Voting for a Mormon

Christianity Today has a forum in which three different Christian thinkers discuss whether or not a Christian should vote for a Mormon.  I am happy to say that Lutherans are represented this time.  The estimable Mollie Z. Hemingway applies the doctrine of the Two Kingdoms to the issue and does so in a particularly lucid way.  In light of our discussion about the apocryphal “wise Turk” quotation (which she cites as “apocryphal”), she includes another pertinent quotation from Luther that appears to be better attested.  (I’ll try to track down that source.)  She deals with the nonsense that the president is some kind of national pastor and concludes:

Voters should remember that support for any political candidate is support for the exertion of authority in the earthly realm and not leadership in the spiritual realm.

Luther explained that every Christian is a citizen in two kingdoms—a spiritual realm and an earthly realm—but even non-believers are citizens of the earthly kingdom. In one, God’s Word is preached, the sacraments are administered, and sins are forgiven. God works through other means, such as natural laws, physical causes, and history, in the earthly realm.

Luther said that while reason cannot fathom the mind of God, it’s a tool given by God for managing civic affairs. “Christians are not needed for secular authority. Thus it is not necessary for the emperor to be a saint. It is not necessary for him to be a Christian to rule. It is sufficient for the emperor to possess reason,” he wrote.

In the spiritual realm, the gospel—the free forgiveness of sins in Christ Jesus—prevails. By contrast, the earthly kingdom runs on compulsion, law, and force. That contrast between gracious forgiveness and law is the reason that, in Luther’s mind, Christians should not seek to put the church in charge of the temporal government or otherwise work through compulsion.

That’s not to say that the two realms must be or are in conflict. In fact, they should serve each other. The spiritual realm informs and supports the civil realm by preaching the gospel. Secular rulers serve the spiritual realm by preventing chaos.

It is entirely possible that in the next few months, the country will have its first Mormon President. No matter which man wins the office, it’s vitally important that Christians understand that his authority is limited to the secular realm and he should not be viewed as a spiritual leader.

via Is There Anything Wrong With Voting for a Mormon … | Christianity Today.

 

About Gene Veith

Professor of Literature at Patrick Henry College, the Director of the Cranach Institute at Concordia Theological Seminary, a columnist for World Magazine and TableTalk, and the author of 18 books on different facets of Christianity & Culture.

  • Michael B.

    The underlying assumption here though is that Mormons aren’t Christians. It’d be interesting if we made the authors define what exactly a Christian is, as well as how many errors you can have until you cease to be one. Do they also consider Catholics non-Christians? For many of your more conservative members on here, you probably have a lot more in common with many Mormons than what you’ll find in a lot of ELCA churches.

  • Michael B.

    The underlying assumption here though is that Mormons aren’t Christians. It’d be interesting if we made the authors define what exactly a Christian is, as well as how many errors you can have until you cease to be one. Do they also consider Catholics non-Christians? For many of your more conservative members on here, you probably have a lot more in common with many Mormons than what you’ll find in a lot of ELCA churches.

  • Carl Vehse

    It’s no assumption! Mormonism is not Christian, as explained in the LCMS document, “What About… Mormonism.”

  • Carl Vehse

    It’s no assumption! Mormonism is not Christian, as explained in the LCMS document, “What About… Mormonism.”

  • http://theoldadam.com/ Steve Martin

    We are not voting for a pastor.

    We’re voting for an executive.

    There is nothing wrong with voting for a Mormon, a Hindu, a Muslim, an atheist, or a Lutheran, or a Catholic.

  • http://theoldadam.com/ Steve Martin

    We are not voting for a pastor.

    We’re voting for an executive.

    There is nothing wrong with voting for a Mormon, a Hindu, a Muslim, an atheist, or a Lutheran, or a Catholic.

  • Abby

    As long as there is a belief in the protection of religious rights.

    And what about the “social values” that come out of religious beliefs? (Like now same-sex marriage and still abortion. Good post on party platforms: http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevindeyoung/2012/09/04/republican-party-platforms-on-abortion/ ) Even “Obamacare” includes the scare for seniors of the designated “panel” which will outlaw medical treatments or proceedures based on age. Where does this come from? — a value or non-value of life. (I have a Christian Dr. who practices according to his scientific and religious beliefs. But he couldn’t refer me to a specialist if the specialist is informed they won’t get paid for giving me service. But even Christian insurance companies do this.) Speaking of Obamacare — seniors don’t forget that it strips $500 billion from Medicare to fund Obamacare.

    Maybe we should get the government out of all entitlements and just let them concentrate on war and the economy and energy. Taxes should go down and we would have more money to establish church-run agencies. Maybe then the churches and families would go back to doing their job of loving their neighbor.

    Radical, I know. Taxes go down?!! If taxes actually did go down we would have a lot more choices for being able to take care of ourselves. Does the government really want that?!!

  • Abby

    As long as there is a belief in the protection of religious rights.

    And what about the “social values” that come out of religious beliefs? (Like now same-sex marriage and still abortion. Good post on party platforms: http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevindeyoung/2012/09/04/republican-party-platforms-on-abortion/ ) Even “Obamacare” includes the scare for seniors of the designated “panel” which will outlaw medical treatments or proceedures based on age. Where does this come from? — a value or non-value of life. (I have a Christian Dr. who practices according to his scientific and religious beliefs. But he couldn’t refer me to a specialist if the specialist is informed they won’t get paid for giving me service. But even Christian insurance companies do this.) Speaking of Obamacare — seniors don’t forget that it strips $500 billion from Medicare to fund Obamacare.

    Maybe we should get the government out of all entitlements and just let them concentrate on war and the economy and energy. Taxes should go down and we would have more money to establish church-run agencies. Maybe then the churches and families would go back to doing their job of loving their neighbor.

    Radical, I know. Taxes go down?!! If taxes actually did go down we would have a lot more choices for being able to take care of ourselves. Does the government really want that?!!

  • Jon

    Michael B,

    If he were being straight with you, a Mormon would tell you that only their church is Christian, that all other churches are apostate and thus not true Christians.

    That is what their founder and prophet Joseph Smith taught: during his direct revelation from Heavenly Father and Jesus, Smith asked which church he should join and he was instructed that he should join none of them, for they are all apostate.

    That’s why there is special emphasis on the Mormon church’s name, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

    Be that as it is, however, I am going to vote for MR in good conscience. (Yet, I will likely wince and might even gag a bit whenever MR invokes the customary divine blessing on the nation.) But I strongly believe that under MR’s leadership, the nation will be in much wiser and more capable hands than we have had in the last four years. This election is indeed a critical point of no return for our nation.

    So, I am curious to know how many others here are still held captive to their conscience and will be abstaining from voting because of the candidates’ religion, or will be throwing their vote away on a useless third-party vote.

  • Jon

    Michael B,

    If he were being straight with you, a Mormon would tell you that only their church is Christian, that all other churches are apostate and thus not true Christians.

    That is what their founder and prophet Joseph Smith taught: during his direct revelation from Heavenly Father and Jesus, Smith asked which church he should join and he was instructed that he should join none of them, for they are all apostate.

    That’s why there is special emphasis on the Mormon church’s name, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

    Be that as it is, however, I am going to vote for MR in good conscience. (Yet, I will likely wince and might even gag a bit whenever MR invokes the customary divine blessing on the nation.) But I strongly believe that under MR’s leadership, the nation will be in much wiser and more capable hands than we have had in the last four years. This election is indeed a critical point of no return for our nation.

    So, I am curious to know how many others here are still held captive to their conscience and will be abstaining from voting because of the candidates’ religion, or will be throwing their vote away on a useless third-party vote.

  • Jack

    Is this issue really any different than that of JFK’s being a Roman Catholic in the Presidential Election of 52 years ago? We heard things like a vote for Kennedy was a vote for the Pope.

  • Jack

    Is this issue really any different than that of JFK’s being a Roman Catholic in the Presidential Election of 52 years ago? We heard things like a vote for Kennedy was a vote for the Pope.

  • Carl Vehse

    Stephen Mansfield wrote: “Pastors will have to ensure congregations know right doctrine—a desperate need for this generation of Christians in any case. Individual Christian voters will need to distinguish, perhaps publicly, between their vote for the politician and their fierce disagreement with that politician’s beliefs.”

    Well, so far pastors haven’t done a good job to ensure congregations know the right doctrine regarding Mormonism, so it is not likely their understanding will improve if a Mormon becomes President.

    According to a 2007 Pew Research Center Survey, 40% of White evangelical protestants believe Mormonism is Christian, 45% say no, and 15% are undecided.

    Of the White mainline (e.g. liberal) Protestants, 62% believe Mormonism is Christian, 23% say no, and 15% are undecided. Of Black Protestants, 43% say Mormonism is Christian, 30% say no and 27% are undecided. 53% of Romanists say Mormonism is Christian, 29% say no, and 19% are undecided.

  • Carl Vehse

    Stephen Mansfield wrote: “Pastors will have to ensure congregations know right doctrine—a desperate need for this generation of Christians in any case. Individual Christian voters will need to distinguish, perhaps publicly, between their vote for the politician and their fierce disagreement with that politician’s beliefs.”

    Well, so far pastors haven’t done a good job to ensure congregations know the right doctrine regarding Mormonism, so it is not likely their understanding will improve if a Mormon becomes President.

    According to a 2007 Pew Research Center Survey, 40% of White evangelical protestants believe Mormonism is Christian, 45% say no, and 15% are undecided.

    Of the White mainline (e.g. liberal) Protestants, 62% believe Mormonism is Christian, 23% say no, and 15% are undecided. Of Black Protestants, 43% say Mormonism is Christian, 30% say no and 27% are undecided. 53% of Romanists say Mormonism is Christian, 29% say no, and 19% are undecided.

  • http://theoldadam.com/ Steve Martin

    ” This election is indeed a critical point of no return for our nation.”

    Exactly.

    Is it the loving thing to do for our neighbor to hang onto some vision of a “Christian” leader who holds to your every belief, and therefore not vote?

    Thereby giving this leftist control freak another 4 years to dismantle our American ideal?

    No me. I’ll vote for Mitt and Ryan. If I were a union member from Chicago, I’d vote for them twice. :D

  • http://theoldadam.com/ Steve Martin

    ” This election is indeed a critical point of no return for our nation.”

    Exactly.

    Is it the loving thing to do for our neighbor to hang onto some vision of a “Christian” leader who holds to your every belief, and therefore not vote?

    Thereby giving this leftist control freak another 4 years to dismantle our American ideal?

    No me. I’ll vote for Mitt and Ryan. If I were a union member from Chicago, I’d vote for them twice. :D

  • Bryan Lindemood

    I would vote for a Mormon (and I have). But I would not vote for Romney for all of the marbles in the world.

  • Bryan Lindemood

    I would vote for a Mormon (and I have). But I would not vote for Romney for all of the marbles in the world.

  • CRB

    Does anyone know the source of the Luther quote?

  • CRB

    Does anyone know the source of the Luther quote?

  • Carl Vehse

    CRB, there is no source. Martin Luther never said it nor anything equivalent to it. In fact he said just the opposite.

    See the Cranach August 31, 2012 article, “Luther’s “wise Turk” quote that he didn’t say

  • Carl Vehse

    CRB, there is no source. Martin Luther never said it nor anything equivalent to it. In fact he said just the opposite.

    See the Cranach August 31, 2012 article, “Luther’s “wise Turk” quote that he didn’t say

  • Tom Hering

    Let’s say we agree with the quote (whether it’s Luther’s or not). It’s been demonstrated that the Christian faith doesn’t violate reason, though reason is limited in what it can say about the Christian faith. Has it been demonstrated that Mormon beliefs don’t violate reason? Can a man who holds to Mormon beliefs be said to reason – or rather, to reason well? If not, should he be leading the United States?

  • Tom Hering

    Let’s say we agree with the quote (whether it’s Luther’s or not). It’s been demonstrated that the Christian faith doesn’t violate reason, though reason is limited in what it can say about the Christian faith. Has it been demonstrated that Mormon beliefs don’t violate reason? Can a man who holds to Mormon beliefs be said to reason – or rather, to reason well? If not, should he be leading the United States?

  • http://www.gslcnm.com Pastor Philip Spomer

    Mrs. Hemmingway wrote a fine article as far as it went, stating how things should be understood regarding the two kingdoms. However the more germane issue is the effect of the Romney campaign/presidency on the public understanding of what is Christianity. It’s not merely about having a non Christian as president. It is about having the ‘bully pulpit’ occupied by an agent of an organization who goal is to destroy Christianity by transforming its creed into something which is the antithesis of Orthodoxy.
    It’s as if Arius had become Emperor. Not meaning the use of coercive power (I hope) but in that the presidency has great extra legal power in our culture to frame discussions and mold opinion (esp. with those of his own party). For example, look at the recent cover article in National Review by Denis Prager. His main point was, “Sure the origins of Mormonism are irrational fairy tales, but the beliefs of all religions are irrational fairy tales.” And this from a periodical which takes up the defense of traditional values. This is not about the division of kingdoms as it is about the on going struggle for men’s souls between Monotheism and paganism.

  • http://www.gslcnm.com Pastor Philip Spomer

    Mrs. Hemmingway wrote a fine article as far as it went, stating how things should be understood regarding the two kingdoms. However the more germane issue is the effect of the Romney campaign/presidency on the public understanding of what is Christianity. It’s not merely about having a non Christian as president. It is about having the ‘bully pulpit’ occupied by an agent of an organization who goal is to destroy Christianity by transforming its creed into something which is the antithesis of Orthodoxy.
    It’s as if Arius had become Emperor. Not meaning the use of coercive power (I hope) but in that the presidency has great extra legal power in our culture to frame discussions and mold opinion (esp. with those of his own party). For example, look at the recent cover article in National Review by Denis Prager. His main point was, “Sure the origins of Mormonism are irrational fairy tales, but the beliefs of all religions are irrational fairy tales.” And this from a periodical which takes up the defense of traditional values. This is not about the division of kingdoms as it is about the on going struggle for men’s souls between Monotheism and paganism.

  • Martin R. Noland

    Dear Dr. Veith,

    Check out my comment on “Brothers of John the Steadfast” for a relevant Luther quote on the subject:

    http://steadfastlutherans.org/?p=22218#comment-417615

    Yours in Christ, Martin R. Noland

  • Martin R. Noland

    Dear Dr. Veith,

    Check out my comment on “Brothers of John the Steadfast” for a relevant Luther quote on the subject:

    http://steadfastlutherans.org/?p=22218#comment-417615

    Yours in Christ, Martin R. Noland

  • CRB

    Carl @ 11,
    Sorry, I should have been more precise. I mean Luther’s from Mollie’s article: “Christians are not needed for secular authority. Thus it is not necessary for the emperor to be a saint. It is not necessary for him to be a Christian to rule. It is sufficient for the emperor to possess reason,”

  • CRB

    Carl @ 11,
    Sorry, I should have been more precise. I mean Luther’s from Mollie’s article: “Christians are not needed for secular authority. Thus it is not necessary for the emperor to be a saint. It is not necessary for him to be a Christian to rule. It is sufficient for the emperor to possess reason,”

  • Carl Vehse

    Check out my comment on “Brothers of John the Steadfast” explaining that the “wise Turk” nonquote has no basis of support (or as a paraphrase) from Luther’s Commentary on Psalm 101 (and specifically the section about v. 5):

    http://steadfastlutherans.org/?p=22218#comment-417694

  • Carl Vehse

    Check out my comment on “Brothers of John the Steadfast” explaining that the “wise Turk” nonquote has no basis of support (or as a paraphrase) from Luther’s Commentary on Psalm 101 (and specifically the section about v. 5):

    http://steadfastlutherans.org/?p=22218#comment-417694

  • Carl Vehse

    CRB @15,

    That quote comes from one of Martin Luther’s sermons in 1528 and is in The Weimar Edition (“Weimarer Ausgabe“): D. Martin Luthers Werke: Kritische Gesammtausgabe (Dr. Martin Luther’s Works: Critical Collected Edition), Hermann Böhlau, Weimar, Vol. 27, pp. 417-418.

  • Carl Vehse

    CRB @15,

    That quote comes from one of Martin Luther’s sermons in 1528 and is in The Weimar Edition (“Weimarer Ausgabe“): D. Martin Luthers Werke: Kritische Gesammtausgabe (Dr. Martin Luther’s Works: Critical Collected Edition), Hermann Böhlau, Weimar, Vol. 27, pp. 417-418.

  • CRB

    Carl,
    Thank you. Is it also in the American Edition?

  • CRB

    Carl,
    Thank you. Is it also in the American Edition?

  • Dan Kempin

    So if a Christian struggles with voting for a Mormon and it troubles their conscience, would you advise them to pull the lever anyway? Would you say that it is wrong or sinful if a Christian did not support a candidate because he is of a different religion, particularly one that falsely claims the name of “Christian?”

    I understand that vocationally a non Christian can rule, and that a Christian can submit to their rule and support them in good conscience, but should a Christian CHOOSE a non Christian? Are there no other issues that come into play, such as the public witness to the nation as a whole as to what defines Christianity?

  • Dan Kempin

    So if a Christian struggles with voting for a Mormon and it troubles their conscience, would you advise them to pull the lever anyway? Would you say that it is wrong or sinful if a Christian did not support a candidate because he is of a different religion, particularly one that falsely claims the name of “Christian?”

    I understand that vocationally a non Christian can rule, and that a Christian can submit to their rule and support them in good conscience, but should a Christian CHOOSE a non Christian? Are there no other issues that come into play, such as the public witness to the nation as a whole as to what defines Christianity?

  • http://www.bikebubba.blogspot.com bike bubba

    I’m having trouble seeing a Mormon as more of a threat to the republic than church-going agnostics like Kennedy, Obama, Clinton, Carter, Nixon, and so on. Romney has a source of authority that he follows, and it’s one that I agree with part of the time. Is that so much worse than a President having a source of authority–the Bible and/or the Holy See–and ignoring it?

  • http://www.bikebubba.blogspot.com bike bubba

    I’m having trouble seeing a Mormon as more of a threat to the republic than church-going agnostics like Kennedy, Obama, Clinton, Carter, Nixon, and so on. Romney has a source of authority that he follows, and it’s one that I agree with part of the time. Is that so much worse than a President having a source of authority–the Bible and/or the Holy See–and ignoring it?

  • Carl Vehse

    CRB @18,

    I haven’t found any specific reference to Luther’s quote in the Amer. Ed. yet.

    Uwe Siemon-Netto posted (without reference) the same Luther quote in his October 19, 2011, comment to William McGurn’s WSJ article, “The Cult of Anti-Mormonism” (WSJ MainStreet, October 11, 2011).

  • Carl Vehse

    CRB @18,

    I haven’t found any specific reference to Luther’s quote in the Amer. Ed. yet.

    Uwe Siemon-Netto posted (without reference) the same Luther quote in his October 19, 2011, comment to William McGurn’s WSJ article, “The Cult of Anti-Mormonism” (WSJ MainStreet, October 11, 2011).

  • Jon

    @13

    “It is about having the ‘bully pulpit’ occupied by an agent of an organization who goal is to destroy Christianity by transforming its creed into something which is the antithesis of Orthodoxy.”

    So is MR going to outlaw the orthodox creeds? He pledged at the RNC that upholding religious liberty was paramount for his administration.

    Any proof that if Arius were president we’d all turn into Arians?

  • Jon

    @13

    “It is about having the ‘bully pulpit’ occupied by an agent of an organization who goal is to destroy Christianity by transforming its creed into something which is the antithesis of Orthodoxy.”

    So is MR going to outlaw the orthodox creeds? He pledged at the RNC that upholding religious liberty was paramount for his administration.

    Any proof that if Arius were president we’d all turn into Arians?

  • Jon

    @13 If a Democrat were in office, we might all turn into liberal progressives.

  • Jon

    @13 If a Democrat were in office, we might all turn into liberal progressives.

  • Jon

    @13 If an ELCA bishop were elected to office, she might turn us all into apostate mainline liberal protestants.

  • Jon

    @13 If an ELCA bishop were elected to office, she might turn us all into apostate mainline liberal protestants.

  • Carl Vehse

    The main question for conservative Christians, and one that all three CT writers delicately tapdanced around is:

    Should a conservative Christian vote for Mitt Romney solely on the basis that any other vote (or not voting) might help re-elect the lying leftist traitor we have now?

    The is a pertinent question since none of the three articles were overflowing with enthusiasm for the GOP candidate.

  • Carl Vehse

    The main question for conservative Christians, and one that all three CT writers delicately tapdanced around is:

    Should a conservative Christian vote for Mitt Romney solely on the basis that any other vote (or not voting) might help re-elect the lying leftist traitor we have now?

    The is a pertinent question since none of the three articles were overflowing with enthusiasm for the GOP candidate.

  • http://www.gslcnm.com Pastor Philip Spomer

    Jon,
    He won’t outlaw any creeds, but her will help blur the line between saving faith and damnation to many people who are theologically unlettered. It’s not our Republic that I’m woried about, it’s the Church.

  • http://www.gslcnm.com Pastor Philip Spomer

    Jon,
    He won’t outlaw any creeds, but her will help blur the line between saving faith and damnation to many people who are theologically unlettered. It’s not our Republic that I’m woried about, it’s the Church.

  • Dan Kempin

    Carl, #25,

    I disagree. I think the three authors were all tapdancing around the question: “How can I, as a Christian, justify my vote for a Mormon, since he seems allied with my political claims.” The premise that a Christian should not vote for a Mormon is not seriously considered, but swept aside to make way for politics.

    Don’t get me wrong. I might be persuaded that a Christian “may” do so. That is a far cry from “must,” though. If someone were to ask my advice, saying, “I think a Mormon president would reinforce the idea that Mormonism is Christianity, and my conscience bothers me,” for instance, I would say: Follow your conscience.

    Personally, I thought this was the elephant in the room during the primary. I might have even mentioned it on this blog. Our candidate is a Mormon. Christians are going to have a problem with that.

  • Dan Kempin

    Carl, #25,

    I disagree. I think the three authors were all tapdancing around the question: “How can I, as a Christian, justify my vote for a Mormon, since he seems allied with my political claims.” The premise that a Christian should not vote for a Mormon is not seriously considered, but swept aside to make way for politics.

    Don’t get me wrong. I might be persuaded that a Christian “may” do so. That is a far cry from “must,” though. If someone were to ask my advice, saying, “I think a Mormon president would reinforce the idea that Mormonism is Christianity, and my conscience bothers me,” for instance, I would say: Follow your conscience.

    Personally, I thought this was the elephant in the room during the primary. I might have even mentioned it on this blog. Our candidate is a Mormon. Christians are going to have a problem with that.

  • fjsteve

    “It is sufficient for the emperor to possess reason,”

    And there’s the rub.

  • fjsteve

    “It is sufficient for the emperor to possess reason,”

    And there’s the rub.

  • http://enterthevein.wordpress.com J. Dean

    Let me ask a counter question: Should a Christian vote for somebody who professes Christianity but denies it practically in many aspects of his life?

    You have a choice between a Mormon and a hypocrite (I don’t mean “hypocrite” in the sense of how we all fall short, but I mean it in the sense of somebody who knowingly and willfully makes an impenitent practice of it).

  • http://enterthevein.wordpress.com J. Dean

    Let me ask a counter question: Should a Christian vote for somebody who professes Christianity but denies it practically in many aspects of his life?

    You have a choice between a Mormon and a hypocrite (I don’t mean “hypocrite” in the sense of how we all fall short, but I mean it in the sense of somebody who knowingly and willfully makes an impenitent practice of it).

  • http://www.utah-lutheran.blogspot.com Bror Erickson

    Last spring, Mormons here in Utah were outraged that 20% of evangelicals said they would not vote for a Mormon for president. Well I’m not an evangelical in the American sense of the term. But I won’t vote for a Mormon either. What I find ironic is, here in Utah, Mormons tend not to vote for non Mormons for any local offices. They canned Huntsmann when he waffled on whether or not he was a Mormon. I would think they more than anyone would understand the bias.
    And yes there is a question of whether Luther thought there was such a thing as a wise Turk to begin with. All things are not equal here. I won’t say a Christian should not vote for a Mormon. I won’t. That is there choice. I have qualms about it. I also have qualms about voting for Obama. In this world I suppose you never get a utopian pick.
    But I see how the LDS manipulate politics here in Utah, and where as the govenors and senators have made an appearance of not being manipulated by the LDS in their politics, I’m not sure at all that things have been as transparent in those realms as one might be led to believe, I also don’t know that this will prove true where the presidency is concerned. There is also the white horse prophecy thing that makes me extra leery of voting for a Mormon, for the sole factor of how this will be twisted to be some sort of fulfillment of the prophecy, and therefore a confirmation of Joseph Smiths legitimacy.

  • http://www.utah-lutheran.blogspot.com Bror Erickson

    Last spring, Mormons here in Utah were outraged that 20% of evangelicals said they would not vote for a Mormon for president. Well I’m not an evangelical in the American sense of the term. But I won’t vote for a Mormon either. What I find ironic is, here in Utah, Mormons tend not to vote for non Mormons for any local offices. They canned Huntsmann when he waffled on whether or not he was a Mormon. I would think they more than anyone would understand the bias.
    And yes there is a question of whether Luther thought there was such a thing as a wise Turk to begin with. All things are not equal here. I won’t say a Christian should not vote for a Mormon. I won’t. That is there choice. I have qualms about it. I also have qualms about voting for Obama. In this world I suppose you never get a utopian pick.
    But I see how the LDS manipulate politics here in Utah, and where as the govenors and senators have made an appearance of not being manipulated by the LDS in their politics, I’m not sure at all that things have been as transparent in those realms as one might be led to believe, I also don’t know that this will prove true where the presidency is concerned. There is also the white horse prophecy thing that makes me extra leery of voting for a Mormon, for the sole factor of how this will be twisted to be some sort of fulfillment of the prophecy, and therefore a confirmation of Joseph Smiths legitimacy.

  • Carl Vehse

    Dan Klempin @27: “I think the three authors were all tapdancing around the question: How can I, as a Christian, justify my vote for a Mormon, since he seems allied with my political claims.”

    To the contrary, Mansfield addressed that question in his 4th paragraph. Hemingway answered it in her 1st and supported it with a quote from Luther in her 6th paragraph (although I don’t know if Martin Luther ever voted for any emperor or other secular candidate in a political election). Mouw addresses the question in his 4th paragraph, but later notes he has some concerns about Romney’s political (not religious) positions.

    Luther: “It is sufficient for the emperor to possess reason”

    And an impeached emperor once said, “It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.”

  • Carl Vehse

    Dan Klempin @27: “I think the three authors were all tapdancing around the question: How can I, as a Christian, justify my vote for a Mormon, since he seems allied with my political claims.”

    To the contrary, Mansfield addressed that question in his 4th paragraph. Hemingway answered it in her 1st and supported it with a quote from Luther in her 6th paragraph (although I don’t know if Martin Luther ever voted for any emperor or other secular candidate in a political election). Mouw addresses the question in his 4th paragraph, but later notes he has some concerns about Romney’s political (not religious) positions.

    Luther: “It is sufficient for the emperor to possess reason”

    And an impeached emperor once said, “It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.”

  • SKPeterson

    As J.Dean notes, our choices are between a non-Christian and an, at best, extremely heterodox Christian. If preservation of orthodox Christianity is the standard for who to vote for, Christians would be better off not voting as either choice is highly questionable.

    However, we are asked not to vote for Christian orthodoxy but for the person(s) who will do best by our neighbors. Unfortunately, the choices are highly questionable in that regard as well.

  • SKPeterson

    As J.Dean notes, our choices are between a non-Christian and an, at best, extremely heterodox Christian. If preservation of orthodox Christianity is the standard for who to vote for, Christians would be better off not voting as either choice is highly questionable.

    However, we are asked not to vote for Christian orthodoxy but for the person(s) who will do best by our neighbors. Unfortunately, the choices are highly questionable in that regard as well.

  • http://theoldadam.com/ Steve Martin

    Does anyone think that “Christians” will do a “better” job of ruling?

    Would you like to live in a place like Calvin’s Geneva?

    Or how about living in Puritan New England?

    I don’t care if Mitt wants to run around the White House in his holie underwear. I just want him to turn this country around from going down the socialist rathole.

    ___

    We had a guy come to fix a broken water line at out church today. We really blew it because we didn’t have him recite the Apostle’s Creed or test him on his knowledge of the Sermon on the Mount. In fact, we didn’t even bother, at all, to learn what (if anything) he believed about Jesus. Boy, are we stupid.

    The Two Kingdoms doctrine. Right.

    It’s as if some people here have never even heard of it.

  • http://theoldadam.com/ Steve Martin

    Does anyone think that “Christians” will do a “better” job of ruling?

    Would you like to live in a place like Calvin’s Geneva?

    Or how about living in Puritan New England?

    I don’t care if Mitt wants to run around the White House in his holie underwear. I just want him to turn this country around from going down the socialist rathole.

    ___

    We had a guy come to fix a broken water line at out church today. We really blew it because we didn’t have him recite the Apostle’s Creed or test him on his knowledge of the Sermon on the Mount. In fact, we didn’t even bother, at all, to learn what (if anything) he believed about Jesus. Boy, are we stupid.

    The Two Kingdoms doctrine. Right.

    It’s as if some people here have never even heard of it.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Steve @ 33 – :)

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Steve @ 33 – :)

  • Grace

    We as Believers must make a stand, one that might change the history of our country, maybe the world. Even if we should lose everything we own, saved, invested – it’s about our LORD and Savior, not about us. God knows about our troubles, HE knows, HE will set this right, if not now, later on, in HIS time.

    How can one vote for a man who was bishop of the Mormon church, his father was one of the “twelve” do you honestly believe, that a Mormon will not use every effort at his disposal to indoctrinate whomever he can to the LDS Church, including the masses in the U.S. and abroad? Using even the Inauguration to begin the journey? That would be the prime moment to set in place, the vision of the Mormon Church.

    They come in ‘twos’ to everyone’s door, over and over again. When they knock, they then begin to ask questions, (depending on our answers) as to how to proceed. They don’t always leave without a guarded argument. Having studied their beliefs for over 8 years, I know what they believe. It isn’t what the Bible states. They follow Joseph Smith.

    There is no question in my mind, that this man and his wife will do everything they can to sway, in a subtle way, anyone who will listen.

    The issue here is not the United States, but the souls of millions of people.

    Pastor Spomer made clear @26, Bror made excellent points @30. There are others as well.

    Millions of Christian Believers will not open their doors any longer to Mormons, why would they put their mark next to the name of a Mormon running for president?

  • Grace

    We as Believers must make a stand, one that might change the history of our country, maybe the world. Even if we should lose everything we own, saved, invested – it’s about our LORD and Savior, not about us. God knows about our troubles, HE knows, HE will set this right, if not now, later on, in HIS time.

    How can one vote for a man who was bishop of the Mormon church, his father was one of the “twelve” do you honestly believe, that a Mormon will not use every effort at his disposal to indoctrinate whomever he can to the LDS Church, including the masses in the U.S. and abroad? Using even the Inauguration to begin the journey? That would be the prime moment to set in place, the vision of the Mormon Church.

    They come in ‘twos’ to everyone’s door, over and over again. When they knock, they then begin to ask questions, (depending on our answers) as to how to proceed. They don’t always leave without a guarded argument. Having studied their beliefs for over 8 years, I know what they believe. It isn’t what the Bible states. They follow Joseph Smith.

    There is no question in my mind, that this man and his wife will do everything they can to sway, in a subtle way, anyone who will listen.

    The issue here is not the United States, but the souls of millions of people.

    Pastor Spomer made clear @26, Bror made excellent points @30. There are others as well.

    Millions of Christian Believers will not open their doors any longer to Mormons, why would they put their mark next to the name of a Mormon running for president?

  • Carl Vehse

    On the allegation that one should vote for the lesser of two evils, I submit that there is, for each voter, a level of agreement in politics and trust that a candidate must achieve before that voter casts a ballot for that a candidate. When both candidates fail to achieve that level (perhaps one much less than the other), then the voter may rightly choose another 3rd party candidate or a write-in or abstain.

    My question @25 was whether a voter should vote for the one candidate failing to meet that level in politics and trust, just to help prevent the other even (or far!) more unworthy candidate from getting elected.

  • Carl Vehse

    On the allegation that one should vote for the lesser of two evils, I submit that there is, for each voter, a level of agreement in politics and trust that a candidate must achieve before that voter casts a ballot for that a candidate. When both candidates fail to achieve that level (perhaps one much less than the other), then the voter may rightly choose another 3rd party candidate or a write-in or abstain.

    My question @25 was whether a voter should vote for the one candidate failing to meet that level in politics and trust, just to help prevent the other even (or far!) more unworthy candidate from getting elected.

  • http://www.utah-lutheran.blogspot.com Bror Erickson

    Steve,
    Perhaps what some of us are trying to avoid by not voting for a Mormon is Calvin’s Geneva and or Puritan New England, but mostly, subjecting the rest of the country to what I live with in Utah.
    Just saying.

  • http://www.utah-lutheran.blogspot.com Bror Erickson

    Steve,
    Perhaps what some of us are trying to avoid by not voting for a Mormon is Calvin’s Geneva and or Puritan New England, but mostly, subjecting the rest of the country to what I live with in Utah.
    Just saying.

  • http://www.utah-lutheran.blogspot.com Bror Erickson

    I’ll put it this way, the question of whether a Christian can vote for a non-christian, is perhaps, at least for me it is, a different question than is it wise to vote for a Mormon.

  • http://www.utah-lutheran.blogspot.com Bror Erickson

    I’ll put it this way, the question of whether a Christian can vote for a non-christian, is perhaps, at least for me it is, a different question than is it wise to vote for a Mormon.

  • Carl Vehse

    To alleviate the problem in the voting booth of having to choose between (in Manfield’s description) “hold your nose” and “hold your nose tighter,” one needed reform for the elective process (among other things) to allow each voter a complete vote, rather than the effective “half-vote” one gets now. Currently a voter can only vote for one or another candidate for a elective office. This denies the voter the right to vote against one or another candidate (similar to voting against, rather than for, a proposition, referendum, or bond issue).

    In a rightful and complete election process the voter should be able to cast one vote for or against one candidate of his choice. For each candidate the number of negative votes are subtracted from the number of positive votes and the candidate with the more positive net number of votes wins.

    In such a rightful and complete election, it is possible that with unpopular (or unworthy) candidates on the ballot, more negative votes would be cast against either, resulting in one candidate winning with a less negative net number of votes than the other.

    For this reason, it is almost certain politicians will never approve an election system allowing a voter to cast a negative vote against a political candidate the voter considers to be most undeserving.

  • Carl Vehse

    To alleviate the problem in the voting booth of having to choose between (in Manfield’s description) “hold your nose” and “hold your nose tighter,” one needed reform for the elective process (among other things) to allow each voter a complete vote, rather than the effective “half-vote” one gets now. Currently a voter can only vote for one or another candidate for a elective office. This denies the voter the right to vote against one or another candidate (similar to voting against, rather than for, a proposition, referendum, or bond issue).

    In a rightful and complete election process the voter should be able to cast one vote for or against one candidate of his choice. For each candidate the number of negative votes are subtracted from the number of positive votes and the candidate with the more positive net number of votes wins.

    In such a rightful and complete election, it is possible that with unpopular (or unworthy) candidates on the ballot, more negative votes would be cast against either, resulting in one candidate winning with a less negative net number of votes than the other.

    For this reason, it is almost certain politicians will never approve an election system allowing a voter to cast a negative vote against a political candidate the voter considers to be most undeserving.

  • Pete

    Bror @30

    What’s the white horse prophecy thing? And if there is some “white horse” in Mormon prophecy, are they going to say it was a typo and that “White House” was intended?

  • Pete

    Bror @30

    What’s the white horse prophecy thing? And if there is some “white horse” in Mormon prophecy, are they going to say it was a typo and that “White House” was intended?

  • Dan Kempin

    Carl, #31,

    I phrased that poorly. I meant to say that they were quick to provide reasoning for an affirmative answer without really addressing any of the deeper issues or objections. Just my opinion.

    Bror, #30,

    I appreciate and respect your take.

  • Dan Kempin

    Carl, #31,

    I phrased that poorly. I meant to say that they were quick to provide reasoning for an affirmative answer without really addressing any of the deeper issues or objections. Just my opinion.

    Bror, #30,

    I appreciate and respect your take.

  • http://www.utah-lutheran.blogspot.com Bror Erickson

    Pete,
    One can google it. But here is one of the many articles that will come up if one does.

    http://www.utlm.org/onlineresources/whitehorseprophecy.htm

  • http://www.utah-lutheran.blogspot.com Bror Erickson

    Pete,
    One can google it. But here is one of the many articles that will come up if one does.

    http://www.utlm.org/onlineresources/whitehorseprophecy.htm

  • http://theoldadam.com/ Steve Martin

    What deleterious effects were foisted upon Massacuhsetts or Michigan, because of the governance of the Romneys?

    I’m not talking about political policies, bit specifically things they did there solely because of their Mormonism.

  • http://theoldadam.com/ Steve Martin

    What deleterious effects were foisted upon Massacuhsetts or Michigan, because of the governance of the Romneys?

    I’m not talking about political policies, bit specifically things they did there solely because of their Mormonism.

  • Grace

    Thank you Dr. Veith for taking my post @35, “Your comment is awaiting moderation” OUT OF “moderation” –

    I appreciate all your kindness.

  • Grace

    Thank you Dr. Veith for taking my post @35, “Your comment is awaiting moderation” OUT OF “moderation” –

    I appreciate all your kindness.

  • Grace

    Steve @43

    “I’m not talking about political policies, bit specifically things they did there solely because of their Mormonism.”

    The moment has finally arrived for Romney. Had he tipped his hand during his time in the governors office, he would never have gotten on the GOP ticket.

  • Grace

    Steve @43

    “I’m not talking about political policies, bit specifically things they did there solely because of their Mormonism.”

    The moment has finally arrived for Romney. Had he tipped his hand during his time in the governors office, he would never have gotten on the GOP ticket.

  • Carl Vehse

    Not just a Mormon might be elected President this year, but, sooner than we think, we could have an Amish president, someone from a neo-Luddite cult, or some primitive fundamentalist sect.

    According to this Report: Every Potential 2040 President Already Unelectable Due To Facebook , no presidential candidates from any political party will be electable in 2040 due to embarrassing Facebook photos of them or Twitter messages made decades earlier in their youth.

  • Carl Vehse

    Not just a Mormon might be elected President this year, but, sooner than we think, we could have an Amish president, someone from a neo-Luddite cult, or some primitive fundamentalist sect.

    According to this Report: Every Potential 2040 President Already Unelectable Due To Facebook , no presidential candidates from any political party will be electable in 2040 due to embarrassing Facebook photos of them or Twitter messages made decades earlier in their youth.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    What Steve said (@43).

    Lots of people here are acting as if Romney would be the first Mormon (outside of Utah) elected to high office. “What should we do, were that to occur?” they cry as they wring their hands.

    Um, but no. He’s already been governor. And, I hear tell, there may even be a Senate majority leader who’s Mormon? And a few senators and representatives? These things have already taken place. What horrible things have occurred as a result?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    What Steve said (@43).

    Lots of people here are acting as if Romney would be the first Mormon (outside of Utah) elected to high office. “What should we do, were that to occur?” they cry as they wring their hands.

    Um, but no. He’s already been governor. And, I hear tell, there may even be a Senate majority leader who’s Mormon? And a few senators and representatives? These things have already taken place. What horrible things have occurred as a result?

  • Grace

    Carl,

    At the rate “Facebook” is going, I doubt anyone will care what they did. Most everyone I know, no longer has an account.

    What happens in 32 years isn’t the issue today, there are far too many problems that need to be solved.

  • Grace

    Carl,

    At the rate “Facebook” is going, I doubt anyone will care what they did. Most everyone I know, no longer has an account.

    What happens in 32 years isn’t the issue today, there are far too many problems that need to be solved.

  • Grace

    Here’s an article that might peek your interest:

    U.S. Muslims share friendship, similar values with Mormons
    Los Angeles Times

    April 02, 2008|David Haldane | Times Staff Writer

    The Mormon Church has to be among the most outgoing on Earth; in recent years its leaders have reached out to, among others, Latinos, Koreans, Catholics and Jews.

    One of the most enthusiastic responses, however, has come from what some might consider a surprising source: U.S. Muslims.

    “We are very aware of the history of Mormons as a group that was chastised in America,” says Maher Hathout, a senior advisor to the Muslim Public Affairs Council in Los Angeles. “They can be a good model for any group that feels alienated.”

    Which perhaps explains an open-mosque day held last fall at the Islamic Center of Irvine. More than half the guests were Mormons.
    “A Mormon living in an Islamic society would be very comfortable,” said Steve Young, a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints attending the event.

    The sentiment is echoed by Muslims. “When I go to a Mormon church I feel at ease,” said Haitham Bundakji, former chairman of the Islamic Society of Orange County. “When I heard the president [of LDS] speak a few years ago, if I’d closed my eyes I’d have thought he was an imam.”

    Though the relationship has raised eyebrows and provided ammunition for critics of both religions, Mormons and Muslims have deepening ties in the United States.

    http://articles.latimes.com/2008/apr/02/local/me-morlims2

  • Grace

    Here’s an article that might peek your interest:

    U.S. Muslims share friendship, similar values with Mormons
    Los Angeles Times

    April 02, 2008|David Haldane | Times Staff Writer

    The Mormon Church has to be among the most outgoing on Earth; in recent years its leaders have reached out to, among others, Latinos, Koreans, Catholics and Jews.

    One of the most enthusiastic responses, however, has come from what some might consider a surprising source: U.S. Muslims.

    “We are very aware of the history of Mormons as a group that was chastised in America,” says Maher Hathout, a senior advisor to the Muslim Public Affairs Council in Los Angeles. “They can be a good model for any group that feels alienated.”

    Which perhaps explains an open-mosque day held last fall at the Islamic Center of Irvine. More than half the guests were Mormons.
    “A Mormon living in an Islamic society would be very comfortable,” said Steve Young, a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints attending the event.

    The sentiment is echoed by Muslims. “When I go to a Mormon church I feel at ease,” said Haitham Bundakji, former chairman of the Islamic Society of Orange County. “When I heard the president [of LDS] speak a few years ago, if I’d closed my eyes I’d have thought he was an imam.”

    Though the relationship has raised eyebrows and provided ammunition for critics of both religions, Mormons and Muslims have deepening ties in the United States.

    http://articles.latimes.com/2008/apr/02/local/me-morlims2

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    As for the notion that “this election is indeed a critical point of no return for our nation” (@5), please. Fearmongers say that every election. Wotta lucky streak we got going, eh?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    As for the notion that “this election is indeed a critical point of no return for our nation” (@5), please. Fearmongers say that every election. Wotta lucky streak we got going, eh?

  • Dan Kempin

    tODD, #47,

    ““What should we do, were that to occur?” they cry as they wring their hands.”

    I don’t think that is the case at all. Or at least that is not the question as I would see it framed. The question is not whether a Mormon should be president, but where Christian conscience comes into play in voting.

  • Dan Kempin

    tODD, #47,

    ““What should we do, were that to occur?” they cry as they wring their hands.”

    I don’t think that is the case at all. Or at least that is not the question as I would see it framed. The question is not whether a Mormon should be president, but where Christian conscience comes into play in voting.

  • Jon

    @50

    Well, to continue this “fearmongering,” we are steering straight for the Scylla of soaring national debt with no way out, and the Charybdis of the crippling socialist nanny state. Obama is clearly no Odysseus, and he just says, “full ahead, flank speed.” (“Forward,” anyone?) With that approach, one or the other monsters is going to take us all out, it’s not a matter being able to steer deftly between them. Give me a new captain and pilot who can plot a more sensible course and maybe save some.

    You, however, seem content to just believe that somehow our lucky streak will always continue, that we’ll make it through OK, somehow. “Same thing we always hear from the fearmongers, people, but there’s nothing to worry about, we always make it through. We made it through FDR, JFK, Johnson, Carter, and Bush II, and we’re still here! Yay US!

    By the way, I expect there to be lots of Mormon murmuring about the White Horse if he wins, but I don’t think you’ll hear it from MR at all.

  • Jon

    @50

    Well, to continue this “fearmongering,” we are steering straight for the Scylla of soaring national debt with no way out, and the Charybdis of the crippling socialist nanny state. Obama is clearly no Odysseus, and he just says, “full ahead, flank speed.” (“Forward,” anyone?) With that approach, one or the other monsters is going to take us all out, it’s not a matter being able to steer deftly between them. Give me a new captain and pilot who can plot a more sensible course and maybe save some.

    You, however, seem content to just believe that somehow our lucky streak will always continue, that we’ll make it through OK, somehow. “Same thing we always hear from the fearmongers, people, but there’s nothing to worry about, we always make it through. We made it through FDR, JFK, Johnson, Carter, and Bush II, and we’re still here! Yay US!

    By the way, I expect there to be lots of Mormon murmuring about the White Horse if he wins, but I don’t think you’ll hear it from MR at all.

  • http://www.utah-lutheran.blogspot.com Bror Erickson

    Funny, I don’t think this next election will make us or break us. The United States has proven to be quite resilient, as has our constitution. We may be heading for some rough waters ahead, no doubt we are already in them. All that said, I have my concerns, and you all have yours. I think it is quite possible enough for someone to come along and correct things even if Obama has another four years. And I tend to think he will.
    I doubt the country will convert to Mormonism if Romney is elected, as far as I know that whole thing could turn out to be a huge public relations fiasco for them. I do know they will try, as they already are, to use Romney as a public face for them. I do know they manipulate those of theirs who hold office for their own ends. And those just happen to be major concerns I have. I really don’t want to see them have anymore influence than they already do.

  • http://www.utah-lutheran.blogspot.com Bror Erickson

    Funny, I don’t think this next election will make us or break us. The United States has proven to be quite resilient, as has our constitution. We may be heading for some rough waters ahead, no doubt we are already in them. All that said, I have my concerns, and you all have yours. I think it is quite possible enough for someone to come along and correct things even if Obama has another four years. And I tend to think he will.
    I doubt the country will convert to Mormonism if Romney is elected, as far as I know that whole thing could turn out to be a huge public relations fiasco for them. I do know they will try, as they already are, to use Romney as a public face for them. I do know they manipulate those of theirs who hold office for their own ends. And those just happen to be major concerns I have. I really don’t want to see them have anymore influence than they already do.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    If you don’t like socialism, and you think Obama really is a socialist, then you really should vote for Obama because history shows that the fastest way to end socialism is to fully embrace it. Now that doesn’t mean it will come to an end immediately, but it will play itself out. In some circumstances faster than others, but it will end.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    If you don’t like socialism, and you think Obama really is a socialist, then you really should vote for Obama because history shows that the fastest way to end socialism is to fully embrace it. Now that doesn’t mean it will come to an end immediately, but it will play itself out. In some circumstances faster than others, but it will end.

  • http://facebook.com/mesamike Mike Westfall

    I’m voting for whichever of the two candidates — and there are only two) — are more in line with protecting liberty and limiting the power and primacy of the State. I only care about a candidate’s religion to the extent that it might cause him to work against those objectives.

    Neither of this election’s two (AND ONLY TWO) candidates are ideal (nor will any election’s candidates ever be), but it’s clear to me which is less ideal — much, much less ideal. His opponent will get my vote.

  • http://facebook.com/mesamike Mike Westfall

    I’m voting for whichever of the two candidates — and there are only two) — are more in line with protecting liberty and limiting the power and primacy of the State. I only care about a candidate’s religion to the extent that it might cause him to work against those objectives.

    Neither of this election’s two (AND ONLY TWO) candidates are ideal (nor will any election’s candidates ever be), but it’s clear to me which is less ideal — much, much less ideal. His opponent will get my vote.

  • Grace

    sg,

    Obama’s socialism isn’t the answer, nor is Romney’s strong attachment to Mormonism. I cannot, nor will I vote for either one.

    I believe Bror’s last comment is correct.

    There is no answer in this election.

  • Grace

    sg,

    Obama’s socialism isn’t the answer, nor is Romney’s strong attachment to Mormonism. I cannot, nor will I vote for either one.

    I believe Bror’s last comment is correct.

    There is no answer in this election.

  • Jon

    @ 26 Pr. S

    “It’s not our Republic that I’m woried about, it’s the Church.”

    See, I believe we should be worried about the Republic. The church will always be OK, preserve a remnant, whatever, we have that assurance. Not that I think the sheep are going to flock to Mormonism because of MR. (How many more Methodists are there now on account of GHWB’s two terms?)

    sg 54– Socialism doesn’t usually end well despite the fact, you’re right, that it does indeed end.

    @56 No one is saying MR’s mormonism has an answer. It’s his business savvy and accumen that we’re counting on. Well, that and some common morals that he as a Mormon, happens to share (or maybe he shares, more or less) with us conservatives.

    Just, please, for those who by conscience can’t punch MR’s chad, don’t think for a moment you’re somehow doing the nation any good.

  • Jon

    @ 26 Pr. S

    “It’s not our Republic that I’m woried about, it’s the Church.”

    See, I believe we should be worried about the Republic. The church will always be OK, preserve a remnant, whatever, we have that assurance. Not that I think the sheep are going to flock to Mormonism because of MR. (How many more Methodists are there now on account of GHWB’s two terms?)

    sg 54– Socialism doesn’t usually end well despite the fact, you’re right, that it does indeed end.

    @56 No one is saying MR’s mormonism has an answer. It’s his business savvy and accumen that we’re counting on. Well, that and some common morals that he as a Mormon, happens to share (or maybe he shares, more or less) with us conservatives.

    Just, please, for those who by conscience can’t punch MR’s chad, don’t think for a moment you’re somehow doing the nation any good.

  • Tom Hering

    Might we entertain the notion that running a business and leading a nation, or running an Olympics and leading a nation, might be very different things? The conservatives’ favorite example of a failed President, Jimmy Carter, grossed $2.5 million in sales as a businessman, the year before he was elected.

  • Tom Hering

    Might we entertain the notion that running a business and leading a nation, or running an Olympics and leading a nation, might be very different things? The conservatives’ favorite example of a failed President, Jimmy Carter, grossed $2.5 million in sales as a businessman, the year before he was elected.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Dan (@51), the question as you’ve framed it is, indeed, more interesting than most of the discussion I’m seeing played out here.

    As to your original questions (@19), it seems obvious we should never encourage a Christian to act against his conscience. Nor is it sinful for a Christian to not support a candidate because the candidate is not a Christian. That doesn’t mean that I wouldn’t talk to such a Christian about the ideas underlying his thoughts and actions.

    As to the big question you ask, “should a Christian CHOOSE a non Christian?”, the answer is, of course: maybe. Maybe not. There’s lots to consider, at least potentially. Sure, the candidate’s “public witness” vis-a-vis his faith might be one of those things.

    But, at least in this election, I don’t see that there’s any obvious choice, were that one’s primary consideration. Heck, I don’t think we’ve had a presidential election with an obviously superior “public witness” for quite some time!

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Dan (@51), the question as you’ve framed it is, indeed, more interesting than most of the discussion I’m seeing played out here.

    As to your original questions (@19), it seems obvious we should never encourage a Christian to act against his conscience. Nor is it sinful for a Christian to not support a candidate because the candidate is not a Christian. That doesn’t mean that I wouldn’t talk to such a Christian about the ideas underlying his thoughts and actions.

    As to the big question you ask, “should a Christian CHOOSE a non Christian?”, the answer is, of course: maybe. Maybe not. There’s lots to consider, at least potentially. Sure, the candidate’s “public witness” vis-a-vis his faith might be one of those things.

    But, at least in this election, I don’t see that there’s any obvious choice, were that one’s primary consideration. Heck, I don’t think we’ve had a presidential election with an obviously superior “public witness” for quite some time!

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    So it seems to me that the worry here is that Romney’s Mormonism will somehow become conflated with Christianity, and that this will lead people astray. Is that right?

    The thing is, most people identify Romney as a “Mormon”, not as a “Christian”. Even my non-religious friends do this. Sure, some of those people might go on to state that they think Mormonism is a kind of Christianity, but the fact remains that they will think of Romney, first and foremost, as a Mormon.

    Compare that with George W. Bush. Many, especially his supporters — including not a few on this blog — only ever referred to his religion as “Christian”. They almost never referred to him as a United Methodist (which, at least nominally, he was). That’s because the Evangelicals who so fervently supported Bush don’t really see eye-to-eye with Methodism. And so Bush became, not the face of the UMC, but of Christianity. And his supporters liked it that way.

    Now, you tell me which of those is a bigger danger to Christianity and people’s understandings of it?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    So it seems to me that the worry here is that Romney’s Mormonism will somehow become conflated with Christianity, and that this will lead people astray. Is that right?

    The thing is, most people identify Romney as a “Mormon”, not as a “Christian”. Even my non-religious friends do this. Sure, some of those people might go on to state that they think Mormonism is a kind of Christianity, but the fact remains that they will think of Romney, first and foremost, as a Mormon.

    Compare that with George W. Bush. Many, especially his supporters — including not a few on this blog — only ever referred to his religion as “Christian”. They almost never referred to him as a United Methodist (which, at least nominally, he was). That’s because the Evangelicals who so fervently supported Bush don’t really see eye-to-eye with Methodism. And so Bush became, not the face of the UMC, but of Christianity. And his supporters liked it that way.

    Now, you tell me which of those is a bigger danger to Christianity and people’s understandings of it?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Jon said to me (@52):

    You, however, seem content to just believe that somehow our lucky streak will always continue, that we’ll make it through OK, somehow.

    Far from it. I actually think we’ve been on the wrong course for quite some time. And furthermore, I see no solution to our problems in either major candidate. Both will likely move us in the wrong direction.

    But this “point of no return” nonsense gets trotted out every four years. “Vote your conscience next election, but this year, America really needs you to vote for My Guy!” Like clockwork. People who say things like that don’t ever actually want you to vote your conscience.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Jon said to me (@52):

    You, however, seem content to just believe that somehow our lucky streak will always continue, that we’ll make it through OK, somehow.

    Far from it. I actually think we’ve been on the wrong course for quite some time. And furthermore, I see no solution to our problems in either major candidate. Both will likely move us in the wrong direction.

    But this “point of no return” nonsense gets trotted out every four years. “Vote your conscience next election, but this year, America really needs you to vote for My Guy!” Like clockwork. People who say things like that don’t ever actually want you to vote your conscience.

  • http://theoldadam.com/ Steve Martin

    Grace @ #45,

    You know that there are a lot of people involved, and not many Mormons in the Congress or the Supreme Court.

    Even if he wanted to ram through something that was ‘Mormon’ it would be all but impossible.

  • http://theoldadam.com/ Steve Martin

    Grace @ #45,

    You know that there are a lot of people involved, and not many Mormons in the Congress or the Supreme Court.

    Even if he wanted to ram through something that was ‘Mormon’ it would be all but impossible.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    sg 54– Socialism doesn’t usually end well despite the fact, you’re right, that it does indeed end.

    I am just glad someone got my point.

    Far from it. I actually think we’ve been on the wrong course for quite some time. And furthermore, I see no solution to our problems in either major candidate. Both will likely move us in the wrong direction.

    Yeah, I agree and while tODD doesn’t specifically state what he thinks is going wrong, I’ll throw in that neither candidate is going to cut the military funding and activities by the 90% I would like to see it cut or even at all. So, for me there is no perfect candidate either. Well since no one is going to cut our military as I see fit, I guess I shouldn’t vote till there is a candidate for president who will. The stupid thing in all this is that the president can’t even do a lot of these things people are so hung up on. He can’t institute a state religion or even really influence any one to his religion. He can’t end abortion. He can’t cut spending. But he can bring home our troops. That he can do. We are not in any declared wars, and much of our military could be brought home.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    sg 54– Socialism doesn’t usually end well despite the fact, you’re right, that it does indeed end.

    I am just glad someone got my point.

    Far from it. I actually think we’ve been on the wrong course for quite some time. And furthermore, I see no solution to our problems in either major candidate. Both will likely move us in the wrong direction.

    Yeah, I agree and while tODD doesn’t specifically state what he thinks is going wrong, I’ll throw in that neither candidate is going to cut the military funding and activities by the 90% I would like to see it cut or even at all. So, for me there is no perfect candidate either. Well since no one is going to cut our military as I see fit, I guess I shouldn’t vote till there is a candidate for president who will. The stupid thing in all this is that the president can’t even do a lot of these things people are so hung up on. He can’t institute a state religion or even really influence any one to his religion. He can’t end abortion. He can’t cut spending. But he can bring home our troops. That he can do. We are not in any declared wars, and much of our military could be brought home.

  • Carl Vehse

    Now that the Mormon issue is settled (sort of), and several people have warned that, even if he wears “holy underwear” and Joe Smith gets some street cred beyond his homeys, it is important to elect Romney because of the horror this nation faces if he isn’t.

    One of the horrors mentioned during the primaries was Obamacare. So, what’s the probability that President Romney would actually overturn Obamacare (not just talk about it), especially before benefits kick in in 2014 ? And, of course, that assumes the GOP has a majority in the Senate as well as the House.

    I’ll start the bidding with a generously optimistic “15 percent.”

  • Carl Vehse

    Now that the Mormon issue is settled (sort of), and several people have warned that, even if he wears “holy underwear” and Joe Smith gets some street cred beyond his homeys, it is important to elect Romney because of the horror this nation faces if he isn’t.

    One of the horrors mentioned during the primaries was Obamacare. So, what’s the probability that President Romney would actually overturn Obamacare (not just talk about it), especially before benefits kick in in 2014 ? And, of course, that assumes the GOP has a majority in the Senate as well as the House.

    I’ll start the bidding with a generously optimistic “15 percent.”

  • http://facebook.com/mesamike Mike Westfall

    I wish presidential candidates would quit promising things that only Congress can deliver, and just stick to how they’re planning to run the executive branch within the confines of the powers granted by the Constitution.

  • http://facebook.com/mesamike Mike Westfall

    I wish presidential candidates would quit promising things that only Congress can deliver, and just stick to how they’re planning to run the executive branch within the confines of the powers granted by the Constitution.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    @65

    comment of the day!!

    That is the last thing they want to do!!

    If they promise stuff that only Congress can do, they always have a scapegoat!

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    @65

    comment of the day!!

    That is the last thing they want to do!!

    If they promise stuff that only Congress can do, they always have a scapegoat!

  • Grace

    Steve @ 62

    “Even if he wanted to ram through something that was ‘Mormon’ it would be all but impossible.”

    I’m not concerned that anything can be rammed through Congress. I don’t believe that’s even on the agenda. What I am concerned about is; there are all too many individuals, who are unaware (I hate to use the word ignorant) as to what Mormons believe. They put great emphasis on their so called “morals” which is a misnomer, de-emphasizing their beliefs which are completely contrary to Scripture. It’s false.

    As a Christian Believer, having studied Scripture for a very long time – then, about eight or so years ago, spending endless hours to find out just what the LDS Church believed, has been very troubling. I knew they were a cult, but I didn’t know how far away they were, nor was I aware of their unending zeal to persuade those who are blind, to join their fold.

    I’m very concerned for our country, just as many others are. This is the first time in my life, I realize, there is nothing I can do, except warn those who are trying to make a choice between two evils, trying to justify one over the other, when there is no choice.

    My trust and faith rests upon the LORD, HE will bring this situation according to HIS Will, to do what HE has planned and chosen, to fruition. It all looks very bleak right now, but it won’t stay that way. Christ died on the Cross for our sins, I trust HIM, I know HE’S in charge. I cannot become involved.

  • Grace

    Steve @ 62

    “Even if he wanted to ram through something that was ‘Mormon’ it would be all but impossible.”

    I’m not concerned that anything can be rammed through Congress. I don’t believe that’s even on the agenda. What I am concerned about is; there are all too many individuals, who are unaware (I hate to use the word ignorant) as to what Mormons believe. They put great emphasis on their so called “morals” which is a misnomer, de-emphasizing their beliefs which are completely contrary to Scripture. It’s false.

    As a Christian Believer, having studied Scripture for a very long time – then, about eight or so years ago, spending endless hours to find out just what the LDS Church believed, has been very troubling. I knew they were a cult, but I didn’t know how far away they were, nor was I aware of their unending zeal to persuade those who are blind, to join their fold.

    I’m very concerned for our country, just as many others are. This is the first time in my life, I realize, there is nothing I can do, except warn those who are trying to make a choice between two evils, trying to justify one over the other, when there is no choice.

    My trust and faith rests upon the LORD, HE will bring this situation according to HIS Will, to do what HE has planned and chosen, to fruition. It all looks very bleak right now, but it won’t stay that way. Christ died on the Cross for our sins, I trust HIM, I know HE’S in charge. I cannot become involved.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Why does it even matter what Mormons believe beyond their morality in the here and now? Their main avenue of growth as Romney demonstrates is by having children. Since none of us Christians (I hope) are going to try to limit the Mormon’s (or anyone else’s) right to have kids or proselytize for various religions, then any discussion beyond morality is just angels dancing on the head of a pin.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Why does it even matter what Mormons believe beyond their morality in the here and now? Their main avenue of growth as Romney demonstrates is by having children. Since none of us Christians (I hope) are going to try to limit the Mormon’s (or anyone else’s) right to have kids or proselytize for various religions, then any discussion beyond morality is just angels dancing on the head of a pin.

  • fjsteve

    sg, Mike may have had the comment of the day but it comes over half a Century too late. There’s no reason to think it would ever happen in our lifetimes.

  • fjsteve

    sg, Mike may have had the comment of the day but it comes over half a Century too late. There’s no reason to think it would ever happen in our lifetimes.

  • Grace

    sg @ 68

    Your comment in reference to mine, has nothing to do with my reason for not voting for Romeny.

  • Grace

    sg @ 68

    Your comment in reference to mine, has nothing to do with my reason for not voting for Romeny.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    How many here would not vote for Romney if he were Jewish? I mean, Jewish is not Christian. So what is the difference?

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    How many here would not vote for Romney if he were Jewish? I mean, Jewish is not Christian. So what is the difference?

  • JunkerGeorg

    My concern with the Mormonism of Romney is that Mormonism embraces pre-millenial dispensationalism. It’s the same concern I’d have with certain Christian politicians, at least those whose churches embrace a dispensationalism if not Zionism (e.g., where they interpet the “you” in Genesis 12:3 promise spoken to Abraham (i.e., “Those who bless you I will bless, those who curse you I will curse..”) as applying unto the physical nation of present day Israel. Hence, in their mind, Christians need to do everything they can to “bless” the present day nation of Israel, including emasculating any of her neighbors if they threaten them. (Mind you, I’m not against Israel, nor am I pro-Iran, but simply believe we should let them defend themselves with the 300+ nukes we’ve given them). And this whether the majority in Israel want them to or not. I do believe that this dispensationalism and it’s influence upon the typical “Israel firster” foreign policy views in the Middle-East is the main concern I have with the Mormon faith of Romney no less than I would were the Republican candidate a Pentecostal like Palin, Baptist like Perry, etc. Take a Neo-Con background, add dispensational religious principle, and you have a recipe for a warhawk.

  • JunkerGeorg

    My concern with the Mormonism of Romney is that Mormonism embraces pre-millenial dispensationalism. It’s the same concern I’d have with certain Christian politicians, at least those whose churches embrace a dispensationalism if not Zionism (e.g., where they interpet the “you” in Genesis 12:3 promise spoken to Abraham (i.e., “Those who bless you I will bless, those who curse you I will curse..”) as applying unto the physical nation of present day Israel. Hence, in their mind, Christians need to do everything they can to “bless” the present day nation of Israel, including emasculating any of her neighbors if they threaten them. (Mind you, I’m not against Israel, nor am I pro-Iran, but simply believe we should let them defend themselves with the 300+ nukes we’ve given them). And this whether the majority in Israel want them to or not. I do believe that this dispensationalism and it’s influence upon the typical “Israel firster” foreign policy views in the Middle-East is the main concern I have with the Mormon faith of Romney no less than I would were the Republican candidate a Pentecostal like Palin, Baptist like Perry, etc. Take a Neo-Con background, add dispensational religious principle, and you have a recipe for a warhawk.

  • Dan Kempin

    What if you frame it as:

    A Mormon candidate who is pro-life.

    A professing Christian who is nevertheless pro-abortion.

    Which is the more pressing moral imperative? Which would let you stand before the throne of judgment and say, “This was my best decision based on Your Word”?

    (And no, sorry, I do not think fiscal policy qualifies as a moral issue. I would rather live in a bankrupt and corrupt socialist regime than in a country that kills its own children. I would rather compromise the prosperity of my children and their future freedom than compromise the clear witness of the faith.)

    (And no, sorry, I also do not think that Christians can cop out of the dilemma by saying “don’t vote.”)

    So again, which is the more pressing moral imperative? Maybe that will shed some light.

  • Dan Kempin

    What if you frame it as:

    A Mormon candidate who is pro-life.

    A professing Christian who is nevertheless pro-abortion.

    Which is the more pressing moral imperative? Which would let you stand before the throne of judgment and say, “This was my best decision based on Your Word”?

    (And no, sorry, I do not think fiscal policy qualifies as a moral issue. I would rather live in a bankrupt and corrupt socialist regime than in a country that kills its own children. I would rather compromise the prosperity of my children and their future freedom than compromise the clear witness of the faith.)

    (And no, sorry, I also do not think that Christians can cop out of the dilemma by saying “don’t vote.”)

    So again, which is the more pressing moral imperative? Maybe that will shed some light.

  • Michael B.

    @Grace@67

    “then, about eight or so years ago, spending endless hours to find out just what the LDS Church believed, has been very troubling.”

    But you can’t judge a church by whatever doctrine is on the books. It’s often the case that the official doctrine is all but ignored. You have to look at the individuals, and you will find an incredible amount of diversity. I mean just look at this forum. Most of us are Lutherans, and yet argue on every issue. Which one of us would you pick to be the typical Lutheran on here? So how can you say there’s a typical Mormon?

  • Michael B.

    @Grace@67

    “then, about eight or so years ago, spending endless hours to find out just what the LDS Church believed, has been very troubling.”

    But you can’t judge a church by whatever doctrine is on the books. It’s often the case that the official doctrine is all but ignored. You have to look at the individuals, and you will find an incredible amount of diversity. I mean just look at this forum. Most of us are Lutherans, and yet argue on every issue. Which one of us would you pick to be the typical Lutheran on here? So how can you say there’s a typical Mormon?

  • Grace

    Do you believe for a moment that Mormons disbelieve what Brigham Young stated? That The Lord created you and me for the purpose of becoming Gods like Himself;”

    The Lord created you and me for the purpose of becoming Gods like Himself; when we have been proved in our present capacity, and been faithful with all things He puts into our possession. We are created, we are born for the express purpose of growing up from the low estate of manhood, to become Gods like unto our Father in heaven.

    A Discourse by President Brigham Young,
    Delivered in the Tabernacle, Great Salt Lake City, August 8, 1852
    Volume 3, page 93

  • Grace

    Do you believe for a moment that Mormons disbelieve what Brigham Young stated? That The Lord created you and me for the purpose of becoming Gods like Himself;”

    The Lord created you and me for the purpose of becoming Gods like Himself; when we have been proved in our present capacity, and been faithful with all things He puts into our possession. We are created, we are born for the express purpose of growing up from the low estate of manhood, to become Gods like unto our Father in heaven.

    A Discourse by President Brigham Young,
    Delivered in the Tabernacle, Great Salt Lake City, August 8, 1852
    Volume 3, page 93

  • Grace

    Michael @ 74

    Mormons stand firmly together about doctrine. I learned that from those I knew that ARE Mormon. They might shy away from certain sticky beliefs, but they don’t throw them over the cliff.

    Don’t be fooled!

  • Grace

    Michael @ 74

    Mormons stand firmly together about doctrine. I learned that from those I knew that ARE Mormon. They might shy away from certain sticky beliefs, but they don’t throw them over the cliff.

    Don’t be fooled!

  • Jon

    Dear Junker (Brave Knight),

    What, honestly, does Romney’s dispensationalism have to do with whether he can avert an economic meltdown and our learning to speaking Mandarin Chinese to our new government after we economically collapse under the weight of Obama’s socialist pursuits?

    I, for one, will be limited to eating Orange Chicken, the only thing I can say in Mandarin.

  • Jon

    Dear Junker (Brave Knight),

    What, honestly, does Romney’s dispensationalism have to do with whether he can avert an economic meltdown and our learning to speaking Mandarin Chinese to our new government after we economically collapse under the weight of Obama’s socialist pursuits?

    I, for one, will be limited to eating Orange Chicken, the only thing I can say in Mandarin.

  • Grace

    JunkerGeorg @ 72

    I think perhaps you’re confused. I don’t understand the point you are trying to make, unless it’s a SWITCH-ABOUT!

    “The first account we have of the visitation of divine beings in this dispensation, is the account that is given to us by the Prophet Joseph Smith himself, concerning the visit of the Father and the Son. There had been men, doubtless many men in the various ages of the world, who had light and who had a degree of the Spirit of God. I believe myself that Mahomed, whom the Christians deride and call a false prophet and stigmatize with a great many epithets—I believe that he was a man raised up by the Almighty, and inspired to a certain extent by Him to effect the reforms which he did in his land, and in the nations surrounding.

    George Q. Cannon, 1883, Journal of Discourses,
    Volume 24 Page 371

  • Grace

    JunkerGeorg @ 72

    I think perhaps you’re confused. I don’t understand the point you are trying to make, unless it’s a SWITCH-ABOUT!

    “The first account we have of the visitation of divine beings in this dispensation, is the account that is given to us by the Prophet Joseph Smith himself, concerning the visit of the Father and the Son. There had been men, doubtless many men in the various ages of the world, who had light and who had a degree of the Spirit of God. I believe myself that Mahomed, whom the Christians deride and call a false prophet and stigmatize with a great many epithets—I believe that he was a man raised up by the Almighty, and inspired to a certain extent by Him to effect the reforms which he did in his land, and in the nations surrounding.

    George Q. Cannon, 1883, Journal of Discourses,
    Volume 24 Page 371

  • Gary

    I’m astonished at the number of responses that fear the effect that electing a Mormon would have on the Church. I think having that discussion front and center would give Christianity the advantage. Nevertheless, no matter what happens, God’s Word wins. The Holy Spirit will gather his Church whether the U.S. be in a state of decline or recovery (though I pray that our leader will be capable in such a way that we are able to live peaceful and quiet lives in all holiness and godliness).

  • Gary

    I’m astonished at the number of responses that fear the effect that electing a Mormon would have on the Church. I think having that discussion front and center would give Christianity the advantage. Nevertheless, no matter what happens, God’s Word wins. The Holy Spirit will gather his Church whether the U.S. be in a state of decline or recovery (though I pray that our leader will be capable in such a way that we are able to live peaceful and quiet lives in all holiness and godliness).

  • Grace

    Jon @ 77

    When did Romney become a dispensationalist?

  • Grace

    Jon @ 77

    When did Romney become a dispensationalist?

  • Jon

    SG @ 63

    Cut the military defense budget by 90%?

    Well, I guess you have no use for GPS services then, do you?

    Weather satellites? Most are millitary.

    But, you probably don’t care how much military technology benefits the general public.

  • Jon

    SG @ 63

    Cut the military defense budget by 90%?

    Well, I guess you have no use for GPS services then, do you?

    Weather satellites? Most are millitary.

    But, you probably don’t care how much military technology benefits the general public.

  • Grace

    Gary @ 79

    YOU WROTE: “I’m astonished at the number of responses that fear the effect that electing a Mormon would have on the Church.”

    It’s not just the church, which, if they know Scripture, could hardly come close to believing in the Mormons. It is those peoples who don’t know, who are being swayed. This is not a Christian nation, as most of us understand.

    At this time most people have no idea of what the Bible states, why Jesus came to this earth, or why we were created – they are lost, they don’t see a need for a Savior.

  • Grace

    Gary @ 79

    YOU WROTE: “I’m astonished at the number of responses that fear the effect that electing a Mormon would have on the Church.”

    It’s not just the church, which, if they know Scripture, could hardly come close to believing in the Mormons. It is those peoples who don’t know, who are being swayed. This is not a Christian nation, as most of us understand.

    At this time most people have no idea of what the Bible states, why Jesus came to this earth, or why we were created – they are lost, they don’t see a need for a Savior.

  • Grace

    Jon,

    I care very much that there are those who want to “cut” our military budget. It shouldn’t be cut so much as a nickel, we need what we have to defend ourselves.

    We are in a precarious position as it is, we don’t need to put ourselves below the ‘military poverty line!

  • Grace

    Jon,

    I care very much that there are those who want to “cut” our military budget. It shouldn’t be cut so much as a nickel, we need what we have to defend ourselves.

    We are in a precarious position as it is, we don’t need to put ourselves below the ‘military poverty line!

  • Jon

    Todd @63

    “Far from it. I actually think we’ve been on the wrong course for quite some time. And furthermore, I see no solution to our problems in either major candidate. Both will likely move us in the wrong direction.”

    What direction would you see us move then?

  • Jon

    Todd @63

    “Far from it. I actually think we’ve been on the wrong course for quite some time. And furthermore, I see no solution to our problems in either major candidate. Both will likely move us in the wrong direction.”

    What direction would you see us move then?

  • Jon

    @61

    You say Obama is the wrong direction, and Romney is the opposite wrong direction. Which, in your estimation, is the right direction? If you’d be so kind?

  • Jon

    @61

    You say Obama is the wrong direction, and Romney is the opposite wrong direction. Which, in your estimation, is the right direction? If you’d be so kind?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com tODD

    Dan (@73), maybe I’ve missed something in your comments, but … what?

    Which would let you stand before the throne of judgment and say, “This was my best decision based on Your Word”?

    Do you imagine yourself offering up justifications to God of why you did something? I don’t. On Judgment Day, I plan to plead for mercy, not explain why I thought I did a good job. So I’m a bit confused by that particular question.

    As to the question itself, I could see reasonable Christians going either way, depending on what they emphasized.

    I would rather compromise the prosperity of my children and their future freedom than compromise the clear witness of the faith.

    Wait, what? Voting for the wrong political candidate “compromises the clear witness of the faith”? Is our government now the one with the job of witnessing for the faith? I thought that was the Church’s job. You’re confusing me.

    I would rather live in a bankrupt and corrupt socialist regime than in a country that kills its own children.

    But there’s little chance that’s the choice we have to make this year, though some would like to frame it that way. Color me cynical, but I don’t see Romney doing a lot to stop abortions, should he win. Nor, frankly, do I see him doing away with the things that are driving our society bankrupt or making it more corrupt or socialist.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com tODD

    Dan (@73), maybe I’ve missed something in your comments, but … what?

    Which would let you stand before the throne of judgment and say, “This was my best decision based on Your Word”?

    Do you imagine yourself offering up justifications to God of why you did something? I don’t. On Judgment Day, I plan to plead for mercy, not explain why I thought I did a good job. So I’m a bit confused by that particular question.

    As to the question itself, I could see reasonable Christians going either way, depending on what they emphasized.

    I would rather compromise the prosperity of my children and their future freedom than compromise the clear witness of the faith.

    Wait, what? Voting for the wrong political candidate “compromises the clear witness of the faith”? Is our government now the one with the job of witnessing for the faith? I thought that was the Church’s job. You’re confusing me.

    I would rather live in a bankrupt and corrupt socialist regime than in a country that kills its own children.

    But there’s little chance that’s the choice we have to make this year, though some would like to frame it that way. Color me cynical, but I don’t see Romney doing a lot to stop abortions, should he win. Nor, frankly, do I see him doing away with the things that are driving our society bankrupt or making it more corrupt or socialist.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com tODD

    Jon (@81), I didn’t know that weather and GPS satellites comprised in excess of 10% of the defense budget. Fascinating.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com tODD

    Jon (@81), I didn’t know that weather and GPS satellites comprised in excess of 10% of the defense budget. Fascinating.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com tODD

    Jon (@84, 85), that’s a rather vast question, isn’t it? To pick but one problem to mention, I don’t see either major candidate — heck, either major party — dialing back the long creeping increase in federal power we’ve seen over the past, oh, century or more. The question in this election is, instead, which candidate’s abuse of federal power do you prefer?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com tODD

    Jon (@84, 85), that’s a rather vast question, isn’t it? To pick but one problem to mention, I don’t see either major candidate — heck, either major party — dialing back the long creeping increase in federal power we’ve seen over the past, oh, century or more. The question in this election is, instead, which candidate’s abuse of federal power do you prefer?

  • Grace

    Whatever this country goes through after the election, be it good times, bad, a recession as my ancestors went through. There will be a reason, perhaps one that will bring this country back to reality, and their KNEES, as to what really matters. God has ways of bringing HIS own, to HIMSELF.

    Our country has been adrift for some time. The 60′s onward, were the beginning of blatant sexual behavior, a need to mock the values of their parents, and elders, but most of all God Almighty. We are used to it now, we see nothing strange about moral decay, because it’s all around us. But if we had to live in this country without all the things we ‘believe we are entitled to, but no one decades before us enjoyed, our contemporaries would cringe, and so would we. We haven’t lived through desperate times, those here have so much more than anyone else in the world, we have no reason burden ourselves with what our ancestors and elders endured less than a hundred years ago.

    No matter how the election turns out, we are all going to see a different United States. I’m afraid one of the first things we will see in unbridled entitlement.

    God often brought difficult times upon groups and nations of people. It’s their response that gives the answer. Perhaps we will have the same opportunity to show our grit, and love for those around us, but most of all, sharing God’s love for everyone, no matter what they’ve done, who they are, or what they represent.

    Think about it.

  • Grace

    Whatever this country goes through after the election, be it good times, bad, a recession as my ancestors went through. There will be a reason, perhaps one that will bring this country back to reality, and their KNEES, as to what really matters. God has ways of bringing HIS own, to HIMSELF.

    Our country has been adrift for some time. The 60′s onward, were the beginning of blatant sexual behavior, a need to mock the values of their parents, and elders, but most of all God Almighty. We are used to it now, we see nothing strange about moral decay, because it’s all around us. But if we had to live in this country without all the things we ‘believe we are entitled to, but no one decades before us enjoyed, our contemporaries would cringe, and so would we. We haven’t lived through desperate times, those here have so much more than anyone else in the world, we have no reason burden ourselves with what our ancestors and elders endured less than a hundred years ago.

    No matter how the election turns out, we are all going to see a different United States. I’m afraid one of the first things we will see in unbridled entitlement.

    God often brought difficult times upon groups and nations of people. It’s their response that gives the answer. Perhaps we will have the same opportunity to show our grit, and love for those around us, but most of all, sharing God’s love for everyone, no matter what they’ve done, who they are, or what they represent.

    Think about it.

  • larry

    Pastor Spomer @ 13, nailed it as did Bror @ multiple, and Carl @ multiple.

    The issue is not as continues to be falsely and ignorantly dragged into the category of “can/should I vote for ‘wise’ non-Christian”. That is not the issue and boxing at thin air, putting up the straw man and knocking him down, again, and again, and again. The real and larger issue of the destruction of the Christian doctrine. And keep in mind when we say the Christian doctrine this does not occur in an ivory tower hypothetical, it involves real people and real souls. Its an entirely different issue.

    To answer the “why is such more dangerous to the faith than a leftest, etc…”. A simple analogy will do: The cobra standing in front of me is dangerous (the leftest atheist willing to use the sword on my neck at length, but all he/she kill is the body) and my faith can easily recognize it. The rattle snake that looks like leaves coiled up very low to the ground that I’m backing into is truly deadly (the right wing very moral religious ‘god language’ speaking person) for he/she murders the soul craftily by tricking and seducing one away from the doctrine. Remember Paul warned not “beware of those who would kill the body” but those who seduce by doctrines of demons and to guard the sound form of the doctrine above all. Or to even borrow from something attributed to Patton, “I’d rather have the German army in front of me than the French army behind me”.

    Everyone sees the standing cobra and says, “Look out” but then they don’t see the rattle snake camoflauged in the leaves. In fact he looks harmless, just like leaves.

    The seduction of christianity into damning false teaching nearly always comes by way of the clean side of the broad road that leads to hell, whether it was the pharisees of old, or Rome during Luther’s day and so forth.

  • larry

    Pastor Spomer @ 13, nailed it as did Bror @ multiple, and Carl @ multiple.

    The issue is not as continues to be falsely and ignorantly dragged into the category of “can/should I vote for ‘wise’ non-Christian”. That is not the issue and boxing at thin air, putting up the straw man and knocking him down, again, and again, and again. The real and larger issue of the destruction of the Christian doctrine. And keep in mind when we say the Christian doctrine this does not occur in an ivory tower hypothetical, it involves real people and real souls. Its an entirely different issue.

    To answer the “why is such more dangerous to the faith than a leftest, etc…”. A simple analogy will do: The cobra standing in front of me is dangerous (the leftest atheist willing to use the sword on my neck at length, but all he/she kill is the body) and my faith can easily recognize it. The rattle snake that looks like leaves coiled up very low to the ground that I’m backing into is truly deadly (the right wing very moral religious ‘god language’ speaking person) for he/she murders the soul craftily by tricking and seducing one away from the doctrine. Remember Paul warned not “beware of those who would kill the body” but those who seduce by doctrines of demons and to guard the sound form of the doctrine above all. Or to even borrow from something attributed to Patton, “I’d rather have the German army in front of me than the French army behind me”.

    Everyone sees the standing cobra and says, “Look out” but then they don’t see the rattle snake camoflauged in the leaves. In fact he looks harmless, just like leaves.

    The seduction of christianity into damning false teaching nearly always comes by way of the clean side of the broad road that leads to hell, whether it was the pharisees of old, or Rome during Luther’s day and so forth.

  • larry

    Todd @ 60, I think you know me well enough that my answer to that would be both.

    But that does make the point does it not. Doctrine does not ‘over night’ become “Tuesday we are Nicene” and “Wednesday we are Arian”. That’s not how it works. It slowly slides. In fact I’m not surprised that GW was the precursor to MR. That’s why I have consistently said right politics, whose governing approach I like most, by its inclusion into it the “moral majority” and other pseudo christian entities, is more dangerous than the left ever has been or will be. Note I’m not saying the left is not dangerous.

    I talked to people all the time, some christians, others atheist, others “jack (fill in the blank protestant/RC)” and they associate Christianity in this country with morality in some form or another. When you give Christ without dilution, the Gospel, they look at you and the response vary but the common factor is shock and “I’ve never heard that before”. Time and time and time again. Why is that? It not because the “president” is the national pastor/priest, another red herring in this argument train. It’s because the church, broad sense, bears witness to it (basically morality/virtue as opposed to vice) as “this is what we are about”. One does not have to say it in those words, one nearly needs to not the reactions. It matters not if they say occassionally or quite corners “Jesus only” faith alone in grace alone, its when you watch them religiously working their asses off that you sense “what they REALLY believe” and anyone with two cents of reason can say, “Sure you say grace alone but you sure as hell live as if its otherwise”. And from that you assess, “if I’m to be saved, I better do likewise because what they say doesn’t match their actions”.

    And so the problem of the public witness is not from the president but the silence of the church.

    Sure MR will always be called a mormon as opposed to the letters forming the word “chrisitan”. But Paul was very careful in noting that one watch the form of doctrine not just the external monicker. So it matters little if one is called by the letters “mormon” as opposed the letters forming the word “christian”, if both of these sets of letters at the end of the day express the basic same doctrine then it’s six one way, half a dozen another.

    Also Luther and many of the saints of old have always said that persecution, sword or laughter/scoffing, is the life blood of faith. But Luther well pointed out that the worst form of persecution that actually murders faith is ‘no persecution at all’. This would be the comfortable insinuation of doctrinal creep.

    Don’t get me wrong, I don’t find this to be an easy decission at all. I lament greatly the America I knew growing up is falling apart.

    On the wisdom issue. An unthinking enthused reactionary votes over chicken little fear monger, many on here are doing this…BO is the end of the world. It’s like the 2012 dooms sayers. They are not voting using wisdom and careful thought, they are voting out of fear and enthusiam. Wisdom, however one’s decision personal in the voting boothe comes about, will weigh exactly all these things pointed out by folks like Bror and Pastor Spoomer, et. ali. are pointing out. That’s how wisdom and reason works. People are actually calling “reason” here what is not really reason but reactionary enthusiam. Reason and wisdom steps back and examines these issues (e.g. the state of the country versus the danger to the church). That’s reason in operation IN the earthly realm. This other stuff is in reality a complete confusion of the two kingdoms, law and gospel and entirely without the exercise of reason. Note how many who claim “freedom of conscience” to vote then turn around and pull the Law lever to then bind the conscience by saying, “is it a loving thing to the neighbor” (patent conscience binding law). Be careful how people submerse you in the law claiming freedom of conscience!

  • larry

    Todd @ 60, I think you know me well enough that my answer to that would be both.

    But that does make the point does it not. Doctrine does not ‘over night’ become “Tuesday we are Nicene” and “Wednesday we are Arian”. That’s not how it works. It slowly slides. In fact I’m not surprised that GW was the precursor to MR. That’s why I have consistently said right politics, whose governing approach I like most, by its inclusion into it the “moral majority” and other pseudo christian entities, is more dangerous than the left ever has been or will be. Note I’m not saying the left is not dangerous.

    I talked to people all the time, some christians, others atheist, others “jack (fill in the blank protestant/RC)” and they associate Christianity in this country with morality in some form or another. When you give Christ without dilution, the Gospel, they look at you and the response vary but the common factor is shock and “I’ve never heard that before”. Time and time and time again. Why is that? It not because the “president” is the national pastor/priest, another red herring in this argument train. It’s because the church, broad sense, bears witness to it (basically morality/virtue as opposed to vice) as “this is what we are about”. One does not have to say it in those words, one nearly needs to not the reactions. It matters not if they say occassionally or quite corners “Jesus only” faith alone in grace alone, its when you watch them religiously working their asses off that you sense “what they REALLY believe” and anyone with two cents of reason can say, “Sure you say grace alone but you sure as hell live as if its otherwise”. And from that you assess, “if I’m to be saved, I better do likewise because what they say doesn’t match their actions”.

    And so the problem of the public witness is not from the president but the silence of the church.

    Sure MR will always be called a mormon as opposed to the letters forming the word “chrisitan”. But Paul was very careful in noting that one watch the form of doctrine not just the external monicker. So it matters little if one is called by the letters “mormon” as opposed the letters forming the word “christian”, if both of these sets of letters at the end of the day express the basic same doctrine then it’s six one way, half a dozen another.

    Also Luther and many of the saints of old have always said that persecution, sword or laughter/scoffing, is the life blood of faith. But Luther well pointed out that the worst form of persecution that actually murders faith is ‘no persecution at all’. This would be the comfortable insinuation of doctrinal creep.

    Don’t get me wrong, I don’t find this to be an easy decission at all. I lament greatly the America I knew growing up is falling apart.

    On the wisdom issue. An unthinking enthused reactionary votes over chicken little fear monger, many on here are doing this…BO is the end of the world. It’s like the 2012 dooms sayers. They are not voting using wisdom and careful thought, they are voting out of fear and enthusiam. Wisdom, however one’s decision personal in the voting boothe comes about, will weigh exactly all these things pointed out by folks like Bror and Pastor Spoomer, et. ali. are pointing out. That’s how wisdom and reason works. People are actually calling “reason” here what is not really reason but reactionary enthusiam. Reason and wisdom steps back and examines these issues (e.g. the state of the country versus the danger to the church). That’s reason in operation IN the earthly realm. This other stuff is in reality a complete confusion of the two kingdoms, law and gospel and entirely without the exercise of reason. Note how many who claim “freedom of conscience” to vote then turn around and pull the Law lever to then bind the conscience by saying, “is it a loving thing to the neighbor” (patent conscience binding law). Be careful how people submerse you in the law claiming freedom of conscience!

  • Pingback: Two important questions regarding Mormonism « Strengthened by Grace

  • Pingback: Two important questions regarding Mormonism « Strengthened by Grace

  • Martin R. Noland

    Dear Dr. Veith,

    Here are a couple more Luther quotes, since you said you were looking for them, on the topic of Government and the Turks.

    On the question of whether you should choose a pious or a prudent ruler, if you have to make that choice (obviously you want BOTH qualities), Luther comments on Deuteronomy 1:13 in Luther’s Works 9:18-19; also on Exodux 19:7 in the Saint Louis edition (not in Luther’s Works yet), in volume 3, page 1017.

    On Luther’s opinion of the Turks, namely, that they have an admirable outward life, and excellent organization and adminstration of government, and he wishes the Germans were as well governed, see also Saint Louis edition (not in Luther’s Works) volume 20, page 2185.

    On Luther’s praise for the Turks virtue of truth-telling, commenting on John 3:19, see Luther’s Works 22:399.

    Thanks for writing an excellent blog!

    Yours in Christ, Martin R. Noland

  • Martin R. Noland

    Dear Dr. Veith,

    Here are a couple more Luther quotes, since you said you were looking for them, on the topic of Government and the Turks.

    On the question of whether you should choose a pious or a prudent ruler, if you have to make that choice (obviously you want BOTH qualities), Luther comments on Deuteronomy 1:13 in Luther’s Works 9:18-19; also on Exodux 19:7 in the Saint Louis edition (not in Luther’s Works yet), in volume 3, page 1017.

    On Luther’s opinion of the Turks, namely, that they have an admirable outward life, and excellent organization and adminstration of government, and he wishes the Germans were as well governed, see also Saint Louis edition (not in Luther’s Works) volume 20, page 2185.

    On Luther’s praise for the Turks virtue of truth-telling, commenting on John 3:19, see Luther’s Works 22:399.

    Thanks for writing an excellent blog!

    Yours in Christ, Martin R. Noland

  • Dan Kempin

    tODD, #86,

    “Do you imagine yourself offering up justifications to God of why you did something?”

    Of course not. Poetic license. If you prefer, say, “Which is the more pressing moral imperative? Which would let you stand before [your children] and say, “This was my best decision based on [God's]Word”?

    The point being that issues of God’s Word, such as abortion and the doctrine of the Christian faith, trump issues that only impact my temporal existence. (Like the economy or tax policy.)

    That’s how I see it. I have made a committment, for instance, that I will not vote for someone who endorses abortion. This really does have nothing to do with party. Though I certainly have my own opinions on secondary matters, abortion trumps them because: 1) I am obligated to do what I can to stop it, even if it seems that my vote is a meaningless gesture, and 2) I simply do not trust the judgment of someone who concludes that it is okay to kill an infant.

    But I’m not so sure the dilemma is as clearly defined here as it is normally. Now the pro life candidate is a Mormon. I could see sincere Christians coming to different conclusions honestly, and I think it is dangerous to sweep aside concerns as though this is a minor matter. It is not.

  • Dan Kempin

    tODD, #86,

    “Do you imagine yourself offering up justifications to God of why you did something?”

    Of course not. Poetic license. If you prefer, say, “Which is the more pressing moral imperative? Which would let you stand before [your children] and say, “This was my best decision based on [God's]Word”?

    The point being that issues of God’s Word, such as abortion and the doctrine of the Christian faith, trump issues that only impact my temporal existence. (Like the economy or tax policy.)

    That’s how I see it. I have made a committment, for instance, that I will not vote for someone who endorses abortion. This really does have nothing to do with party. Though I certainly have my own opinions on secondary matters, abortion trumps them because: 1) I am obligated to do what I can to stop it, even if it seems that my vote is a meaningless gesture, and 2) I simply do not trust the judgment of someone who concludes that it is okay to kill an infant.

    But I’m not so sure the dilemma is as clearly defined here as it is normally. Now the pro life candidate is a Mormon. I could see sincere Christians coming to different conclusions honestly, and I think it is dangerous to sweep aside concerns as though this is a minor matter. It is not.

  • Grace

    ⚪ ⚪ Read this carefully!

    Mitt Romney’s abortion pledge

    By ALEXANDER BURNS | 6/18/11 2:12 PM EDT

    Mitt Romney takes to the (electronic) pages of National Review to outline his position on abortion, after tempting a backlash by refusing to sign

    <blockquote

    The Susan B. Anthony List’s anti-abortion pledge:

    “As much as I share the goals of the Susan B. Anthony List, its well-meaning pledge is overly broad and would have unintended consequences. That is why I could not sign it. It is one thing to end federal funding for an organization like Planned Parenthood; it is entirely another to end all federal funding for thousands of hospitals across America. That is precisely what the pledge would demand and require of a president who signed it.

    The pledge also unduly burdens a president’s ability to appoint the most qualified individuals to a broad array of key positions in the federal government. I would expect every one of my appointees to carry out my policies on abortion and every other issue, irrespective of their personal views.”

    If I have the opportunity to serve as our nation’s next president, I commit to doing everything in my power to cultivate, promote, and support a culture of life in America.”

    READ THE REST: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0611/57269.html

  • Grace

    ⚪ ⚪ Read this carefully!

    Mitt Romney’s abortion pledge

    By ALEXANDER BURNS | 6/18/11 2:12 PM EDT

    Mitt Romney takes to the (electronic) pages of National Review to outline his position on abortion, after tempting a backlash by refusing to sign

    <blockquote

    The Susan B. Anthony List’s anti-abortion pledge:

    “As much as I share the goals of the Susan B. Anthony List, its well-meaning pledge is overly broad and would have unintended consequences. That is why I could not sign it. It is one thing to end federal funding for an organization like Planned Parenthood; it is entirely another to end all federal funding for thousands of hospitals across America. That is precisely what the pledge would demand and require of a president who signed it.

    The pledge also unduly burdens a president’s ability to appoint the most qualified individuals to a broad array of key positions in the federal government. I would expect every one of my appointees to carry out my policies on abortion and every other issue, irrespective of their personal views.”

    If I have the opportunity to serve as our nation’s next president, I commit to doing everything in my power to cultivate, promote, and support a culture of life in America.”

    READ THE REST: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0611/57269.html

  • Jon

    Todd @ 81.

    “Jon (@87), I didn’t know that weather and GPS satellites comprised in excess of 10% of the defense budget. Fascinating.”

    She said that she wanted 90% of the defense budget cut out.

    My point is that with 10% remaining, there goes programs like GPS and weather satellites. Stuff we’ve grown accustomed to and which has tremendous impact on the world’s economy.

    Heck, at 10% remaining, we’d probably just keep the Marine Corps and a few ships, and that’s it–send everyone else home and sell the hardware inventory to our neighbors and allies.

  • Jon

    Todd @ 81.

    “Jon (@87), I didn’t know that weather and GPS satellites comprised in excess of 10% of the defense budget. Fascinating.”

    She said that she wanted 90% of the defense budget cut out.

    My point is that with 10% remaining, there goes programs like GPS and weather satellites. Stuff we’ve grown accustomed to and which has tremendous impact on the world’s economy.

    Heck, at 10% remaining, we’d probably just keep the Marine Corps and a few ships, and that’s it–send everyone else home and sell the hardware inventory to our neighbors and allies.

  • fws

    i could vote for a jew, buddhist, atheist, elca lutheran even….
    This is so NOT about whether one could vote for a non christian or not.
    Not all religions are the same.

    i could not vote for a mormon or muslim for president.
    why not?
    they consider it perfectly moral to lie about what their religions teach.
    mormons are very, very crazy. Institutionalized Psychosis.
    I went to Brigham Young University for a year.
    Insanity. mormons and muslims are the same sorta crazy.
    I think maybe the problem is that you assume that mormons are like christians and they have the same views on morality since they seem so clean cut and all. um. no.

    And yes,the mormons WILL use the prestige of having a mormon president to further legitimize and lie about their church. and this guy is not just any ol mormon. He was the equivalent of an LCMS district president and was a pastor…

    call me a religious bigot in the case of mormonism and islam. Because I am.

  • fws

    i could vote for a jew, buddhist, atheist, elca lutheran even….
    This is so NOT about whether one could vote for a non christian or not.
    Not all religions are the same.

    i could not vote for a mormon or muslim for president.
    why not?
    they consider it perfectly moral to lie about what their religions teach.
    mormons are very, very crazy. Institutionalized Psychosis.
    I went to Brigham Young University for a year.
    Insanity. mormons and muslims are the same sorta crazy.
    I think maybe the problem is that you assume that mormons are like christians and they have the same views on morality since they seem so clean cut and all. um. no.

    And yes,the mormons WILL use the prestige of having a mormon president to further legitimize and lie about their church. and this guy is not just any ol mormon. He was the equivalent of an LCMS district president and was a pastor…

    call me a religious bigot in the case of mormonism and islam. Because I am.

  • fws

    I am with grace on this one. Yikes!

  • fws

    I am with grace on this one. Yikes!

  • fws

    Jon @ 95

    we spend more on the military than the next 5 top spending countries, combined.
    Our country was isolationist up until wwII.
    What would be the problem with returning to that posture? Are we REALLY that necessary as the worlds policeman?

    SG I think was exercising her hyperbole skills. She would probably be happy with a 50% reduction. Not sure. But I have a hunch.

  • fws

    Jon @ 95

    we spend more on the military than the next 5 top spending countries, combined.
    Our country was isolationist up until wwII.
    What would be the problem with returning to that posture? Are we REALLY that necessary as the worlds policeman?

    SG I think was exercising her hyperbole skills. She would probably be happy with a 50% reduction. Not sure. But I have a hunch.

  • fws

    Two Kingdoms

    Just for the record. Mollie Got Two Kingdoms fatally wrong.
    The earthly kingdom includes 3 governments called the household/matrimony, society, and ….. the church.

    The other, heavenly kingdom cant include anything at all that we can do, not even administration of word and sacrament, not even teaching two kingdoms.

    How could it?

    That stuff is already ALL included in the earthly kingdom. So what is left to include in the heavenly kingdom? Only ONE thing, Faith that hides all it can do in the earthly kingdom inside of the Works of Another.

    two kingdoms is not about church vs state.

  • fws

    Two Kingdoms

    Just for the record. Mollie Got Two Kingdoms fatally wrong.
    The earthly kingdom includes 3 governments called the household/matrimony, society, and ….. the church.

    The other, heavenly kingdom cant include anything at all that we can do, not even administration of word and sacrament, not even teaching two kingdoms.

    How could it?

    That stuff is already ALL included in the earthly kingdom. So what is left to include in the heavenly kingdom? Only ONE thing, Faith that hides all it can do in the earthly kingdom inside of the Works of Another.

    two kingdoms is not about church vs state.

  • Grace

    fws @ 96

    Have you read my post @78 ?

    fws @97 – it’s worse than “Yikes!” :lol:

  • Grace

    fws @ 96

    Have you read my post @78 ?

    fws @97 – it’s worse than “Yikes!” :lol:

  • James L. Wayman

    It sickens my heart to see people of faith bathing in the smoke of the “Adversary”. Look into your hearts and pray to “Our Father in Heaven”, to purge the ‘Hypocricy”, from your hearts. As you debate how to thread the eye of a needle and choose a worthy stone to cast, you forget that each of us will be neeling before our “Redeemer”. And the constition “remember the constution”, it gives you and Joeseph Smith the right to follow the dictates of our hearts!

  • James L. Wayman

    It sickens my heart to see people of faith bathing in the smoke of the “Adversary”. Look into your hearts and pray to “Our Father in Heaven”, to purge the ‘Hypocricy”, from your hearts. As you debate how to thread the eye of a needle and choose a worthy stone to cast, you forget that each of us will be neeling before our “Redeemer”. And the constition “remember the constution”, it gives you and Joeseph Smith the right to follow the dictates of our hearts!

  • fws

    Grace @ 10

    My problem with having a mormon president is not that mormons have crazy beliefs. Lots of christians do too, and so do buddhists and most others.

    I have lived around ex mormon missionaries. They are taught that it is righteousness to flat out lie. If someone asks them a point blank question as to whether God the Father was once a man, they will say no. “This is a higher knowledge that non mormons are not ready for yet”.

    I have real trouble contemplating voting for someone who is the equivalent of a Bishop and served as a pastor on the very very inside top eschelons of such a society.

    And they DO use whatever power they have to legitimize their group. Their faith , formally so, does NOT recognize any sort of proper separation of church from state.

  • fws

    Grace @ 10

    My problem with having a mormon president is not that mormons have crazy beliefs. Lots of christians do too, and so do buddhists and most others.

    I have lived around ex mormon missionaries. They are taught that it is righteousness to flat out lie. If someone asks them a point blank question as to whether God the Father was once a man, they will say no. “This is a higher knowledge that non mormons are not ready for yet”.

    I have real trouble contemplating voting for someone who is the equivalent of a Bishop and served as a pastor on the very very inside top eschelons of such a society.

    And they DO use whatever power they have to legitimize their group. Their faith , formally so, does NOT recognize any sort of proper separation of church from state.

  • fws

    To the others…

    Go live in Utah for a few years and THEN come back and argue with me, and Bror and Lindeman and those who have lived in a Mormon majority state.

    What Carl suggests, that we can use some abstract idea that Luther said or didnt say ….um… whatever, to divine whether or not the Divine would sanction a vote for Romney is as looney as what most of the the Mormons teach.

    But then Carl is only about legalistic quoting of the synodical bylaws, and Luther etc with no real aim or purpose in mind other than some hamhanded attempt to out pharisee the Pharisees. Then there is that.

  • fws

    To the others…

    Go live in Utah for a few years and THEN come back and argue with me, and Bror and Lindeman and those who have lived in a Mormon majority state.

    What Carl suggests, that we can use some abstract idea that Luther said or didnt say ….um… whatever, to divine whether or not the Divine would sanction a vote for Romney is as looney as what most of the the Mormons teach.

    But then Carl is only about legalistic quoting of the synodical bylaws, and Luther etc with no real aim or purpose in mind other than some hamhanded attempt to out pharisee the Pharisees. Then there is that.

  • fws

    Mr Wayman @ 101

    Yes. Institutionalized Pathology [ie the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints] does, indeed have a constitutional right to exist. Your point is?

  • fws

    Mr Wayman @ 101

    Yes. Institutionalized Pathology [ie the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints] does, indeed have a constitutional right to exist. Your point is?

  • Carl Vehse

    fws @103: “What Carl suggests, that we can use some abstract idea that Luther said or didnt say ….um… whatever, to divine whether or not the Divine would sanction a vote for Romney is as looney as what most of the the Mormons teach.”

    No, fws, your statement is a lie. I did not suggest that we use some abstract idea of Luther’s nonquote to sanction or not a vote for Romney.

  • Carl Vehse

    fws @103: “What Carl suggests, that we can use some abstract idea that Luther said or didnt say ….um… whatever, to divine whether or not the Divine would sanction a vote for Romney is as looney as what most of the the Mormons teach.”

    No, fws, your statement is a lie. I did not suggest that we use some abstract idea of Luther’s nonquote to sanction or not a vote for Romney.

  • Grace

    fws @ 102

    YOU WROTE: “I have lived around ex mormon missionaries. They are taught that it is righteousness to flat out lie. “

    This is not only true for Mormons, but for JW’s as well.

  • Grace

    fws @ 102

    YOU WROTE: “I have lived around ex mormon missionaries. They are taught that it is righteousness to flat out lie. “

    This is not only true for Mormons, but for JW’s as well.

  • James L. Wayman

    Sir, Clear your mind for one moment. Your emark is my point. Keep your hate to yourself. Your problem with the Mormans is that the doctrine makes a clear distinction between “God the father” and “Jesus the son of God”. Get over yourself!

  • James L. Wayman

    Sir, Clear your mind for one moment. Your emark is my point. Keep your hate to yourself. Your problem with the Mormans is that the doctrine makes a clear distinction between “God the father” and “Jesus the son of God”. Get over yourself!

  • Grace

    James @107

    Are you a Mormon?

  • Grace

    James @107

    Are you a Mormon?

  • Dan LeFevre

    @ fws
    Please expound on how you supposedly gained entry to Brigham Young University for a year. Call me crazy, but I smell a lie. In fact I smell a whole steaming pile of them.

  • Dan LeFevre

    @ fws
    Please expound on how you supposedly gained entry to Brigham Young University for a year. Call me crazy, but I smell a lie. In fact I smell a whole steaming pile of them.

  • fws

    carl @ 105

    I went back and read the exchanges between you and others from your comment 25 on. My reading of what you wrote seems reasonable. What IS it that you suggest then carl as to voting for Romney. or not?

  • fws

    carl @ 105

    I went back and read the exchanges between you and others from your comment 25 on. My reading of what you wrote seems reasonable. What IS it that you suggest then carl as to voting for Romney. or not?

  • fws

    dan lefevre @ 109

    “smell a lie… whole stinking pile of them….call me crazy”

    Ok. I wont call you crazy since I dont know you. Probably Mormon. And you are just proving my point. Of COURSE you wont home in on the fact I presented.

    Just to remind you, and everyone:
    That fact was that Mormon Missionaries are trained to lie about certain facts of LDS (mormon) theology . Their justification? “those things are a higher knowledge that non mormons are not ready for yet”…

    Such as…..that God the Father was once a man , and that the Mormon plan is that good mormons will become Gods and Goddesses and create their own planets. And that God the Father is having intimate marital relationships with his multiple wives on his planet Kolob, in order to produce spirit children that inhabit the bodies of newborns here on earth.

    Do you really want to go there mr-dan-le-fevre-call-me-crazy-while-I-call-someone-a-liar-with-no-facts-for-saying-that?

    Probably not.

    The REAL reason they dont want to tell missionary prospects those sorts of things, is that the Missionaries deliberately try to present themselves as Christians peppering their talk with Christ as redeemer and savior, to sound sorta presbyterian. Its a sales tactic. You all let em have the real meat of your faith once they are socialized into your church for a year or two. Its when they go to the Temple that they get to find out this stuff, which is, core to the Mormon faith.

    what would you like to know? Yeah I attended BYU for a year and shared a house with about 8 return mormon missionaries. Why would I need to lie about that. It is NOT a period of my life I am particularly proud of. But it is the truth.

  • fws

    dan lefevre @ 109

    “smell a lie… whole stinking pile of them….call me crazy”

    Ok. I wont call you crazy since I dont know you. Probably Mormon. And you are just proving my point. Of COURSE you wont home in on the fact I presented.

    Just to remind you, and everyone:
    That fact was that Mormon Missionaries are trained to lie about certain facts of LDS (mormon) theology . Their justification? “those things are a higher knowledge that non mormons are not ready for yet”…

    Such as…..that God the Father was once a man , and that the Mormon plan is that good mormons will become Gods and Goddesses and create their own planets. And that God the Father is having intimate marital relationships with his multiple wives on his planet Kolob, in order to produce spirit children that inhabit the bodies of newborns here on earth.

    Do you really want to go there mr-dan-le-fevre-call-me-crazy-while-I-call-someone-a-liar-with-no-facts-for-saying-that?

    Probably not.

    The REAL reason they dont want to tell missionary prospects those sorts of things, is that the Missionaries deliberately try to present themselves as Christians peppering their talk with Christ as redeemer and savior, to sound sorta presbyterian. Its a sales tactic. You all let em have the real meat of your faith once they are socialized into your church for a year or two. Its when they go to the Temple that they get to find out this stuff, which is, core to the Mormon faith.

    what would you like to know? Yeah I attended BYU for a year and shared a house with about 8 return mormon missionaries. Why would I need to lie about that. It is NOT a period of my life I am particularly proud of. But it is the truth.

  • fws

    james wayman @107

    I have lots of Mormon and ex Mormon friends. I find almost all of them to be polite people. I do find annoying the LDS Monitor Drones that flit onto sites that discuss the LDS and do so in usually less than honest and honorable ways. Yeah. I mean you. Sir.

    And yes I DO hate the Mormon Church. Just as you hate Christian Churchs. Your LDS Mormon Church calls my church and all other Christian Churchs Apostate.

    Calling my church Apostate is not your saying that you hate my church? If not what in the heck do you mean by calling my church Apostate?

  • fws

    james wayman @107

    I have lots of Mormon and ex Mormon friends. I find almost all of them to be polite people. I do find annoying the LDS Monitor Drones that flit onto sites that discuss the LDS and do so in usually less than honest and honorable ways. Yeah. I mean you. Sir.

    And yes I DO hate the Mormon Church. Just as you hate Christian Churchs. Your LDS Mormon Church calls my church and all other Christian Churchs Apostate.

    Calling my church Apostate is not your saying that you hate my church? If not what in the heck do you mean by calling my church Apostate?

  • Grace

    fws,

    Here is the quote from the Journal of Discourses:

    “The Lord did not come with the armies of heaven, in power and great glory, nor send His messengers panoplied with aught else than the truth of heaven, to communicate to the meek, the lowly, the youth of humble origin, the sincere enquirer after the knowledge of God. But He did send His angel to this same obscure person, Joseph Smith, Jun., who afterwards became a Prophet, Seer, and Revelator, and informed him that he should not join any of the religious sects of the day, for they were all wrong; that they were following the precepts of men instead of the Lord Jesus; that He had a work for him to perform, inasmuch as he should prove faithful before Him.”

    A Discourse by President Brigham Young, Delivered in the Tabernacle, Great Salt Lake City, Feb. 18, 1855.
    Journal of Discourses – Vol 2 page 171

    Brigham Young, doesn’t mention the Bible. He nor Joseph Smith followed the Biblical teachings from HOLY Scripture, they made up their own religion.

    In essence Brigham Young contradicts HOLY Scriptures, and turns to Joseph Smith to be guided. Almost two thousand years go by, with no guidence from the Bible, the LORD, or the HOLY Spirit, because Smith hadn’t come forth to give his misguided views to anyone who would listen.

    Smith no more knew what the Bible taught or what he should do to inherit Eternal Life, because he didn’t bother to study it, just as those who are indoctrinated with Mormonism follow suit.

  • Grace

    fws,

    Here is the quote from the Journal of Discourses:

    “The Lord did not come with the armies of heaven, in power and great glory, nor send His messengers panoplied with aught else than the truth of heaven, to communicate to the meek, the lowly, the youth of humble origin, the sincere enquirer after the knowledge of God. But He did send His angel to this same obscure person, Joseph Smith, Jun., who afterwards became a Prophet, Seer, and Revelator, and informed him that he should not join any of the religious sects of the day, for they were all wrong; that they were following the precepts of men instead of the Lord Jesus; that He had a work for him to perform, inasmuch as he should prove faithful before Him.”

    A Discourse by President Brigham Young, Delivered in the Tabernacle, Great Salt Lake City, Feb. 18, 1855.
    Journal of Discourses – Vol 2 page 171

    Brigham Young, doesn’t mention the Bible. He nor Joseph Smith followed the Biblical teachings from HOLY Scripture, they made up their own religion.

    In essence Brigham Young contradicts HOLY Scriptures, and turns to Joseph Smith to be guided. Almost two thousand years go by, with no guidence from the Bible, the LORD, or the HOLY Spirit, because Smith hadn’t come forth to give his misguided views to anyone who would listen.

    Smith no more knew what the Bible taught or what he should do to inherit Eternal Life, because he didn’t bother to study it, just as those who are indoctrinated with Mormonism follow suit.

  • Carl Vehse

    fws @110: “My reading of what you wrote seems reasonable.”

    Perhaps, in your mind, it seems so. But a straight and rational reading of what I wrote clearly indicates that not in #25, nor before, nor after did I suggest “that we can use some abstract idea that Luther said or didnt say ….um… whatever, to divine whether or not the Divine would sanction a vote for Romney.”

    You have not provided any substantiation of your accusation in #103. It remains, as it was when you made it, a lie.

  • Carl Vehse

    fws @110: “My reading of what you wrote seems reasonable.”

    Perhaps, in your mind, it seems so. But a straight and rational reading of what I wrote clearly indicates that not in #25, nor before, nor after did I suggest “that we can use some abstract idea that Luther said or didnt say ….um… whatever, to divine whether or not the Divine would sanction a vote for Romney.”

    You have not provided any substantiation of your accusation in #103. It remains, as it was when you made it, a lie.

  • Larry

    What Frank and Bror say is true. In one of my old church days studying Mormons for the purpose of witness was our forte and we made trips to Utah, the Pageant and visited and interviewed many of some of the higher profile Mormon converts that came out of that antichristic teaching. One of the consistent questions and answers that we asked and received was about the lying, they do see it as righteous (more or less Machiavellian). So no conservative thinking they are getting something a bit better than BO ought be surprised when MR turns on them like a mad dog.

    But even from just the political side, step back 50 thousand feet as some conservatives are doing. Note everything the RNC is doing under/with MR. Note every tactic they complain of the left the so called “right” is now doing. They “preach” reason and freedom but they use fear and coercion, not to mention out and out absurdities.

    Some political examples:

    The ole tiresome and rather stupid chestnut of “by not voting for MR your wasting your vote or handing your vote over to BO” and its variations. The stupidity of this is obvious.

    First, it’s a mathematical absurdity since either not voting for either or third party or write-in is a net zero for MR and BO concerning my specific vote.

    Second, and more insidious is that this is realty sine quo non of socialism and the loss of freedom by ‘arm twisting’! It’s MY vote not the RNCs, I own it, its MINE not the pretend conservative RNCs and as an American still under the US Constitution I may damn well do with it as I damn well please for it is MY vote. To give in to such pressure is to give in to the very principles that are eroding the Constitution, one bite at a time.

    Third, they say for practical reasons surrender one’s conservative principles! This is the very death of the principles that define the principle philosophy that is conservatism (same for you liberal folks when your party the DNC presses you the same way and we both know they do it too). This is how insidious pragmatism destroys principles. A pragmatic, I don’t care who they are, is an unprincipled man and ass and dangerous, entirely unreliable, even worse than one’s direct opposing adversary.

    Fourth, this has a Christian flavor to it, to give up one’s principles, for pragmatism is exceedingly dangerous to the conscience!

    Fifth, this gets into the Christian doctrinal grounds but is apropos, note how all the pragmatic conservatives (which is to say are not conservatives, for such is an oxymoron) LOVE to use the Gospel in order to free their consciences to make such a vote. Note it well. Then note equally well how they equally and hypocritically LOVE to bind YOUR conscience with the Law by these various pragmatic arguments and “is it loving to your neighbor”. We see here the gander doesn’t prepare the same sauce for himself he wishes to force down the throats of the geese.

    Sixth, if one were to right-in an actual conservative candidate, one could say, “I actually voted for a conservative”. The same cannot be said for those who vote for MR.

    Seventh, note how the conservative conversation has changed in less than 2 years from the pre-2010 election push. Prior to 2010 it was all about and explicitly conservative PRINCIPLES, and if such and such didn’t hold to them we’d “toss them out”. Talk radio was pregnant with this. Then as the primaries began to pass and increasingly as MR became “the man”, the conversation changed from PRINCIPLES to PRAGMATIC.

    Eight, note the fear mongering, the very thing accused of the DNC/liberals, that the RNC is doing. They like to pretend they think the Constitution is the strongest governmental form around. But then tuck their tails like scalded dogs and scream with chicken little at the top of their lungs, “if BO gets 4 more years America is over”. If that’s all it takes, then America is already dead and we are all pretending.

    Ninth, the sine quo non of modern conservatism, Ronald Reagan, said that he didn’t leave the democratic party it left him. The same can now be officially and quite clearly said of the RNC to conservatives. When RR left the DNC it was far from the bastion of the left it is today and still retained some conservative democrats, but over the years it has degraded. This is the direction of the RNC. If RR where to take that approach today with the RNC, it left him, he’d labeled “your giving BO the victory”, the very paragon of modern conservatism.

    Tenth, conservatism is far more and not even primarily financial. It’s the way freedom is understood under the constitution. The financial situation is in reality a red herring, ironically, both lying parties have used against their constituencies. If all America is – is a financial machine, left or right operated, it’s not worth preserving. The Constitution is FAR more than that and I think both true conservatives and true liberals sense this but they cannot get past the red herring noises their two deceptive power hungry parties are filling their ears with. In fact the very reality of power hungry parties is against the essence of the Constitution!

    Eleventh, pseudo conservatives and pretend gospeleers like to preach “reason” and in the case of the later, the two kingdoms, but nothing they’ve said to date without exception has had ANYTHING to do with reason and EVERYTHING to do with unfettered fear mongering, emotions, and shear enthusiasm.

    And that’s just a start.

  • Larry

    What Frank and Bror say is true. In one of my old church days studying Mormons for the purpose of witness was our forte and we made trips to Utah, the Pageant and visited and interviewed many of some of the higher profile Mormon converts that came out of that antichristic teaching. One of the consistent questions and answers that we asked and received was about the lying, they do see it as righteous (more or less Machiavellian). So no conservative thinking they are getting something a bit better than BO ought be surprised when MR turns on them like a mad dog.

    But even from just the political side, step back 50 thousand feet as some conservatives are doing. Note everything the RNC is doing under/with MR. Note every tactic they complain of the left the so called “right” is now doing. They “preach” reason and freedom but they use fear and coercion, not to mention out and out absurdities.

    Some political examples:

    The ole tiresome and rather stupid chestnut of “by not voting for MR your wasting your vote or handing your vote over to BO” and its variations. The stupidity of this is obvious.

    First, it’s a mathematical absurdity since either not voting for either or third party or write-in is a net zero for MR and BO concerning my specific vote.

    Second, and more insidious is that this is realty sine quo non of socialism and the loss of freedom by ‘arm twisting’! It’s MY vote not the RNCs, I own it, its MINE not the pretend conservative RNCs and as an American still under the US Constitution I may damn well do with it as I damn well please for it is MY vote. To give in to such pressure is to give in to the very principles that are eroding the Constitution, one bite at a time.

    Third, they say for practical reasons surrender one’s conservative principles! This is the very death of the principles that define the principle philosophy that is conservatism (same for you liberal folks when your party the DNC presses you the same way and we both know they do it too). This is how insidious pragmatism destroys principles. A pragmatic, I don’t care who they are, is an unprincipled man and ass and dangerous, entirely unreliable, even worse than one’s direct opposing adversary.

    Fourth, this has a Christian flavor to it, to give up one’s principles, for pragmatism is exceedingly dangerous to the conscience!

    Fifth, this gets into the Christian doctrinal grounds but is apropos, note how all the pragmatic conservatives (which is to say are not conservatives, for such is an oxymoron) LOVE to use the Gospel in order to free their consciences to make such a vote. Note it well. Then note equally well how they equally and hypocritically LOVE to bind YOUR conscience with the Law by these various pragmatic arguments and “is it loving to your neighbor”. We see here the gander doesn’t prepare the same sauce for himself he wishes to force down the throats of the geese.

    Sixth, if one were to right-in an actual conservative candidate, one could say, “I actually voted for a conservative”. The same cannot be said for those who vote for MR.

    Seventh, note how the conservative conversation has changed in less than 2 years from the pre-2010 election push. Prior to 2010 it was all about and explicitly conservative PRINCIPLES, and if such and such didn’t hold to them we’d “toss them out”. Talk radio was pregnant with this. Then as the primaries began to pass and increasingly as MR became “the man”, the conversation changed from PRINCIPLES to PRAGMATIC.

    Eight, note the fear mongering, the very thing accused of the DNC/liberals, that the RNC is doing. They like to pretend they think the Constitution is the strongest governmental form around. But then tuck their tails like scalded dogs and scream with chicken little at the top of their lungs, “if BO gets 4 more years America is over”. If that’s all it takes, then America is already dead and we are all pretending.

    Ninth, the sine quo non of modern conservatism, Ronald Reagan, said that he didn’t leave the democratic party it left him. The same can now be officially and quite clearly said of the RNC to conservatives. When RR left the DNC it was far from the bastion of the left it is today and still retained some conservative democrats, but over the years it has degraded. This is the direction of the RNC. If RR where to take that approach today with the RNC, it left him, he’d labeled “your giving BO the victory”, the very paragon of modern conservatism.

    Tenth, conservatism is far more and not even primarily financial. It’s the way freedom is understood under the constitution. The financial situation is in reality a red herring, ironically, both lying parties have used against their constituencies. If all America is – is a financial machine, left or right operated, it’s not worth preserving. The Constitution is FAR more than that and I think both true conservatives and true liberals sense this but they cannot get past the red herring noises their two deceptive power hungry parties are filling their ears with. In fact the very reality of power hungry parties is against the essence of the Constitution!

    Eleventh, pseudo conservatives and pretend gospeleers like to preach “reason” and in the case of the later, the two kingdoms, but nothing they’ve said to date without exception has had ANYTHING to do with reason and EVERYTHING to do with unfettered fear mongering, emotions, and shear enthusiasm.

    And that’s just a start.

  • Bruce

    I don’t know if anyone is still following this, but I searched back through Google and Amazon to find the source of the translation we are seeing for Luther’s quote about the emperor being a Christian. (The same wording has appeared in Christianity Today, the Wall Street Journal, and other places I found on Google.)

    The original source appears to be the book “Luther: An Introduction to his Thought” by Gerhard Ebeling, translated by R. A, Wilson (Philadelphia, Fortress Press, 1970), p. 186. It is in stock at Amazon. The reference there for the quote is to the Weimar edition of Luther’s Werke, as would be expected since it was written in Germany.

  • Bruce

    I don’t know if anyone is still following this, but I searched back through Google and Amazon to find the source of the translation we are seeing for Luther’s quote about the emperor being a Christian. (The same wording has appeared in Christianity Today, the Wall Street Journal, and other places I found on Google.)

    The original source appears to be the book “Luther: An Introduction to his Thought” by Gerhard Ebeling, translated by R. A, Wilson (Philadelphia, Fortress Press, 1970), p. 186. It is in stock at Amazon. The reference there for the quote is to the Weimar edition of Luther’s Werke, as would be expected since it was written in Germany.

  • Grace

    Below is a little known belief of the Mormons. Michael the Archangel is not our Father and our God. The Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that Jesus is Michael the Archangel. Both are as far from Christians.

    “Now hear it, O inhabitants of the earth, Jew and Gentile, Saint and sinner! When our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He helped to make and organize this world. He is Michael, the Archangel, the Ancient of Days! about whom holy men have written and spoken—He is our Father and our God, and the only God with whom we have to do. Every man upon the earth, professing Christians or non-professing, must hear it, and will know it sooner or later. They came here, organized the raw material, and arranged in their order the herbs of the field, the trees, the apple, the peach, the plum, the pear, and every other fruit that is desirable and good for man; the seed was brought from another sphere, and planted in this earth.”

    A Sermon by President Brigham Young, Delivered in the Tabernacle, Great Salt Lake City, April 9, 1852. Volume 1, page 50

  • Grace

    Below is a little known belief of the Mormons. Michael the Archangel is not our Father and our God. The Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that Jesus is Michael the Archangel. Both are as far from Christians.

    “Now hear it, O inhabitants of the earth, Jew and Gentile, Saint and sinner! When our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He helped to make and organize this world. He is Michael, the Archangel, the Ancient of Days! about whom holy men have written and spoken—He is our Father and our God, and the only God with whom we have to do. Every man upon the earth, professing Christians or non-professing, must hear it, and will know it sooner or later. They came here, organized the raw material, and arranged in their order the herbs of the field, the trees, the apple, the peach, the plum, the pear, and every other fruit that is desirable and good for man; the seed was brought from another sphere, and planted in this earth.”

    A Sermon by President Brigham Young, Delivered in the Tabernacle, Great Salt Lake City, April 9, 1852. Volume 1, page 50

  • Carl Vehse

    Bruce @116,

    Thanks for the note about Ebeling’s book. Do have the specific reference Ebeling gives for the quote that is in the Weimar edition of Luther’s Werke (e.g. volume and page)?

    I looked at the Amazon website for the book and found on p. 176 a mention that “Luther was able to praise the Turkish state (although not without qualification).” But there doesn’t seem to be any other reference in Ebeling’s book to a “wise Turk” or “foolish Christian.”

  • Carl Vehse

    Bruce @116,

    Thanks for the note about Ebeling’s book. Do have the specific reference Ebeling gives for the quote that is in the Weimar edition of Luther’s Werke (e.g. volume and page)?

    I looked at the Amazon website for the book and found on p. 176 a mention that “Luther was able to praise the Turkish state (although not without qualification).” But there doesn’t seem to be any other reference in Ebeling’s book to a “wise Turk” or “foolish Christian.”

  • JVC

    I believe that people focus in on the religion aspect of the candidates is due to the fact, that how they view things in their religious life is how they will run the country. What bothers me with Christian’s from my church that say “We as Christians should not vote from our pocket book but vote with God’s beliefs ie; abortion, same sex marriage etc. let God take care of the rest” I can understand this way of thinking…however, 1. Even if the person elected believed in passing these things, God gives ALL choices if they choose abortion or to marry someone of the same sex they will have to answer to God not the government, not the people on earth. Just as in the days of Adam and Eve there were many trees with fruit they were told not to touch one. Same as today abortion and same sex marriage is available they have the choice if they choose wrong there are consequences. 2. They claim these biblical principals for not voting for Obama but they will vote for a candidate who believes Jesus and Satan are brothers, they can also become God with good deeds, that everyone goes to heaven but in different levels and all Mormons go to the highest level, the only true religion is Mormonism. I sit here scratching my head on a daily basis not understanding this way of thinking. I am a Christian and I know God isn’t going to be mad at me if I wanted to vote for Obama. So in reality it should be that Christians shouldn’t be voting for either candidate. Obama on his views with Abortion and same sex marriage and Romney on his belief in the book of Mormon which has been labeled a Satanic cult even by our very own Pastor. Besides Romney and his so called religion he has lied so much you don’t know what to believe. He has broken the ten commandments as well “Thou shalt not lie” it is amazing the amount of lies he has gotten away with. The President is for the lower and middle class he needs time to recover from the 8 year Bush administration’s disaster. I guess I will go against the norm and vote for whom I want to vote for.

  • JVC

    I believe that people focus in on the religion aspect of the candidates is due to the fact, that how they view things in their religious life is how they will run the country. What bothers me with Christian’s from my church that say “We as Christians should not vote from our pocket book but vote with God’s beliefs ie; abortion, same sex marriage etc. let God take care of the rest” I can understand this way of thinking…however, 1. Even if the person elected believed in passing these things, God gives ALL choices if they choose abortion or to marry someone of the same sex they will have to answer to God not the government, not the people on earth. Just as in the days of Adam and Eve there were many trees with fruit they were told not to touch one. Same as today abortion and same sex marriage is available they have the choice if they choose wrong there are consequences. 2. They claim these biblical principals for not voting for Obama but they will vote for a candidate who believes Jesus and Satan are brothers, they can also become God with good deeds, that everyone goes to heaven but in different levels and all Mormons go to the highest level, the only true religion is Mormonism. I sit here scratching my head on a daily basis not understanding this way of thinking. I am a Christian and I know God isn’t going to be mad at me if I wanted to vote for Obama. So in reality it should be that Christians shouldn’t be voting for either candidate. Obama on his views with Abortion and same sex marriage and Romney on his belief in the book of Mormon which has been labeled a Satanic cult even by our very own Pastor. Besides Romney and his so called religion he has lied so much you don’t know what to believe. He has broken the ten commandments as well “Thou shalt not lie” it is amazing the amount of lies he has gotten away with. The President is for the lower and middle class he needs time to recover from the 8 year Bush administration’s disaster. I guess I will go against the norm and vote for whom I want to vote for.

  • Bruce

    Carl @118:

    I think the “wise Turk/foolish Christian” quote has been proven to be apocryphal and I was not looking for that. I am talking about the source of “Thus it is not necessary for the emperor to be a saint. It is not necessary for him to be a Christian to rule. It is sufficient for the emperor to possess reason.” Besides the current Christianity Today article, this wording was used by Uwe Siemon-Netto last year in a letter to the Wall Street Journal and in his blog during the 2008 election.

    I tracked down this passage to the 1970 Fortress publication of a translation by R.A. Wilson of Gerhard Ebeling’s “Luther: An Introduction to His Thought.” The wording must have originated there (unless the translator plagarized it).

    In the “Look Inside” feature of the Amazon listing for this book the passage appears about one-third of the way down p.186. (If you search for “saint” or “emperor” the search feature says p.175 but that is wrong.)

    The reference (footnote 10) is to a sermon included in the Weimar edition of Luther’s Works at “27; 417, 13-418, 4 (1528)”

  • Bruce

    Carl @118:

    I think the “wise Turk/foolish Christian” quote has been proven to be apocryphal and I was not looking for that. I am talking about the source of “Thus it is not necessary for the emperor to be a saint. It is not necessary for him to be a Christian to rule. It is sufficient for the emperor to possess reason.” Besides the current Christianity Today article, this wording was used by Uwe Siemon-Netto last year in a letter to the Wall Street Journal and in his blog during the 2008 election.

    I tracked down this passage to the 1970 Fortress publication of a translation by R.A. Wilson of Gerhard Ebeling’s “Luther: An Introduction to His Thought.” The wording must have originated there (unless the translator plagarized it).

    In the “Look Inside” feature of the Amazon listing for this book the passage appears about one-third of the way down p.186. (If you search for “saint” or “emperor” the search feature says p.175 but that is wrong.)

    The reference (footnote 10) is to a sermon included in the Weimar edition of Luther’s Works at “27; 417, 13-418, 4 (1528)”

  • Carl Vehse

    Bruce @120: “Thus it is not necessary for the emperor to be a saint. It is not necessary for him to be a Christian to rule. It is sufficient for the emperor to possess reason.”

    The referenced phrase does come from a November 15, 1528, sermon by Martin Luther found in The Weimar Edition (“Weimarer Ausgabe”): D. Martin Luthers Werke: Kritische Gesammtausgabe, 27. Band (Dr. Martin Luther’s Works: Critical Collected Edition), Hermann Böhlau, Weimar, Vol. 27, 1903, p. 418 ).

    Furthermore it is in Latin:

    Non indiget Christianis ad magistratum. Ideo non opus ut Sanctus sit Cesar, non indiget ad regimen suum, ut sit Christianus. Satis est ad Cesarem, ut habeat rationem.

  • Carl Vehse

    Bruce @120: “Thus it is not necessary for the emperor to be a saint. It is not necessary for him to be a Christian to rule. It is sufficient for the emperor to possess reason.”

    The referenced phrase does come from a November 15, 1528, sermon by Martin Luther found in The Weimar Edition (“Weimarer Ausgabe”): D. Martin Luthers Werke: Kritische Gesammtausgabe, 27. Band (Dr. Martin Luther’s Works: Critical Collected Edition), Hermann Böhlau, Weimar, Vol. 27, 1903, p. 418 ).

    Furthermore it is in Latin:

    Non indiget Christianis ad magistratum. Ideo non opus ut Sanctus sit Cesar, non indiget ad regimen suum, ut sit Christianus. Satis est ad Cesarem, ut habeat rationem.

  • James L. Wayman

    For those who find that spending your time running down the faith of others. Somehow brings you closer to the favor with God. I sinserly hope you find some time for “Repentance”. I have prayed about you and for you. The result is always the same. I am compelled to hold back my personal disgust with your bias distortions and untruths. And yes I am A “Morman” and proud of that. But I am a Morman in the same vein as Porter Rockwell! So I will admonish you this; Live, Love, Try not to eat shit, And don’t “Bother People”.

  • James L. Wayman

    For those who find that spending your time running down the faith of others. Somehow brings you closer to the favor with God. I sinserly hope you find some time for “Repentance”. I have prayed about you and for you. The result is always the same. I am compelled to hold back my personal disgust with your bias distortions and untruths. And yes I am A “Morman” and proud of that. But I am a Morman in the same vein as Porter Rockwell! So I will admonish you this; Live, Love, Try not to eat shit, And don’t “Bother People”.

  • http://facebook.com/mesamike Mike Westfall

    James L. Wayman: Bare assertions don’t make much of an argument. Would you please do us the favor of identifying just one distortion or untruth that anyone in this thread has leveled against Mormons? And further, to explain why you have reached the conclusion that it it is indeed a distortion or untruth?

  • http://facebook.com/mesamike Mike Westfall

    James L. Wayman: Bare assertions don’t make much of an argument. Would you please do us the favor of identifying just one distortion or untruth that anyone in this thread has leveled against Mormons? And further, to explain why you have reached the conclusion that it it is indeed a distortion or untruth?

  • Grace

    James @ 122

    YOU WROTE: “For those who find that spending your time running down the faith of others.”

    Your understanding of who God ALMIGHT is, is far different than what HOLY Scriptures teach from the Bible.

    The LORD is not Michael the Archangel, he the only God. There is but one. No one takes HIS place, no one becomes a god when they die.

    “Now hear it, O inhabitants of the earth, Jew and Gentile, Saint and sinner! When our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He helped to make and organize this world. He is Michael, the Archangel, the Ancient of Days! about whom holy men have written and spoken—He is our Father and our God, and the only God with whom we have to do.

    A Sermon by President Brigham Young,
    Delivered in the Tabernacle, Great Salt Lake City, April 9, 1852.
    Volume 1, page 50

    Michael the Archangel is that, and angel, he never was God, nor will he ever be.

    I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.
    Isaiah 44:6

  • Grace

    James @ 122

    YOU WROTE: “For those who find that spending your time running down the faith of others.”

    Your understanding of who God ALMIGHT is, is far different than what HOLY Scriptures teach from the Bible.

    The LORD is not Michael the Archangel, he the only God. There is but one. No one takes HIS place, no one becomes a god when they die.

    “Now hear it, O inhabitants of the earth, Jew and Gentile, Saint and sinner! When our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He helped to make and organize this world. He is Michael, the Archangel, the Ancient of Days! about whom holy men have written and spoken—He is our Father and our God, and the only God with whom we have to do.

    A Sermon by President Brigham Young,
    Delivered in the Tabernacle, Great Salt Lake City, April 9, 1852.
    Volume 1, page 50

    Michael the Archangel is that, and angel, he never was God, nor will he ever be.

    I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.
    Isaiah 44:6

  • Grace

    RE: post 124

    The above what taken from the Journal of Discourses Volume 1 page 50

  • Grace

    RE: post 124

    The above what taken from the Journal of Discourses Volume 1 page 50

  • JVC

    @122 John 14:6 ESV “Jesus said to him, I am the way , and the truth , and the life. No man cometh to the father but through me. ”

    1Samuel 12:21 “Don’t go after false Gods, they cannot help you or save you, for they are not real”

    Jeremiah 14:14
    Then the LORD said to me, “The prophets are prophesying lies in my name. I have not sent them or appointed them or spoken to them. They are prophesying to you false visions, divinations, idolatries and the delusions of their own minds.

  • JVC

    @122 John 14:6 ESV “Jesus said to him, I am the way , and the truth , and the life. No man cometh to the father but through me. ”

    1Samuel 12:21 “Don’t go after false Gods, they cannot help you or save you, for they are not real”

    Jeremiah 14:14
    Then the LORD said to me, “The prophets are prophesying lies in my name. I have not sent them or appointed them or spoken to them. They are prophesying to you false visions, divinations, idolatries and the delusions of their own minds.

  • Larry

    The religious aside, the reality is that “conservatives” voting for MR because BO is worse are deluding themselves. Once you understand that it is a religious doctrinal basis that Mormons promote lying as a form of machivelian righteousness, then you can understand MR’s carefully worded statements that appear to appease conservatives fiscal or social.

    Take for example the Affordable Health Care Act, aka, Obama Care (I know some like it on the left, that’s not the point here, its merits among the whole country, this only in the conservative venue). MR says he is going to repel it and replace it. That language is carefully crafted, yea the OC might “get repealed” but you can bet your bottom tax dollar it will be replaced with a RC part 2, and it will look pretty much the same. If you don’t think he won’t rail road this the way BO did, then you should revisit the RNC rules committee acted during the convention basically shutting any opposition or other ideals out.

    Here the argument is not the merits of a political thing like X-health care system or not, but to notice how both sides of the political machinery is acting, how your real “right to vote” is being removed one step at a time. Principled liberals should notice this along with conservatives too – its not the ideals left or right that are being robbed, but they are being road while both parties garner more and more power.

    So “throwing one’s vote away” is a matter of perspective.

  • Larry

    The religious aside, the reality is that “conservatives” voting for MR because BO is worse are deluding themselves. Once you understand that it is a religious doctrinal basis that Mormons promote lying as a form of machivelian righteousness, then you can understand MR’s carefully worded statements that appear to appease conservatives fiscal or social.

    Take for example the Affordable Health Care Act, aka, Obama Care (I know some like it on the left, that’s not the point here, its merits among the whole country, this only in the conservative venue). MR says he is going to repel it and replace it. That language is carefully crafted, yea the OC might “get repealed” but you can bet your bottom tax dollar it will be replaced with a RC part 2, and it will look pretty much the same. If you don’t think he won’t rail road this the way BO did, then you should revisit the RNC rules committee acted during the convention basically shutting any opposition or other ideals out.

    Here the argument is not the merits of a political thing like X-health care system or not, but to notice how both sides of the political machinery is acting, how your real “right to vote” is being removed one step at a time. Principled liberals should notice this along with conservatives too – its not the ideals left or right that are being robbed, but they are being road while both parties garner more and more power.

    So “throwing one’s vote away” is a matter of perspective.

  • fws

    Veith has another post about some looney fringe identifying obama as some sorta messiah figure.

    think about it. we may have a president who has the delusional thinking that he and his wife will eventually become god and mother-god even as he believes the current god was once a man and evolved into being a god and his wives god-mothers.

    isnt it just a tad strange to see Lutherans urging a vote for such a person? doesnt that believe of Romney reflect upon his moral and other judgement. can someone , as part of a formal religious goal, gunning for Gods job ever really be a morally trustworthy person?

  • fws

    Veith has another post about some looney fringe identifying obama as some sorta messiah figure.

    think about it. we may have a president who has the delusional thinking that he and his wife will eventually become god and mother-god even as he believes the current god was once a man and evolved into being a god and his wives god-mothers.

    isnt it just a tad strange to see Lutherans urging a vote for such a person? doesnt that believe of Romney reflect upon his moral and other judgement. can someone , as part of a formal religious goal, gunning for Gods job ever really be a morally trustworthy person?

  • JVC

    @6 yes the Mormon situation is very different from the JFK scenario. Being the people at that time thought if JFK were elected it would be the POPE to make the country’s decisions, however JFK swore that the POPE would not get involved. There is no POPE with the Mormon religion, the supposed prophet Joseph Smith is not alive. So there is no swearing from Romney about anybody but himself. But as observed from what they believe he is a High Bishop he has taken an oath one of them being that his church comes first as everyone’s church should come first however…his beliefs go deep in things he is trying to attain in becoming his God status! Very different indeed. JFK never thought he could become God. And he also didn’t believe that Jesus and Satan are brothers either!

  • JVC

    @6 yes the Mormon situation is very different from the JFK scenario. Being the people at that time thought if JFK were elected it would be the POPE to make the country’s decisions, however JFK swore that the POPE would not get involved. There is no POPE with the Mormon religion, the supposed prophet Joseph Smith is not alive. So there is no swearing from Romney about anybody but himself. But as observed from what they believe he is a High Bishop he has taken an oath one of them being that his church comes first as everyone’s church should come first however…his beliefs go deep in things he is trying to attain in becoming his God status! Very different indeed. JFK never thought he could become God. And he also didn’t believe that Jesus and Satan are brothers either!

  • Grace

    I won’t, and many others will not vote for Romney, nor will they vote for Obama. There are two reasons

    U.S. Muslims share friendship, similar values with Mormons
    Los Angeles Times

    April 02, 2008|David Haldane | Times Staff Writer

    The Mormon Church has to be among the most outgoing on Earth; in recent years its leaders have reached out to, among others, Latinos, Koreans, Catholics and Jews.

    One of the most enthusiastic responses, however, has come from what some might consider a surprising source: U.S. Muslims.
    “We are very aware of the history of Mormons as a group that was chastised in America,” says Maher Hathout, a senior advisor to the Muslim Public Affairs Council in Los Angeles. “They can be a good model for any group that feels alienated.”

    Which perhaps explains an open-mosque day held last fall at the Islamic Center of Irvine. More than half the guests were Mormons.
    “A Mormon living in an Islamic society would be very comfortable,” said Steve Young, a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints attending the event.

    The sentiment is echoed by Muslims. “When I go to a Mormon church I feel at ease,” said Haitham Bundakji, former chairman of the Islamic Society of Orange County. “When I heard the president [of LDS] speak a few years ago, if I’d closed my eyes I’d have thought he was an imam.”

    Though the relationship has raised eyebrows and provided ammunition for critics of both religions, Mormons and Muslims have deepening ties in the United States.

    http://articles.latimes.com/2008/apr/02/local/me-morlims2

  • Grace

    I won’t, and many others will not vote for Romney, nor will they vote for Obama. There are two reasons

    U.S. Muslims share friendship, similar values with Mormons
    Los Angeles Times

    April 02, 2008|David Haldane | Times Staff Writer

    The Mormon Church has to be among the most outgoing on Earth; in recent years its leaders have reached out to, among others, Latinos, Koreans, Catholics and Jews.

    One of the most enthusiastic responses, however, has come from what some might consider a surprising source: U.S. Muslims.
    “We are very aware of the history of Mormons as a group that was chastised in America,” says Maher Hathout, a senior advisor to the Muslim Public Affairs Council in Los Angeles. “They can be a good model for any group that feels alienated.”

    Which perhaps explains an open-mosque day held last fall at the Islamic Center of Irvine. More than half the guests were Mormons.
    “A Mormon living in an Islamic society would be very comfortable,” said Steve Young, a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints attending the event.

    The sentiment is echoed by Muslims. “When I go to a Mormon church I feel at ease,” said Haitham Bundakji, former chairman of the Islamic Society of Orange County. “When I heard the president [of LDS] speak a few years ago, if I’d closed my eyes I’d have thought he was an imam.”

    Though the relationship has raised eyebrows and provided ammunition for critics of both religions, Mormons and Muslims have deepening ties in the United States.

    http://articles.latimes.com/2008/apr/02/local/me-morlims2

  • Grace

    Regarding my post @ 130 -

    What do you think the CONNECTION IS?

    What are the “ties” that bring them together?

    Have any of you researched this?

  • Grace

    Regarding my post @ 130 -

    What do you think the CONNECTION IS?

    What are the “ties” that bring them together?

    Have any of you researched this?

  • http://facebook.com/mesamike Mike Westfall

    Votes third party (because Romney is a Mormon),
    Elects Obama.

  • http://facebook.com/mesamike Mike Westfall

    Votes third party (because Romney is a Mormon),
    Elects Obama.

  • larry

    “Votes third party (because Romney is a Mormon),
    Elects Obama.”

    =

    “have you stopped beating your spouse yet”

    It’s an obvious, classic, case study, logic example of a false dilemma and thinks only THIS election is the election on which the US lives or dies. Nothing to do with reason and all to do with shear fear mongering.

  • larry

    “Votes third party (because Romney is a Mormon),
    Elects Obama.”

    =

    “have you stopped beating your spouse yet”

    It’s an obvious, classic, case study, logic example of a false dilemma and thinks only THIS election is the election on which the US lives or dies. Nothing to do with reason and all to do with shear fear mongering.

  • Grace

    larry @ 133
    YOU WROTE: “It’s an obvious, classic, case study, logic example of a false dilemma and thinks only THIS election is the election on which the US lives or dies. Nothing to do with reason and all to do with shear fear mongering.”

    Conscience!

    This election may very well be the last straw.

    As a Christian I cannot vote for either man. I am accountable to God ALMIGHTY!

    You can tout the old “false dilemma” however it isn’t applicable. I fear God, we all should, obviously the masses don’t, if they did, they wouldn’t have elected Obama last time around, or selected Romney as the candidate for the GOP.

    Many a nation as fallen because they turned their backs on God. That’s where America is today. Aborting millions of infants, taking any mention of God and Jesus from different venues, as though free speech has been turned into trash – horrific acts of hate, for God’s name and the lives of the unborn. God isn’t mocked, but that is exactly what this country engages in.

    And NO the USA is not a Christian nation, this country lost their way, not just recently, but some time ago. We can see the decay all around us, it STINKS!

  • Grace

    larry @ 133
    YOU WROTE: “It’s an obvious, classic, case study, logic example of a false dilemma and thinks only THIS election is the election on which the US lives or dies. Nothing to do with reason and all to do with shear fear mongering.”

    Conscience!

    This election may very well be the last straw.

    As a Christian I cannot vote for either man. I am accountable to God ALMIGHTY!

    You can tout the old “false dilemma” however it isn’t applicable. I fear God, we all should, obviously the masses don’t, if they did, they wouldn’t have elected Obama last time around, or selected Romney as the candidate for the GOP.

    Many a nation as fallen because they turned their backs on God. That’s where America is today. Aborting millions of infants, taking any mention of God and Jesus from different venues, as though free speech has been turned into trash – horrific acts of hate, for God’s name and the lives of the unborn. God isn’t mocked, but that is exactly what this country engages in.

    And NO the USA is not a Christian nation, this country lost their way, not just recently, but some time ago. We can see the decay all around us, it STINKS!

  • larry

    Grace I’m not sure if you misunderstand Mike, me or I’ve misunderstood Mike you’ve managed to so confound the issue. The argument “if you vote 3rd party, write in or some such other option other than a forced vote for MR over BO” is in fact in and of itself a false dilemma. And since I won’t be voting for either of them and will choose one of the other options, I’m really not sure what we are disagreeing about it? Did I drive by too fast and startle you and make you spill your fudge and coffee all over your uniform? Or are you more like a guinea hen, just like to cluck about everything being out of sorts?

  • larry

    Grace I’m not sure if you misunderstand Mike, me or I’ve misunderstood Mike you’ve managed to so confound the issue. The argument “if you vote 3rd party, write in or some such other option other than a forced vote for MR over BO” is in fact in and of itself a false dilemma. And since I won’t be voting for either of them and will choose one of the other options, I’m really not sure what we are disagreeing about it? Did I drive by too fast and startle you and make you spill your fudge and coffee all over your uniform? Or are you more like a guinea hen, just like to cluck about everything being out of sorts?

  • http://facebook.com/mesamike Mike Westfall

    Larry, it’s not a false dilemma.

    Either Romney will become president, or Obama will be reelected.
    There is no possibility that any one else will ascend the throne and assume the scepter.

    By voting third party, you are not helping to defeat the worse candidate — whichever of the 2 you might believe that to be — from being our overlord for the next 4 years. You might as well just not vote. With so much at stake (including Supreme Court Justices), now is not the time to “make a statement.”

    Sure, vote your conscience, if you must. But do so with the full knowledge of the practical consequences of doing so. And be prepared to live with the result.

  • http://facebook.com/mesamike Mike Westfall

    Larry, it’s not a false dilemma.

    Either Romney will become president, or Obama will be reelected.
    There is no possibility that any one else will ascend the throne and assume the scepter.

    By voting third party, you are not helping to defeat the worse candidate — whichever of the 2 you might believe that to be — from being our overlord for the next 4 years. You might as well just not vote. With so much at stake (including Supreme Court Justices), now is not the time to “make a statement.”

    Sure, vote your conscience, if you must. But do so with the full knowledge of the practical consequences of doing so. And be prepared to live with the result.

  • Grace

    Mike @136

    “Sure, vote your conscience, if you must. But do so with the full knowledge of the practical consequences of doing so. And be prepared to live with the result.”

    I must – and I will live with the consequences. They are livable, what is unthinkable, is voting for either man, believing that one evil, over another, might make my life better, when in essence EVIL never begets good.

    20 Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
    21 Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight!
    Isaiah 5

    In some situations, one cannot make a choice, without doing evil. This election is just one of those times when there is NO CHOICE.

    I can either vote for a man who believes killing infants is right,

    OR,

    I vote for a man who believes he will take the place of God, and be a god himself.

    That isn’t a choice – that’s EVIL. I will not participate, and many other Believers will not as well.

  • Grace

    Mike @136

    “Sure, vote your conscience, if you must. But do so with the full knowledge of the practical consequences of doing so. And be prepared to live with the result.”

    I must – and I will live with the consequences. They are livable, what is unthinkable, is voting for either man, believing that one evil, over another, might make my life better, when in essence EVIL never begets good.

    20 Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
    21 Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight!
    Isaiah 5

    In some situations, one cannot make a choice, without doing evil. This election is just one of those times when there is NO CHOICE.

    I can either vote for a man who believes killing infants is right,

    OR,

    I vote for a man who believes he will take the place of God, and be a god himself.

    That isn’t a choice – that’s EVIL. I will not participate, and many other Believers will not as well.

  • Grace

    larry @ 135

    “Did I drive by too fast and startle you and make you spill your fudge and coffee all over your uniform? Or are you more like a guinea hen, just like to cluck about everything being out of sorts?”

    Was that you on your bike with training wheels, trying to mow down the big kids? The crossing guard, (in uniform) was only trying to help you get across the street, when you started your rampage. I sat in my car laughing at your marshmallow covered face, after you hit the bump in the middle of the street, maybe your mom can clean you up when you get home.

    :razz:

  • Grace

    larry @ 135

    “Did I drive by too fast and startle you and make you spill your fudge and coffee all over your uniform? Or are you more like a guinea hen, just like to cluck about everything being out of sorts?”

    Was that you on your bike with training wheels, trying to mow down the big kids? The crossing guard, (in uniform) was only trying to help you get across the street, when you started your rampage. I sat in my car laughing at your marshmallow covered face, after you hit the bump in the middle of the street, maybe your mom can clean you up when you get home.

    :razz:

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Mike (@136) said:

    Either Romney will become president, or Obama will be reelected.

    Given a certain confidence level, this is a true statement. There are lots of ways it could be false, but they are unlikely (for some definition of “unlikely”).

    However, the flaw is in your assuming that a vote can only do one thing, and that is elect a candidate.

    As has already been mentioned, a vote is also an expression — of conscience, of philosophy, whatever. There are more than two valid choices for such an expression. In fact, at least in some states, one can write in one’s favorite expression, without being limited to an official slate.

    Votes can also indicate and create movements outside of the two-party system. In order for this to happen, of course, one’s vote has be part of a thought that many others share. But, you know, it’s happened before. We haven’t always had these two parties.

    Votes also determine funding — notably, for third parties. Cf. 1996.

    I could probably think of more effects that a vote has beyond merely electing one of two candidates.

    But if you really want to play the “odds are” game, then it doesn’t matter how most of us vote. I live in Oregon, and odds are my vote will in no way sway our state from voting for Obama. It’s just likely to happen. Were I still in Texas, my vote would almost certainly not affect the fact that it will go for Romney. So what would you counsel people in the vast number of states whose outcomes are foregone conclusions? Just stay home? It doesn’t matter?

    With so much at stake … now is not the time to “make a statement.”

    Every. Four. Years. I hear this argument every four years.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Mike (@136) said:

    Either Romney will become president, or Obama will be reelected.

    Given a certain confidence level, this is a true statement. There are lots of ways it could be false, but they are unlikely (for some definition of “unlikely”).

    However, the flaw is in your assuming that a vote can only do one thing, and that is elect a candidate.

    As has already been mentioned, a vote is also an expression — of conscience, of philosophy, whatever. There are more than two valid choices for such an expression. In fact, at least in some states, one can write in one’s favorite expression, without being limited to an official slate.

    Votes can also indicate and create movements outside of the two-party system. In order for this to happen, of course, one’s vote has be part of a thought that many others share. But, you know, it’s happened before. We haven’t always had these two parties.

    Votes also determine funding — notably, for third parties. Cf. 1996.

    I could probably think of more effects that a vote has beyond merely electing one of two candidates.

    But if you really want to play the “odds are” game, then it doesn’t matter how most of us vote. I live in Oregon, and odds are my vote will in no way sway our state from voting for Obama. It’s just likely to happen. Were I still in Texas, my vote would almost certainly not affect the fact that it will go for Romney. So what would you counsel people in the vast number of states whose outcomes are foregone conclusions? Just stay home? It doesn’t matter?

    With so much at stake … now is not the time to “make a statement.”

    Every. Four. Years. I hear this argument every four years.

  • http://facebook.com/mesamike Mike Westfall

    Good points, Todd. I keep forgetting that there are people who live in places where the election results are pretty much predetermined.

  • http://facebook.com/mesamike Mike Westfall

    Good points, Todd. I keep forgetting that there are people who live in places where the election results are pretty much predetermined.

  • Grace

    We do make a “statement” every time we speak out, every time we vote, win or lose.

    If Obama wins, it most likely will be, because we as Christians will NOT VOTE for such a man (Romney) who has cult beliefs ie; he will one day be a god. In this way, it sends a message, not to try it again to the GOP.

    If Romney wins, it will cast another shaddow upon the GOP that they don’t care about cults, or that a future president believes he will one day be a ‘god’ –

    When Huckabee blithered “I care far less as to where Mitt Romney takes his family to church than I do about where he takes this country.” That coming from a so called pastor, knowing full well, that Romney was a Mormon bishop. A church?

    It’s bad enough when men run for the office of president, and are not grounded in the Word of God – it’s another subject when they clearly believe (having reached the position of Mormon bishop) they will one day be a god.

    That sheds light on their road, wanting to lead us WHERE? And then helping them, like mindless goats.

    14 Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.
    15 Then answered Peter and said unto him, Declare unto us this parable.
    16 And Jesus said, Are ye also yet without understanding?
    17 Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught?
    18 But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.
    19 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:
    Matthew 15

    Who do you want to lead you, knowing full well what they believe?

  • Grace

    We do make a “statement” every time we speak out, every time we vote, win or lose.

    If Obama wins, it most likely will be, because we as Christians will NOT VOTE for such a man (Romney) who has cult beliefs ie; he will one day be a god. In this way, it sends a message, not to try it again to the GOP.

    If Romney wins, it will cast another shaddow upon the GOP that they don’t care about cults, or that a future president believes he will one day be a ‘god’ –

    When Huckabee blithered “I care far less as to where Mitt Romney takes his family to church than I do about where he takes this country.” That coming from a so called pastor, knowing full well, that Romney was a Mormon bishop. A church?

    It’s bad enough when men run for the office of president, and are not grounded in the Word of God – it’s another subject when they clearly believe (having reached the position of Mormon bishop) they will one day be a god.

    That sheds light on their road, wanting to lead us WHERE? And then helping them, like mindless goats.

    14 Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.
    15 Then answered Peter and said unto him, Declare unto us this parable.
    16 And Jesus said, Are ye also yet without understanding?
    17 Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught?
    18 But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.
    19 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:
    Matthew 15

    Who do you want to lead you, knowing full well what they believe?

  • larry

    Mike,

    It’s a complete false dilemma and it is so obviously. It’s built on the false dilemma that this is a US do or die election. It’s also built on the false dilemma, similar to the above, that one cannot look beyond this election cycle. That’s what the fear mongerers always do in EVERY single election cycle to dis-spirit any thought of voting other than for one of the two annointed candidates.

    This here is also a false dilemma: “By voting third party, you are not helping to defeat the worse candidate — whichever of the 2 you might believe that to be — from being our overlord for the next 4 years. You might as well just not vote. With so much at stake (including Supreme Court Justices), now is not the time to “make a statement.”” Because you have already fabricated the “worse of the two candidates” and thus created de facto the false dilemma “not helping to defeat the worse (of two) candidates”. You’ve created the “have you stopped beating your spouse” false dilemma – that’s what your entire principle just did.

    Your entire language wreaks of false dilemma because its utterly hyperbolic and fanatically panicked.
    E.g. “worse candidate”, “overlord”, “not vote”, “with so much at stake”, (the panicked) “now is not the time to make a statement” (the constant fear mongering one hears every election cycle to the point of ad nausem).

    Then you further construct the false dilemma by saying “vote your conscience…buuuuut….”, just like the pretend ‘gospeleers’ way up above in previous post above who can some how use the Gospel to free their vote then hold everybody else’s feet to the fire with the law, “is it loving to your neighbor”, when it comes to strong arming their vote. Or make ignorant arguments about how God is sovereign if MR is elected and can turn all that to good, but somehow implied God is not so sovereign if MR looses and BO wins.

    I don’t even think you know what a false dilemma is you are so submersed in it as your reply betrays.

    The modern so called conservative’s cry would be “give me freedom or give me dea…or err…aaa rather give me the lesser of two evils”.

  • larry

    Mike,

    It’s a complete false dilemma and it is so obviously. It’s built on the false dilemma that this is a US do or die election. It’s also built on the false dilemma, similar to the above, that one cannot look beyond this election cycle. That’s what the fear mongerers always do in EVERY single election cycle to dis-spirit any thought of voting other than for one of the two annointed candidates.

    This here is also a false dilemma: “By voting third party, you are not helping to defeat the worse candidate — whichever of the 2 you might believe that to be — from being our overlord for the next 4 years. You might as well just not vote. With so much at stake (including Supreme Court Justices), now is not the time to “make a statement.”” Because you have already fabricated the “worse of the two candidates” and thus created de facto the false dilemma “not helping to defeat the worse (of two) candidates”. You’ve created the “have you stopped beating your spouse” false dilemma – that’s what your entire principle just did.

    Your entire language wreaks of false dilemma because its utterly hyperbolic and fanatically panicked.
    E.g. “worse candidate”, “overlord”, “not vote”, “with so much at stake”, (the panicked) “now is not the time to make a statement” (the constant fear mongering one hears every election cycle to the point of ad nausem).

    Then you further construct the false dilemma by saying “vote your conscience…buuuuut….”, just like the pretend ‘gospeleers’ way up above in previous post above who can some how use the Gospel to free their vote then hold everybody else’s feet to the fire with the law, “is it loving to your neighbor”, when it comes to strong arming their vote. Or make ignorant arguments about how God is sovereign if MR is elected and can turn all that to good, but somehow implied God is not so sovereign if MR looses and BO wins.

    I don’t even think you know what a false dilemma is you are so submersed in it as your reply betrays.

    The modern so called conservative’s cry would be “give me freedom or give me dea…or err…aaa rather give me the lesser of two evils”.

  • larry

    Grace I appreciate a good joke or retort even if I’m the object of it, I really do, and I’m truly not the least bit offended by this. But that was just embarrassing had it even not been about me. This is nearly, but not as, embarrassing as your oft “poor Todd” retort/joke when Todd has just blistered you.

    I’ll give you some free advice for next time:

    Timing, context, relevance, duration and don’t basically repeat what was flung at you is key. If you basically have to narrate a joke to death and keep adding and adding and adding to it all the things you think are funny, squeezing a bunch of things into one joke/retort, it begins to be nerdy and embarrassing to the one making the joke.

    “Was that you on your bike with training wheels” Stop, would have been funny about me and related to my joke. “trying to mow down big kids”, too much, looks like you are reaching, “…and oh yea your daddy too, and your brother too, and, and, and your pet dog too”. See the difference? “…when you started your rampage…” funny if you are Peter Sellers brilliantly spoofing Dr. Strangelove letting “slaughter” slip out speaking about cattle as an ex-hiding out Nazis. And good rhetoric is good if used properly. But your timing and rhetoric is a bit off here.

    “… I sat in my car laughing at your marshmallow covered face, after you hit the bump in the middle of the street, maybe your mom can clean you up when you get home”, same problem, “…and oh yea your daddy too, and your brother too, and, and, and your pet dog too, and, and, and, oh yea, your breath stinks like a big fat smelly cat’s butt too.”

    Context and relevance: remember you were the one that bothered me, I didn’t address you at all.

  • larry

    Grace I appreciate a good joke or retort even if I’m the object of it, I really do, and I’m truly not the least bit offended by this. But that was just embarrassing had it even not been about me. This is nearly, but not as, embarrassing as your oft “poor Todd” retort/joke when Todd has just blistered you.

    I’ll give you some free advice for next time:

    Timing, context, relevance, duration and don’t basically repeat what was flung at you is key. If you basically have to narrate a joke to death and keep adding and adding and adding to it all the things you think are funny, squeezing a bunch of things into one joke/retort, it begins to be nerdy and embarrassing to the one making the joke.

    “Was that you on your bike with training wheels” Stop, would have been funny about me and related to my joke. “trying to mow down big kids”, too much, looks like you are reaching, “…and oh yea your daddy too, and your brother too, and, and, and your pet dog too”. See the difference? “…when you started your rampage…” funny if you are Peter Sellers brilliantly spoofing Dr. Strangelove letting “slaughter” slip out speaking about cattle as an ex-hiding out Nazis. And good rhetoric is good if used properly. But your timing and rhetoric is a bit off here.

    “… I sat in my car laughing at your marshmallow covered face, after you hit the bump in the middle of the street, maybe your mom can clean you up when you get home”, same problem, “…and oh yea your daddy too, and your brother too, and, and, and your pet dog too, and, and, and, oh yea, your breath stinks like a big fat smelly cat’s butt too.”

    Context and relevance: remember you were the one that bothered me, I didn’t address you at all.

  • Grace

    larry

    YOU WROTE: “Context and relevance: remember you were the one that bothered me, I didn’t address you at all.”

    I skimmed your disjointed rant (or as you would like to call it “free advice” above. Not interested larry. Your remark @135 was juvenile and deserved the answer I gave you, and yes, mine was funny.
    :razz:

    Give yourself a big HUG, you’ll feel better. Watch out for those bumps in the street – wait till you get over to the sidewalk next time, on your training wheel bike before you stuff down your marshmallows. LOL You don’t want to slop up your he-man tee shirt.

  • Grace

    larry

    YOU WROTE: “Context and relevance: remember you were the one that bothered me, I didn’t address you at all.”

    I skimmed your disjointed rant (or as you would like to call it “free advice” above. Not interested larry. Your remark @135 was juvenile and deserved the answer I gave you, and yes, mine was funny.
    :razz:

    Give yourself a big HUG, you’ll feel better. Watch out for those bumps in the street – wait till you get over to the sidewalk next time, on your training wheel bike before you stuff down your marshmallows. LOL You don’t want to slop up your he-man tee shirt.

  • larry

    Burn you got me.

  • larry

    Burn you got me.

  • larry

    Of course there’s the counter argument, if the goal is to reveal the false direction the Gop has been goning since the Bush regimes culminating in MR then it might do to go ahead and vote for “their ” man. Decisions, decisions.

  • larry

    Of course there’s the counter argument, if the goal is to reveal the false direction the Gop has been goning since the Bush regimes culminating in MR then it might do to go ahead and vote for “their ” man. Decisions, decisions.

  • larry

    Todd,

    I think you have your finger on the button on this one. This conversation has been helpful.

    On the “religious” side the issue was not “can I vote for (fill in the blank other beliefs)” but will a vote for X further confound the true faith. Yet, I’ve discovered via this polylog that is unavoidable one way or the other. Voting (or not) for MR doesn’t really validate (invalidate) “Mormonism” per se, it’s (voting for or not either way) rather, already flowing with the inevitable reality of American religion, and its greater and lesser variations, in which we are submersed and must function that there are many truths. I.e. if one does not vote for MR, hypothetically, in order to not confuse false beliefs with the truth one finds one’s self aligning with other false beliefs (e.g. Grace) and in essence doing what one wishes to avoid. It’s a web one cannot get out of. The principle problem is the same.

    So then it boils down to pure political realities, true naked earthly kingdom stuff. One still has to sift through all the false arguments even in the political sphere to arrive at: do I vote third party, to make a statement, help become the catalyst/$$$, etc…as you well outlined, or do I vote for X because X is at least not Y for this tiny 4 year sliver of time.

  • larry

    Todd,

    I think you have your finger on the button on this one. This conversation has been helpful.

    On the “religious” side the issue was not “can I vote for (fill in the blank other beliefs)” but will a vote for X further confound the true faith. Yet, I’ve discovered via this polylog that is unavoidable one way or the other. Voting (or not) for MR doesn’t really validate (invalidate) “Mormonism” per se, it’s (voting for or not either way) rather, already flowing with the inevitable reality of American religion, and its greater and lesser variations, in which we are submersed and must function that there are many truths. I.e. if one does not vote for MR, hypothetically, in order to not confuse false beliefs with the truth one finds one’s self aligning with other false beliefs (e.g. Grace) and in essence doing what one wishes to avoid. It’s a web one cannot get out of. The principle problem is the same.

    So then it boils down to pure political realities, true naked earthly kingdom stuff. One still has to sift through all the false arguments even in the political sphere to arrive at: do I vote third party, to make a statement, help become the catalyst/$$$, etc…as you well outlined, or do I vote for X because X is at least not Y for this tiny 4 year sliver of time.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Larry (@147), it just seems like such an incredibly complex decision, with so many variables to consider (and weight), that I don’t really see how anyone could begin to judge the final outcome of someone’s decision-making process — that is to say, which of the few possible candidates one votes for.

    Which isn’t to say that there aren’t good and bad arguments to make. “I don’t care about abortion” is a bad reason to vote for Obama. “I don’t think Romney is likely to have an effect on the changes I want to see made in this country regarding abortion, and I even see reason to believe that he’s not committed to making those changes, himself” is, of itself, a better reason to vote for Obama. But, again, that is just one issue of many to consider.

    This is where Luther’s “sin boldly” advice is so useful (though I know full well that the anti-intellectual gadflies who visit this blog are highly likely to misunderstand nearly everything about those two words, but I am talking to you). Make your choice. It won’t be perfect, because you aren’t perfect. But God is, and he is for you.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Larry (@147), it just seems like such an incredibly complex decision, with so many variables to consider (and weight), that I don’t really see how anyone could begin to judge the final outcome of someone’s decision-making process — that is to say, which of the few possible candidates one votes for.

    Which isn’t to say that there aren’t good and bad arguments to make. “I don’t care about abortion” is a bad reason to vote for Obama. “I don’t think Romney is likely to have an effect on the changes I want to see made in this country regarding abortion, and I even see reason to believe that he’s not committed to making those changes, himself” is, of itself, a better reason to vote for Obama. But, again, that is just one issue of many to consider.

    This is where Luther’s “sin boldly” advice is so useful (though I know full well that the anti-intellectual gadflies who visit this blog are highly likely to misunderstand nearly everything about those two words, but I am talking to you). Make your choice. It won’t be perfect, because you aren’t perfect. But God is, and he is for you.

  • larry

    I could not agree more. Its easy to get drawn into and I’m certainly not immune.

    I was thinking the exact same thing “sin boldly “! Perfect quote. That needs to be a tee shirt or cool ball cap. Talk about a conversation starter.

  • larry

    I could not agree more. Its easy to get drawn into and I’m certainly not immune.

    I was thinking the exact same thing “sin boldly “! Perfect quote. That needs to be a tee shirt or cool ball cap. Talk about a conversation starter.

  • larry

    I have to say the recent events have changed my mind, I find now that I’m forced to ‘sin boldly ‘ and vote for the Gop ticket.

  • larry

    I have to say the recent events have changed my mind, I find now that I’m forced to ‘sin boldly ‘ and vote for the Gop ticket.

  • Randy

    Folks, there seems to be an assumption that Obama is a “Christian” by the “standard” or “Biblical” definition. He’s a follower of Liberation Theology. That’s no more Christian than Mormonism, it’s Marxist.

    If you have to only vote for a Christian (as some might think—contrary to the above article’s premise) then you’d better vote for the Lutheran Libertarian, Gary Johnson.

    I, myself, will be casting for Mitt.
    Randy

  • Randy

    Folks, there seems to be an assumption that Obama is a “Christian” by the “standard” or “Biblical” definition. He’s a follower of Liberation Theology. That’s no more Christian than Mormonism, it’s Marxist.

    If you have to only vote for a Christian (as some might think—contrary to the above article’s premise) then you’d better vote for the Lutheran Libertarian, Gary Johnson.

    I, myself, will be casting for Mitt.
    Randy

  • larry

    Obama was baptized based on that he is a Christian, voting aside, Mitt has not been. Mormonism retains nothing christian lest one reject ALL heterodoxy as utterly bereft as Mormonism. Heterodoxy is false teaching and antichristic for certain but not emptied of the Gospel entirely. If one rejects obamas as christian the same way one rejects mormons, then one must recto ALL heterodoxy the same way…Baptist, reformed, Rome, etc…

  • larry

    Obama was baptized based on that he is a Christian, voting aside, Mitt has not been. Mormonism retains nothing christian lest one reject ALL heterodoxy as utterly bereft as Mormonism. Heterodoxy is false teaching and antichristic for certain but not emptied of the Gospel entirely. If one rejects obamas as christian the same way one rejects mormons, then one must recto ALL heterodoxy the same way…Baptist, reformed, Rome, etc…

  • Megan

    mormons are christians too! stop being so self-righteous! The bible says whoever believes christ died on the cross will be saved. they believe that, therefore, they are saved. i have been to a mormon church, i know what it’s about. it bugs me when people bring up polygamy, that has been outlawed for years. didn’t the Lord teach love? that’s not what you all are showing here.

  • Megan

    mormons are christians too! stop being so self-righteous! The bible says whoever believes christ died on the cross will be saved. they believe that, therefore, they are saved. i have been to a mormon church, i know what it’s about. it bugs me when people bring up polygamy, that has been outlawed for years. didn’t the Lord teach love? that’s not what you all are showing here.

  • larry

    The mormon religion is not Christian andnever will be. It worships another Christ and its baptism is recognized by no christian confession heyeero or orthodox.

  • larry

    The mormon religion is not Christian andnever will be. It worships another Christ and its baptism is recognized by no christian confession heyeero or orthodox.

  • Grace

    Larry @54

    The biggest reason Romney lost, is because he is a Mormon, a cultist. Anyone who is a true Believer in Jesus Christ, and has studied the cult of Mormonism, would most likely NOT VOTE for him.

    I’m relieved the election is over.

  • Grace

    Larry @54

    The biggest reason Romney lost, is because he is a Mormon, a cultist. Anyone who is a true Believer in Jesus Christ, and has studied the cult of Mormonism, would most likely NOT VOTE for him.

    I’m relieved the election is over.

  • Larry

    Grace,

    I am too. I think it was a combo of his mormonism and not really being a conservative. I know many that didn’t vote for him primarily for the later reason as well.

  • Larry

    Grace,

    I am too. I think it was a combo of his mormonism and not really being a conservative. I know many that didn’t vote for him primarily for the later reason as well.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X