose Christ (after they have died) without repentance in this life.  Heretical, and a church teaching.  It implies that faith is not a requirement, since people can choose after death when they have an absolute knowledge of an afterlife.
   
5.  I don't see your point.  Try exegesis.
   
6.  Changes made to language and wording are one thing.  As you are aware the Book of Mormon is the one book wholy correct for teaching in Mormonism.  Changes to the Bible for theological justification are quite another thing.  The Book of Mormon, the Pearl of Great Price, and other books are great for your faith.  But classical Christianity teaches that the bible alone is divinely inspired (sola scriptura).
   
7.  The difference is that God made rules and moved forward through dispensations.  In the Mormon church, polygamy and the rule against black participation in leadership were made by men affected by a political change.  Funny how God convicted the rest of the country before he got on to convicting Mormons on blacks being acceptable leaders.  If you don't think that not being allowed leadership doesn't have an effect on membership participation you are not being realistic.
   
8.  Again you are not aware of classical definitions.  Heritical teaching does not mean you are a different sub-set of a faith, it means your beliefs set you apart from the faith.  There is reasonable debate on infant babtism, and differences are not seen as heretical.  The belief that we become gods or that their is a Mrs. God is heretical, and thus defines a seperate faith.
   
9.  I still don't want a lengthy debate.  My point (as I stated) was that the author can't claim there is no great divide between the two faiths without being called on it.
   
10.  Interesting.  Classical Christians identify themselves as Christians first, denominationaly second.  That Mormons don't is instructive.  (If I went to a Methodist church and heard more about Wesley, or to a Presbyterian church and heard more about Calvin, that would be instructive too.)      

to the reply I gave some moments ago.

what i wrote.

First, those recruiters are flatterers aren't they?  Seems to go hand in hand with the job.

There are plenty of Mormons serving proudly (as I also pointed out).  

That they make excellent recruites for the reasons you mention (and two you didn't, a strong sense of patriotism and civic duty).

And yet the FBI gets most of their recruits from amongst lawyers and accountants, while the CIA gets an awful lot from the ivy league with their lefty state department like orientations.

I think it is a stretch to say that they actively go out and say, "Let's get us a mormon".  Where I would agree with you is that it is clearer sailing for a typical mormon over most other kids.

What can be easily lost in the discussion is that Mormons (like many Christians) share their faith as an expression of their love for others.  There is nothing wrong with that.

The problem enters when people are seen as potential members for the sake of membership.  Take Amway for example.  I've had a couple of friendships hit the fan when I discovered that joining Amway was the real agenda of my "friends".  Mormons (and Christians to a lesser degree) have built up an Amway like reputation.  While it is not entirely fair (I know the missionaries I refered to where the exception) it has enough of a grain of truth to keep the perception going.

I applaud the rigor and the succinctness of your rebuttal. That's how doctrinal debate should be done - straight to the point, strip out the misconceptions.

I'm a bystander here (liberal of muslim faith) but just wanted to give you kudos.

Of all the factors that go into how I choose a candidate, religion is at the top of the list.  I need to know that my values are being represented first and foremost.  It's nothing against Mormons personally.  I also wouldn't vote for a Jewish, Catholic or Muslim candidate.

But hopefully, it won't get to a point where it's a close race and I have to decide between voting for Romney or just staying home, and risking a Hilary or Gore presidency.  And there's no reason it should get to that point.  So far, it looks like we'll have several good Christian candidates running in 2008, any one of whom will be just as good, if not better, than Romney.

for a real American.  Silly me.

Is it just me, or is "realamerican" doing a Moby his last two comments.

Going after Mary Cheney and "I wouldn't vote for a jew, catholic or muslim" may be his views, but they seem to be on the borderline of decent behaviour.

If I'm out of line in bringing this to your attention then i apologize.

(Nothing against you of course, realamerican.  I just prefer the company of real Americans).

in drag.

step away from the keyboard. take two aspirin, or better still two shots of bourbon...come back tomorrow. If you still stand by everything you have said...you might consider another blog.

I guess your not a big fan of the Thomas Jefferson Presidency.

Calling out Mary Cheney alone just seemed weird, but this one is just blatant.

DAHmich flew in with a stern warning.  All is well now.  Ever notice that DAHmich is never around at the same time as Clark Kent?

Re: You also believe in the attainment of Godhood, whereas classical Chritianity looks forward to the eternal worship of God.

Traditional Christianity (that is the Christianity of the Fathers from which the Orthodox and Catholic churches descend) did affirm a doctrine known as theosis: believers in Christ would, at least ultimately, become adopted sons and daughters of God the Father and as such would share in His divine attributes to the extent that this is possible in the material and temporal realm. It is Christ's incarnation (the joining of the divine and human natures in one person) which makes this a possibility, and the traditional churches regard the Virgin Mary as having already attained this state, hence the sometimes extravagant veneration paid to her.

I have heard Mormons explain their church's doctrine on this matter in a way that might be compatible with our Orthodox tradition, but I have also heard versions of it which plainly are not. Which leads to wonder if either the interlocutors were not well versed in their own theology, or if perhaps the LDS doctrine itself is not well defined.

Re: Classical Christians identify themselves as Christians first, denominationaly second.  

Careful there. I tend to identify myself as an Orthodox Christian (denomination first in that phrase). Also, many Catholics identify themselves as Catholics. It is generally among the evangelical Protestants that denomination is left out and people simply say "I'm a Christian." Maybe that's the way it should be, but it has not been so for many centuries.

On a final note, Mormonism is certainly Christian--but it is a heretical form of Christianity much as Arianism and so forth were in antiquity.

The Amway style friendship (and any similar motivations for LDS friendships) is something I find personally offensive.  The motivations for proselytization should be a pure love of Christ, NOT a belt of scalps.  

This is similar to the regular statements from LDS leadership (sans belt comment).  Any failings in this are on a per-person basis, as I'm sure you know.

So I think I understand your point, and I agree.

Hoosier --

Your original point was: "Classical Christianity (both Catholic and Protestant ranging from evangelical to fundamentalist to to even liberal theology) holds many Mormon doctrines as heretical."

This I'm not trying to dispute, as it's the basic definition of heresy: "religious opinion or doctrine maintained in opposition, or held to be contrary, to the Catholic or Orthodox doctrine of the Christian Church".  

What I'm saying is that your presentation of some of those mormon doctrines is either oversimplified, misleading, or incorrect.

1. The material I refered to from Jeff Lindsay is pro-mormon without a doubt, and you could indeed debate it all the day long.  I didn't give that link and pretend it was neutral.  Nor did I say your source was either neutral or anti.  My reason was to present counter-arguments (this may not have been consistent with my main point).

More generally speaking, the LDS Church does not discourage reading of "neutral" sources like yours.  What is discouraged is the requirement of factual evidence in matters of faith.  It is further discouraged to place one's trust of religion in the learning of the world instead of in scripture study, prayer, and the confirmation of truth through the Holy Ghost.  For example, I require no proof of the flood during Noah's times covering every single mountain peak.  I can't imagine a "neutral" source not finding fault with resurrection, walking on water, etc.

2. "the belief that there is more than one God" -- This particular statement is technically correct, and I didn't claim that it wasn't.  However, it's very easy to read your post and come away with the thought that "those mormons are polytheistic".  Whether or not you meant it this way, the original statment seemed oversimplified and I wanted to clarify.
   
3. Your statement WAS false.  You claimed: "that Jesus is just a big brother to us (and not God's only begotten son)."  The first part about Jesus being a big brother to us is true in the sense that he and we have the same spiritual parents.  The second part of your statement about Jesus not being God's only begotten son is 100% wrong, and in 12 seconds I found a link to further clarify this doctrine.  http://www.mormon.org/learn/0,8672,802-1,00.html
   
4. LDS doctrine is not universalist salvation (other than universal resurrection).  The idea of proxi baptism and post-death conversion does not eliminate faith in Christ as a requirement, as people who die without conversion to Christ do not receive a perfect knowledge of everything.  They are proselyted in the here-after and they have the opportunity to reject the gospel (and therefore reject the proxi ordinances on their behalf).  We are told that many do reject it.  Consider the countless people who died without an opportunity to hear the gospel...is God a respecter of persons?

If you don't understand this doctrine, it may be seen as universalist salvation, but that's just not correct.

5. Your point here about baptisms for the dead by proxie was completely accurate.  I'm sorry  my very short comment on this gave the impression that I disagreed.  What I meant to do (which is perhaps outside of this discussion), was mention that this unique mormon belief was also shared by early Christians.

Paul, in his letter to the Corinthians, makes reference to baptisms for the dead by proxie to further explain the doctrine of resurrection.  I referenced this to show that this doctrine was clearly known and taught in the early christian church (<400AD).

True, this mormon doctrine is heresy according to most (if not all) modern day christian sects.  But so is the biblical passage heresy.

6. True, no other churches accept Joseph Smith's corrections to the King James Bible (few, but significant).  Again, I may have mistakingly given the impression that your statement was innacurate.  Sorry.  

Incidentally, there are passages in the Bible (not the mormon version) which do not support sola scriptura, but that's another blog.

7. Again, this was not a skin-color based commandment, rather a bloodline-based commandment.  The assertion that the rescinding of the commandment on priesthood eligibility was politically motivated by men as opposed to instruction from God is a matter of faith.  

You also just mentioned the rescinding of polygamy as politically motivated.  Actually, it was because the US government was siezing church property.  The closing of temples would interrupt a vital function of the church, far more vital than plural marriage.  But if you want to call this politics, ok.

8. You claimed mormonism was something quite different than christianity.  Mormonism certainly has some doctrines very different than other modern christian denominations.  That alone does not make it non-christian.

What you are still trying to do is define what christianity is based on a flawed doctrinal basis.  

9. There IS a great theological divide between the two faiths.  There is not a great value divide in terms of public policy.  But I think we both agree on this.
   
10. Like Aleks311 said, this comment is accurate for some evangelical protestants, but not the christian community as a whole.

Well said,

Show me how many politicians gave up two years of their lives to "spread the gospel" in a foreign land using their own and/or family money and not being paid by their church.

He's plenty Mormon.  But, is he plenty conservative?

There are questions about Romney's previous statements in his Senatorial run against Kennedy and his evolution of thought on abortion.  But all the con arguements that are made are quotes taken out of context.  Romney, just the other week, corrected Judy Woodruff on this same liberal spin on his previous positions.  If you can watch the 30 min interview from the Charlie Rose show on PBS.

You're point is taken and I agree that any religion can foster awkward pushers of a belief system.  I'm sorry for your experience with a bad apple.  In regards to the original post, I disagree about what his original intent was, but this is just my interpretation:

"but they view Gentiles the way some other religions view Infidels"

I assume he is referring to Muslims and their religion's use of the term Infidel.  So he said that I view Gentiles (non-Mormons) just as a Muslim views Infidels, but that I'm nicer about it.  Forgive me, but I don't see a big Muslim push to convert Infidels to their religion.  I see on the news the hatred of my culture and even mainstream Muslim's wanting Infidels out of their lands and establishing their own religious states.  Thus, I interpret that the author meant Mormons only hire Mormons because we don't like non-Mormons, which is false and is contrary to our desire to share appropriately our experiences with our friends.

Here's a link to the video in case anyone missed it...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4362623183954478320&q=romney

I think that video just decided my vote two years from now. Thank you!

That's exactly how I feel every time I hear the man speak.

People like AFA can look at tiny portions of Romney's record, oversimplify it, misinterpret it, and twist it out of context all they want.  Smear campaigns aren't going to last once the general public hears what Romney has to say for himself.  

Forgive the ignorance, but what is a MOBY alert?  I like the artist's music but not his politics.  Please enlighten.

Moby (the "artist") once opined that fellow leftists should go to conservative sites posing as conservatives and say outragous things to make conservatives look bad (racist comments for example).

By the way, don't headline your post "MOBY ALERT" or editors come running with their ray guns to blast someone.

: )

I like much of what I've heard from the Governor's own mouth.  For me, it's the economy stupid.  Show me any Governor that can claim he has turned around a 3 BILLION dollar budget deficit into a near 1 BILLION dollar surplus without raising taxes.  Even Clinton can't claim that of his years in office.

I also like that the healthcare plan he wrote doesn't raise any taxes or hire any more burocratic employees.  Now if the Mass. congress can just leave it's hands off it and let the market play out the results.

Thank you for the education. :)

And for you music appreciation fans:

Moby also says that "We are all made of stars", but I prefer Eminem's charge that Moby is "Too old, no one listens to techno, so let's go..."

Frankly they both suck.  lol

Just don't go country on me ;)

Not a chance.  Classical / Baroque fan here (and some 60's and 80's).

Good show.  I always know some one is spot on when they tell other people what they believe.  You must be right.