Mitt’s Hour of Power
If Mitt Romney wins the Republican nomination, it will be due in large measure to his splendid and moving defense of his faith and beliefs delivered today at the George Bush Presidential Library.
The address was courageous in a way John F. Kennedy's speech to the Baptist ministers was not. Kennedy went to Houston to assure the ministers he agreed with them on virtually every issue where they differed with the Catholic agenda and that his faith would not affect any decision he made as president. He called himself "the Democratic Party's candidate for president who happens also to be a Catholic."
It was like saying: "I happen to be left-handed. I can't help it."
Romney did not truckle. He did not suggest that his faith was irrelevant to the formation of his political philosophy. While declaring, "I will serve no one religion, no one group, no one cause and no one interest," he did not back away an inch from his Mormon faith."
"There are some for whom these commitments are not enough," said Romney. "They would prefer it if I would simply distance myself from my religion, say that it is more a tradition than my personal conviction, or disavow one or another of its precepts. That I will not do. I believe in my Mormon faith, and I endeavor to live by it. My faith is the faith of my fathers. I will be true to them and to my beliefs."
If this costs me the presidency, said Romney, so be it.
That is the kind of defiance this country can never hear enough of.
What Romney was saying was: If you so dislike or resent my faith you will not vote for me if I stay true to it, don't vote for me. But that may say more about you than it does about me.
Questioned repeatedly on what he, as a Mormon, believes about Jesus Christ, a matter crucial to evangelicals, Romney replied:
"What do I believe about Jesus Christ? I believe that Christ is the Son of God and the Savior of mankind. My church's beliefs about Christ may not all be the same as those of other faiths. Each religion has it own unique doctrines and history. These are not bases for criticism but rather a test of our tolerance. Religious tolerance would be a shallow principle if it were reserved only for faiths with which we agree."
Surely that is right.
After defending his own faith, Romney declared himself a fighting ally of traditionalists and conservatives in the culture war against a militant secularism that is hostile to all faiths rooted in supernatural beliefs and that seeks to de-Christianize America.
"(T)he notion of separation of church and state has been taken by some beyond its original meaning," Romney said, "They seek to remove from the public domain any acknowledgement of God. Religion is seen as merely a private affair with no place in the public life. It is as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America—the religion of secularism. They are wrong.
"We should acknowledge the Creator as did the Founders—in ceremony and word. He should remain in our currency, in our pledge, in the teaching of our history and, during the holiday seasons, Nativity scenes and Menorahs should be welcome in our public places."
Romney understands that while the First Amendment proscribes the establishment of religion, it guarantees the free expression of all religions, even in the public school. Supreme Court, take note. "I will not separate us from the God who gave us liberty," said Romney.
This was a tour de force, and it was delivered before perhaps the largest audience Romney will have for any speech before the January caucuses and primaries. It will be the subject of editorials and columns in coming weeks. And it is hard to see how Romney does not benefit hugely from what was a quintessentially "American" address.
With this speech, Romney has thrown on the defensive his main rival in Iowa, Mike Huckabee, the Christians' candidate who, when asked if Mormonism is a cult, left the impression it might well be.
The issues of religious tolerance, what it means to be a Christian in politics, and of secularism versus traditionalism are all now out on the table, and will likely be the social-moral issues on which the race turns between now and January.
To this writer, Romney is on unassailable grounds. Nor is he hurt by the fact that his wife and five children testify eloquently that he is a man of principles who lives by them.
Mike Huckabee's ascendancy and Romney's address defending his faith, refusing to disavow his beliefs and making this a test of tolerance while launching an offensive against secular humanism, tell us that God is back—in the presidential campaign.
COPYRIGHT 2007 CREATORS SYNDICATE INC.
Entries(RSS)
Mr. Rutowicz, wow, now that's a creed!
Folks, what sane person could say that the United States is a single nation, especially when you consider this "nation" contains millions of Mormons, Catholics, Protestants, and Christophobic secularists? How much longer can this joke last?
Re: Rev. Mr.
This is what I'm getting at. You may not believe in nor understand baptism for the dead, but it is not contrary to the Bible. Paul the Apostle used Baptism for the dead as evidence of the reality of the resurrection. 1Cor. 15:29.
You believe that revelation ended with the Bible. This is problematic. For the Bible as we know it didn't exist until well after those individual books were written. Where is the revelation within the Bible that points to revelation no longer being necessary to the church? Each dispensation of the gospel had prophets who received revelation. Again you may not believe it, but continuing revelation is not contrary to the scriptures. In fact the burden of proof would lie on someone claiming to lead Christ's church without continuing revelation.
About one person changing the doctrines of the church. Do you really think that the doctrines of the Catholic Church are the same as those taught and practiced at the time of Christ? What was the source for these changes? God or man?
Rev.Mr. #51 said:
"Mr. Rutowicz, wow, now that’s a creed!"
That's why we only recite it on Trinity Sunday.
RE: John Rutowicz
Mormonism is by no means rooted in one man having visions. There is a comrehensive set of revelations received that are available to all who want to read them. All are free to decide whether they are from God or not. But to receive revelation is not contrary to the revealed word of God. The Athanasian creed is one interpretation of the Godhead but surely not the only one possible that could be in harmony with the scriptures.
Kevin Rudd #55 wrote:
"All are free to decide whether they [Mormon revelations] are from God or not."
This goes without saying. Every individual is free to decide whether Joseph Smith's revelations are from God or not. Every individual is free to decide whether Mohammed's revelations are from God or not. Every individual is free to decide whether Pat Robertson's daily revelations are from God or not. Such revelations are particularly problematic when they establish doctrine and practice that do not even remotely resemble Christianity as it has been known for the last two thousand years. You say, "The Athanasian creed is one interpretation of the Godhead but surely not the only one possible that could be in harmony with the scriptures." But it IS the Christian Church's interpretation of the scriptures. The Arians had an interpretation of the scriptures. The Gnostics had an interpretation of the scriptures, and had other books as well. But neither the Arians nor the Gnostics are Christians. And so this is the original point that I and others have made here. You may believe that Mormonism is the true religion, and Christianity is false. But Mormonism is not a form of Christianity. The Jesus you believe in is definitionally different from the Jesus Christians believe in. The core doctrines of Mormonism are different than the core doctrines of Christianity, in fact they are utterly unknown to Christianity before Joseph Smith. I'm sure you are a nice fellow, and you would be a decent nieghbor, but simple honesty requires you to admit that when Mormon missionaries come to my front door, they are not trying to convert me to another form of Christianity. Mormonism is a different religion than Christianity.
RE:56
I disagree. Part of the problem is that the term "Christian" is being used to describe the doctrines of a particular tradition and not to signify one who follows Christ. Yes, Mormonism does not follow Catholic traditions, but it is not out of harmony with the Biblical Christ and his church. If you are ceded squatters rights for the term "Christian," then I have no argument. But if "Christian" means to follow Christ and his teachings, then there is an objective meaning and it does not matter how long a group has claimed the term for its own. It must stand or fall on its proximity to the truth. What about the Mormon theology of Christ do you find out of harmony with the revealed word?
This is the crux of the issue. Mormonism does claim that the original church of Christ, as was foretold in the scriptures, ceased to exist. Therefore a restoration was necessary. If its doctrines were the same as other sects, it would have no reason to exist.
The question is not whether they are different, but whether they are true. Are they in harmony with the revealed word? Only faith can affirm its truth, but a lack of harmony with scripture could prove it false.
If I claim to be a Constitutionalist, and Alan Dershowitz and his friends say because I do not believe in a "living" Constitution that I am not, do I have to accept his decision? Can I not appeal to the truth? Can my beliefs not be judged to be in harmony or not with the Constitution as it is written, and the intentions of those who wrote it? Let Mormonism be judged by its harmony with the revealed word and not the interpretations of those who came well after.
Ah, so I am a "sqatter" and not a true Christian. I assume by your post you would declare Lutherans and Roman Catholics "squatters." Or perhaps you would declare all Trinitarian Christians (as if there were another kind) "squatters."
You said: "Mormonism does claim that the original church of Christ, as was foretold in the scriptures, ceased to exist." Fine. Could you please, frankly, tell us who you believe we Lutherans and Roman Catholics, and Baptists are, and what our fate is should we stubbornly persist in our rejection of Mormonism?
You concede that Mormon doctrine does not follow catholic tradition, but it should not be condemned for that. "It must stand or fall on its proximity to the truth." Tell me, how will you determine its proximity to the truth? Jehovah's Witnesses tell me all the time that they don't follow traditions of men, they just follow the Bible. The United Pentecostals say the same thing, as does the Church of God in Christ, as does every cult on earth.
Should we get into a pissing contest over who has the better Greek language skills? Should we trot out my university professor vs. your university professor? Or should we just determine whose heart is more strangely warmed by the Holy Ghost? How will you determine whose interpretation of the Scriptures is true? In order to answer whether Mormon doctrine is true, one must be able to answer how one will know the truth when one sees it? You have nothing outside of yourself to appeal to. You simply have your strangely warmned heart.
I am clearly dragging this thread into a theological debate, which I realize is not the point of this web site. I will wrap this up and go my way. But I think it is instructive to know what Mormons think as we consider a Mormon for president. On the issue of Trinitarian Christians being "squatters," I have no doubt that Mr. Romney would agree with Mr. Rudd. I think we Trinitarians should know when our potential president looks at us thay way.
Mr.Rudd, Jesus was Jewish, he practced Jewish costoms, he created a new covenant and the people that believed were called Christians. For some 2000 years has believed certain things. One of those things in the Christian faith is that public revation ended after the Bible as we know it, was put together by the early church. We are not Jewish because Jesus brought us new teaching. Mormons follow doctrine different than that of the Church that sprang up from the coming of Christ and the early Church. When a change in fundamental teaching is changed I would say that something new is created. Call it what you want (I guess) but it is not Christian and history proves this.
One more point. I find it particularly annoying when an individual like Mr. Rudd will not acknowledge a simple fact, like he and I have different religions. I'm not asking him to confess his religion to be false (I can do that enough). I will even accept his saying he believes Mormonism to be true Christianity and what the rest of the world calls Christianity to be a sham Christianity. But please, lets be clear. No matter how wonderful a human being you may be otherwise, you and I do not have anything in common religiously. That should not be too much to ask.
This is like a conversation I had recently with a confessed atheist. He claimed that the Bible and the Koran taught essentially the same thing. That was just absurd on the face of it. He may have believed that Christianity and Mohammedanism are both foolish mythologies, but they certainly are not the same foolish mythology.
Re: 58 and 60
I apologize if my use of the word squatter confused you. I thought it was clear that it was referring to the use of the term "Christian" and not to the people themselves.
If I understand you correctly you believe that there is no way for an individual to know the truth concerning the scriptures. Does this mean your belief lies solely in the tradition of others? You have said repeatedly that our theology has nothing in common, but you have not mentioned one way in which Mormonism is contrary to the Bible. You seem to have a desire to lump Mormonism in with Islam. But Mormons believe in both the Old and New Testaments. I think that makes us a little closer to your beliefs.
You asked how are we to know. It's the same way that Peter learned. Not through flesh and blood but through revelation from a loving Father. You're a Trinitatarian, ought not the Holy Ghost be able to reveal all truth? If not then we are all truly lost.
Re:59
History proves nothing of the sort. There are enormous differences between the Church that Christ established during his ministry and what existed as little as a couple of hundred years later. Either those changes were divinely inspired or not. If they were, there was revelation, if not they are heresies. This is the whole point.
The belief that revelation was to at some point cease cannot be supported scripturally.
Alright, since I am a sucker and there is no moderator stepping in.
Mr. Rudd said: "I apologize if my use of the word squatter confused you. I thought it was clear that it was referring to the use of the term “Christian” and not to the people themselves."
I respond: Please still answer the question. Who do you believe Lutherans, Roman Catholics, Baptists, etc. are? Call them what you like, Trinitarians, false Christians, whatever. You know clearly what I believe about Mormons.
Mr. Rudd said: "If I understand you correctly you believe that there is no way for an individual to know the truth concerning the scriptures. Does this mean your belief lies solely in the tradition of others?"
I respond: Lutheran "Sola Scriptura" is not the same as the modern Revivalist notion which is better described as nuda scriptura. A true "sola scriptura" approach upholds the scriptures as the only source of revelation and places them over tradition, and the church, with regard to authority. But, it also recognizes that scripture can not be ripped out of the context of the living church or else it becomes distorted. The phrase Sola scriptura must always be attached to the phrase, Scriptura numquam sola, scripture is never alone. Scripture and sacred tradition form a sort of hermenutical spiral through history. The Word of God in the Scriptures has its own objective meaning but, it cannot be apprehended with any certainty without the living Word which exists in the church, in the ministry, in the sacraments. Therefore, no pastor may interpret the scriptures outside of the tradition of the church and, no layman can judge interpretation outside of the tradition of the church. The norma normans, scripture, is still in its rightful place of sole source of revelation and authority but, we must not forget the role of the norma normata. The creeds, the liturgies, the consensus of the fathers, etc. play a part in the interpretation of the scriptures. We do not approach the scriptures detached from the context of 20 centuries of sacred tradition in the church. The incarnate Christ is present within His church, even if only a remnant.
Mr. Rudd said: "You have said repeatedly that our theology has nothing in common, but you have not mentioned one way in which Mormonism is contrary to the Bible."
I respond: I will tell you that we disagree on the Trinity, Original Sin, the person and work of Jesus Christ, sacraments, the nature of salvation, and many other articles of doctrine. I'm not going to get into arguing scripture passages with you because we do not even have a common definition of Jesus, nor a common source of authority. You accept the Bible as far as it is translated correctly, which is a nice escape hatch for you. And you claim the Book of Mormon as the word of God as well. I've been around the block enough times to know when to stay away from the tar baby when it comes to scripture quoting contests.
Mr. Rudd said: "Mormons believe in both the Old and New Testaments. I think that makes us a little closer to your beliefs."
I respond: But, in fact, you do not believe what I believe about the Old and New Testaments. To say you believe in something is meaningless without its content. You can say you believe in Jesus, and I can say I believe in Jesus, but its not the same Jesus.
It is far too late and I haven't been smart enough to avoid the tar baby of this debate. So, good night.
Mr Rutowicz. I believe that in the end all will be revealed and we will see for ourselves the nature of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. We will know the true foundations of our existence. All the details of why our salvation was necessary and how it was wrought. To those in the Catholic and Protestant faiths, I believe there has been more truth of the Gospel revealed than you accept. I believe much has been revealed concerning the nature of God and his purposes for man. It is there for all to judge. I do not ask that anyone change their faith.
You are correct that we have different beliefs on Original sin et al. My point is that Biblically, yours and mine rely on someone's interpretation of the scripture, they are not proved correct inherently by scripture.
Therefore, any interpretation that is not contrary to scripture has to be at least accorded the possibility that it might be true. Sola Scriptura may or may not be the truth. It is not revelation but the formulation of men. You keep claiming that your doctrines have a superior claim to truth because they have been around longer, not because they are inherently true.
The Church may have existed continuously from the time of Christ, but maybe it hasn't. It isn't objectively proven. Scripture also supports an apostasy followed by a restoration. One day the truth will be revealed. Until then those that are in accordance with the revealed word ought to be accorded some respect. I believe in the Biblical Christ and that ought to be enough to merit the label Christian. You will say it's not the same Christ. In some ways you are correct, but the differences are interpretations of revelation, and yours have been no more proved to be true than mine.
#64 " I do not ask that anyone change their faith. "
As a last word, you might ask those nice young men that are far from their homes not to knock on my door.
The end.
Alright Mr. Rudd. I think this is a good place to stop. I've said all I need to. Readers can judge for themselves. Thank you for the debate.
Mitt's father was governor of Michigan for the 4 years leading up to the destructive 1967 riot in which Detroit went up in flames. I don't want another minority (Hispanics) doing that 4 years into his watch as president.
In addition here is a good article about Mormon penetration of America's upper class.
http://www.religionandsocialpolicy.org/news/article.cfm?id=2606
Ronduck,
“In addition here is a good article about Mormon penetration of America’s upper class.”
Bad.
Still, quite innocuous in comparison to Yids' penetration.
BTW, can you imagine the scenario where Sore/Looserman 2000 ticket won, then Sore conveniently croaked due to global warming, and Looserman became the President?...
This past weekend I read 3 books on Mormonism. It is said that Joseph Smith, confused by the competing claims of the multiple protestant groups, went to prayer and was told by an angel to join none, and start his own group instead.
So besides the 30 years war and other disasters, is Mormonism another indirect result of the Protestant Reformation? When the One Holy Catholic Church was shattered, did that open the door for thousands of sects and cults? Should Martin Luther have taken a deep breath and calmed down, and both sides resolved to work out their differences in another way?
Sincere question, by a protestant.
#69 Jack said:
"Joseph Smith, confused by the competing claims of the multiple protestant groups, went to prayer and was told by an angel to join none, and start his own group instead."
As I'm sure you'll agree, Luther is not responsible for the fraud perpetrated by the profoundly unstable personality, Joseph Smith.
"So besides the 30 years war and other disasters, is Mormonism another indirect result of the Protestant Reformation? When the One Holy Catholic Church was shattered, did that open the door for thousands of sects and cults? Should Martin Luther have taken a deep breath and calmed down, and both sides resolved to work out their differences in another way?"
I don't believe that the responsibility for the 30 years war can be laid at the Lutherans doorstep.
I believe you are asking if the structure of Lutheranism is responsible for a certain level of religious instability in Western Civilization. This is true to a limited extent. The structure of Lutheranism puts preservation of doctrine over the preservation of institutions. However, I would argue that this is necessary even with the unfortunate results we see today. The Lutheran argument is about the very center of the Christian faith - how one obtains eternal life. Taking a deep breath and calming down isn't really appropriate given such an issue. I believe the question assumes that the issue not significant enough or that the conflict had some way of being resolved.
Having said this, I don't believe the Lutheran Reformation is responsible for the level of instability in much of Anglo/American Protestantism. Lutheran biblical interpretation is very much an interpretation of continuity (catholicity). A restorationist approach to history is far more vulnerable to instability. Lutherans made many arguments from the church fathers in the Augsburg Confession.
I often ask my traditionalist Roman Catholic friend what he will do when a future Pope ordains women or homosexuals? Will he still be loyal to the institution?
In the civic realm I have no problem with Roman Catholics in charge so long as they don't want to kill me.
"Sincere question, by a protestant."
What flavor of Protestant?
Lets get to the crux of the matter here. What Mitt Romney wants is to essentially operate with double-standard when it comes to religion and faith. In fact, we can call him candidate double-standard which is fitting and appropriate for a nation that has existed on the double-standard since its founding. Romney wants to be seen as a "person of faith" and that he shares a generic set of "values" along with the rest of the country and that faith will guide his decisions as president. However, trying to question what that faith is and its specific tennants is completly off limits and results in a "religious test" which was frowned on by our Founding Fathers.
So when the presidential election of 2020 rolls around and someone named Mohammed runs for President and says he's a "person of faith" who believes in the same God as Christians and Jews do and is against abortion and gay marriage as most Moslems are, then we can thank one Willard "Mitt" Romney for setting this standard of values being more important specific beliefs and also thank Pat Buchanan for giving his seal of approval. And when the White House Christmas tree is dark and we're all celebrating Eid-al-Fatr and they're lighting the Kwanzaa candles in the White House, then you'll know how much impact this speech has had.
Or to put it another way, if Ron Paul was a Mormon, I would care less, I would still support him. Unless, of course, instead of running on a platform of Constitutional renewal, he was running to be "Preacher-in-Chief" which is what Romney's camapaign has been doing since it began to pander to certain elements in the party. Needless to say it hasn't worked to well, otherwise he wouldn't have given this speech to try and pander even more to the same elements.
"... also thank Pat Buchanan for giving his seal of approval..."
Sean, what is Pat thinking? I know Pat had some trouble sealing the deal with evangelicals because he is Catholic. Maybe he resents that. Is this about Bay? But this article is just over the top. "Finest hour?" "Unassailable grounds?" Insinuated criticism of Huck for not acknowledging Mormonism is Christian and running as the Christian's candidate?
It is a slippery slope from the elevation of "tolerance" and pluralism to unquestioned dogma to purging Christianity from the public square. Surely Pat understands that.
To John Rutocitz,
I'm sorry that I was unclear, I was not in any way blaming Lutheranism for follow-on events. I am in a Reformed church and heartily believe the reformational doctrines of Luther and Calvin. I only wonder sometimes if creating our own churches with correct doctrines also contributed to events that are quite negative. I believe in the concept of the 'invisible church' of true Christians, but I also lament the fragmentation in the churches; which fragmentation the cults happily exploit. I don't pretend to know what the best thing to do is, other than try avoid further fragmentation. Thank you for your thoughtful response and corrections.
Pastor _Rutowicz_ : beg your pardon for the misspelling in previous post.
To Jack,
No doubt I was still in a combative frame of mind, from debating Kevin Rudd, when I responded to your post. I'm glad to have Reformed and Anglican and Roman brothers who wish to combat the secularist threat to our society.
I think the one advatage that you and I have is we can seperate ourselves from the apostate and perverse leadership of our respective confessions. I don't need to be in fellowship with the apostate and degenerate Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. We can re-constitute ourselves when the institution goes bad.
I believe there is nothing but a very bleak future for the institutional churches and for America in general. I think we are going to have to just do the best we can to create little islands of civilization in the new coming "dark ages." I don't know what else to do but pray, home school my own kids, create new church structures from the rubble that now exists, and live (as best I can) as a militant Christian in a secular world. Thankfully, this world isn't all there is.
BTW, are you in the United Reformed Church or some other group?
Pastor Rutowicz,
I am in the PCA, a breakaway group from the degenerate 'mainline' presbyterian denomination.
We have had URC men in our pulpit.
Our particular congregation has a highly traditional liturgy, no rock music or praise teams, no creeping feminism, etc. We even
publicly read Lutheran confessions at times. I have visited LCMS congregations and found them congenial. I agree that separate small denominations preserve the Faith for those inside them, but we are all small compared to the liberals and even certain cults. My point about Luther was, I wish some unifying but biblical resolution could have been achieved; but the Catholic church at that time was so heavily invested in its own program, I recognize that that was not a realistic option.
Red,
It's clear Pat's not thinking two or three steps ahead.
Right now Pat's fighting the ACLU in its attempts to purge religion from the public square.
But that's one seperate battle. Being told that questioning Mormon believes is now completly off limits is another one entirely. He doesn't see the pandora's box he's opening up because he wants to protect Romney as a viable candidate to conservatives despite his religious beliefs.
Former Rockford Institute President Allen Carlson has been trying to do the same thing with the John Howard Society, unite Christians and Muslims together we because both hate gay marriage.
Recently I went to a local Roman Catholic church Sunday service in a suburb of a large NE metropolis. A visitor from Europe, I was shocked to find that a large portion of the service consisted of Scripture readings from the altar by lay female members of the congregation. This looked to me not as a R.C. service from another continent, but rather as one from another planet. What is going on?...
My comment was indirectly prompted by Jack's post #76, where he mentioned "Our particular congregation has a highly traditional liturgy, no rock music or praise teams, no creeping feminism, etc." (I know even less about the U.S. brand of Lutheranism.)
Dr. Wilson (#14) brought up the point, and ever since the argument has gone distant from the real issue. Although I have been an admirer and supporter of Pat Buchanan for many years, I think he is dead wrong about Mr. Romney's speech and the moral position that lies behind it. Let me presume to expand upon Dr. Wilson's innocent-sounding question. Jan Shipps wrote a very good book on the LDS (she is not LDS but is sympathetic) that conclusively shows that they are to Christianity exactly what Christianity was to Judaism: its completion. In other words, if Christians are Jews, then Mormons are Christians. This is not to say anything bad about Jews, Christians, or Mormons. They are related, but different in very important ways. Almost as different, I would say, as Muslims are from Jews, Christians, and Mormons. Now, here's where Pat Buchanan gets it wrong. JFK said in 1960, essentially, "don't worry, I'm not Catholic in any significant way"--and he wasn't. He still was elected by the Catholic vote, which Mr. Romney's smaller LDS constituency cannot hope to match. Mr. Romney, unlike JFK, IS a man of his faith: he says so, his family says so, and he acts like it. Does that disqualify him from the Presidency? Yes. LDS tend to be good people, who work hard, promote good family life, and hold to "traditional values." I know this from personal experience, having worked for the President of the LDS Stake in Palmyra, NY (the home of Joseph Smith), having hired several brilliant LDS in my college department, and having read their literature for many years. But I've also read the Book of Mormon and the Koran, and they are equally evil. I cannot vote for a Mormon or a Muslim for President. Too much is at stake. (An aside: LDS are uncompromisingly pro-life. It's a good thing for Mitt that there are so few in Massachusetts, or his own coreligionists would have brought him down before he had his epiphany on the subject, and before he had a chance to make the speech that Pat likes so much.) Sorry, Dr. Wilson, I don't mean to implicate you in my musings.
John:
I am curious as to what you found to be evil in the Book of Mormon?
My reading of it found it to be very similar to the King James Bible in both wording and doctrinal content.
A fair question, to which I opened myself up with a little rhetorical excess. I should have said, "equally wrong." but I didn't, and now to be honest must take on this question.
The LDS position on the Book of Mormon is that it is revelation of equal weight with the Old and New Testaments. That is crucial: it is revelation, and was revealed to a prophet who in every respect is the equal of Moses. The LDS are not scriptural fundamentalists (continuing revelation always trumps mere scriptural citation) but in order to believe the rest of their theology one must accept both the Book and its prophet.
To do so is to accept also that the Church became apostate practically before it was formed as a Church, which essentially nullifies most of Western Civilization. At the very least it nullifies the Church and her entire sacramental structure, which I would describe as evil.
That the Book of Mormon sounds like the KJV is not surprising--the KJV was the only biblical idiom in early America, its cadences understood and felt deeply even by the most avid Enlightenment disbelievers. Unlike the Christian scriptures, however, it is uniquely topical, addressing itself to almost all of the (Protestant) religious controversies of the 1820s.
One of my LDS friends, hearing me proclaim a kind of latitudinarian Anglican position (to which I foolishly held for a while in the 1980s), replied, "That's what I would believe too, if I didn't have to believe the Mormon position." God bless him, he still does. But as a Catholic I also have to believe that not only was Joseph Smith wrong, he was probably a charlatan, and the book that was given to him by the angel Moroni is a fanciful thing, evil in its effects.
So you were referring more to the origin of the Book of Mormon than to the actual doctrinal content of the book?