Comments

There Are 82 Responses So Far. »

1. 1 Comment by Tom Camp on 7 December 2007:

   Mitt Romney is a fraud. In thsi day and age, how could a good Christian ever be elected the governor of that moral wasteland?

2. 2 Comment by Dan McCulloch on 7 December 2007:

   Mr. Buchanan confuses me at times. He’s not shy about writing about our coming day of reckoning for his Creators Syndicate readers, and all of the other details of our current dismal political situation, but then he’ll turn right around and write a puff piece for a Massachusetts liberal like Romney. Ok, so he made a good speach about faith – he probably didn’t even write it himself. Still, he’s as liberal as they come, a flip-flopper, as phoney as a three-dollar bill. There is no good news coming out of the Republican party. Mr. Buchanan himself was the last rightist candidate we will ever see from them.

3. 3 Comment by C Bowem on 7 December 2007:

   Romeny’s folks had a sit-down with Pat last May, or so reports go, on the ‘immigration’ issue and what the Right wanted.

   Additionally, Pat’s Catholicism was considered a reason he could not get more/any support from white evangelicals so perhaps he is projecting.

   I do believe Romney is a blank slate so while he would be bad, I can see Pat’s tactical angle, though of course Ron Paul is the only serious choice in this race.

   I’d also add that I am sure Mr. Buchanan got wind of Huckabee’s peeps underminging Brownback’s support based on Brownback’s Catholic conversion.

   None of it is a concern for me. Frankly, I thought this speech was a cynical appeal for donations and nothing more.

4. 4 Comment by Daniel on 7 December 2007:

   Guys, I think Pat talks like this sometimes as he misses having a voice in the Republican party. His past writings show me that he is totally against the Empire, so I am sure he is well aware that Romney is the same kind of statist that we’ve all come to know from the Republican party since at least 2000 and if not since the mid 60s.
   I like Pat but he must now realize there is no voice for Paleos in the modern day Republican party.

   To ‘this’ writer, Romney lost my support the moment he entered the race. For us paleos (be it the conservative or libertarian variety), the best way to look at a candidate should be something akin to “which one is least harmful?”. Clearly, Mitt is not that person. At the first debate between (R) candidates, he admitted his support for an assault weapon ban (like the one he personally signed in Taxachusetts) so that already wrote him off. We’ve all heard/read his past abortionite comments, so basically we should all realize – Mitt will say or do whatever it takes to get elected. Suddenly the anti-gun, pro-illegal immigration and abortionite former guvna of Taxachusetts is an NRA member, pro life and giving Rudy hell for his immigration policies! Laughable!

5. 5 Comment by Daniel on 7 December 2007:

   Oh I want to add – As a traditionalist Catholic, I have serious disagreements on matters of theology with the Mormon Church, but that is the wrong reason to not vote for/support Mitt. I would not support him because if you ask me is a closest leftist Republican who will tell you want to hear.

6. 6 Comment by Ben on 7 December 2007:

   Re #2:

   “Mr. Buchanan confuses me at times.”

   Of course, Mr. Buchanan writes to please “wide audiences”. In one form or another, every professional U.S. politician uses this “method” (just follow what those “presidential candidates” are saying). Statistics at work. The inconsistencies are quite unimportant, the bright indigenous “electorate” won’t notice, they tend to recall only the crap they liked.

7. 7 Comment by Rev.Mr. on 7 December 2007:

   Lets review Mr Buchanan’s opening statement “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.”

   This is not a necessarily an agreement with Mormon theology but simply an article praising another mans stand against the secularism that threatens any Christian belief based on sacrificial love and serving others and not ones self.

8. 8 Comment by Bob on 7 December 2007:

   I heard Pat on Charles Goyette’s show the other day talking about Romney. Pat loves politics and I think the joy of it is what keeps him from going nuts and turning bitter. He’s always pleasant and jovial even when he’s talking about America’s decline with one of his enemies. And you gotta hand it to him to find the good points of otherwise despicable characters. That is a very Christian thing to do.

9. 9 Comment by Bill Jenkins on 7 December 2007:

   It may be instructive to read Pat Buchanan’s political commentary as just that. Commentary. Pat Buchanan is one of the most astute observers and analysts of the political landscape, irrespective of party. Which is not to discount Mr. Buchanan’s emotional connection to the scene on which he comments. But a baseball commentator can emote appreciation for a ball well hit, regardless of team loyalty. In the context of the game in which score is actually being kept, Mitt Romney’s speech on Thursday was a ball well hit.

10. 10 Comment by robert m. peters on 7 December 2007:

    I was ten years old when Kennedy gave the speech that Romney’s speech is said to echo. Both Kennedy and Romney came to Texas, and both addressed Baptists, primarily.

    Quite precisely do I remember that a few days after Kennedy gave his speech, my father, a sand-hill Southern Baptist from North Louisiana, invited some friends over for a fish fry, catfish which Papa and I had caught in Big Creek. One of the many things discussed was Kennedy’s speech. As I recall, most of the folk at the fry were impressed with the fact that Kennedy had promised not to allow his Catholic faith influence how he governed as President. Based thereon, a couple of them said that they would consider voting for him. My father immediately took the contrary position, saying that for precisely that reason he would not consider voting for Kennedy, although my father was certainly not going to vote for him on other grounds. I recall that my father was emphatic: a man who would abandon the fundamental premise of his moral and ethical judgment in order to placate Baptists or any other group was not worthy to be elected to any office. I remember that he then added that the Pope would be a much better adviser to the President than the fools that he would likely gather around him in Washington.

    It would seem that Mr. Romney must have gotten wind of my father’s profound understanding and thus modified his words for the 2007 predominately Baptist audience. I, however, have not missed the fact that Mr. Romney, a Massachusetts Yankee spoke at the Texas outpost of a fellow Yankee from Connecticut.

    I have concluded, quite some time ago actually, that Mr. Romney will deliver any message with the requisite eloquence for the purpose of getting elected. This one, delivered in Texas, is one of those. Romney is merely trying to out flank Huckabee and Giuliani for the evangelical vote. Since my fellow evangelicals are, for the most part, no little gullible, I suspect that Mitt will get his share of them, although I believe that Huckabee has the inside track in courting their sentiments.

    I agree with Mr. Buchanan on may issues. He and I are far apart on this one. The speech was not great at all; however, it was sly, cunning and well delivered. That is why the fox has a reputation for enjoying stupid chickens for supper.

11. 11 Comment by Robert Reavis on 7 December 2007:

    My favorites from this thread :

    1)None of it is a concern for me. Frankly, I thought this speech was a cynical appeal for donations and nothing more.

    2)I like Pat but he must now realize there is no voice for Paleos in the modern day Republican party.

    3)For us paleos (be it the conservative or libertarian variety), the best way to look at a candidate should be something akin to “which one is least harmful?”

    4) This is …an article praising another mans stand against the secularism that threatens any Christian belief based on sacrificial love and serving others and not ones self.

    5)even … a baseball commentator can emote appreciation for a ball well hit, regardless of team loyalty … ”

    6)”a man who would abandon the fundamental premise of his moral and ethical judgment in order to placate Baptists or any other group, is not worthy to be elected to any office. I remember that he then added that the Pope would be a much better adviser to the President than the fools that he would likely gather around him in Washington.”

    Don’t forget, dear reader, that Pat is loyal to his sister, Bay, and if she asked him as a Mormon, to say something in defense of a fellow Mormon, Pat would in Christian charity, try to find something good to say. He did, and the rest has already been said by some of the best bloggers in America quoted above.

12. 12 Comment by Ronald Kyser on 8 December 2007:

    Why all the fuss about Romney being a heretic? To Catholic voters, like Buchanan, isn’t that true of every major party nomine [sic] except Al Smith?

    And why is “cult” being bandied about like it was a bad word or something?

    Why is it that every list of divorce rates I look at shows Mitt’s “moral wasteland” having the lowest in the land? OK, “same-sex marriage” is a perversion, but what about opposite-sex divorce? That’s been around a lot longer, and destroys many times as many lives.

    Why is the scion of a polygamous sect the only one of the top three (for now) Republicans still in his original marriage? The top three Democrats, Barack Obama, John Edwards and Hillary Clinton, are all married to their first wives.

    (As are all the “minor” Republicans.)

    Aren’t a candidate’s judiciary views more germane to the task at hand than his social ones?

    Finally, has any president *other* than a former governor of Massachusetts ever signed an immigration restriction bill?

13. 13 Comment by Steve Terenzio on 8 December 2007:

    Re # 10:

    Insightful comments, and undoubtedly true that Romney’s speech had political calculations.

    The whole discussion splendidly brings to mind Hilare Belloc confronting the religious question prior to his election to Parliament early in the last century. Against the advice of the clergy, who had advised him not to mention religion, Belloc said to a gathering of prospective constituents:
    “Gentlemen, I am a Catholic. As far as possible, I go to Mass every day. This [taking a rosary out of his pocket] is a rosary. As far as possible, I kneel down and tell these beads every day. If you reject me on account of my religion, I shall thank God that He was spared me the indignity of being your representative.”

    It was reported that there was a hush in the crowd for a moment followed by loud applause. Belloc then went on to discuss trade and economic issues.

14. 14 Comment by Clyde Wilson on 8 December 2007:

    Does anyone really think that Mormons are Christians?

15. 15 Comment by Rev.Mr. on 8 December 2007:

    While Mormons are a form Christian they definitely not Christians as defined by the Roman Catholic Church Roman. This has to do with their theology and understanding of the trinity, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit being One; at the time of baptism. The Church believes in baptism in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. The following article comes from http://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/ ….it may be of interest to some.

    The “Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints” was organized on 6 April, 1830, at Fayette, Seneca County, New York; Joseph Smith was accepted as first elder, and prophet, seer, and revelator.

    The articles of faith formulated by him are as follows:

    “(1) We believe inGod, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.
    “(2) We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression.
    “(3) We believe that through the atonement of Christ all men may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.
    “(4) We believe that these ordinances are: First, faith in the Lord Jesus Christ ; second, repentance; third, baptism by immersion for the remission of sins ; fourth, laying on of hands for the gift of theHoly Ghost
    “(5) We believe that a man must be called of God byprophecy, and by thelaying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer the ordinances thereof.
    “(6) We believe in the same organization that existed in the primitive church, viz. apostles, prophets, pastors teachers, evangelists, etc.
    “(7) We believe in thegift of tongues,prophecy,revelation,visions, healing, interpretation of tongues, etc.
    “(8) We believe theBible to be the word of God, as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the ‘Book of Mormon’ to be the word of God.
    “(9) We believe all thatGod has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that he will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.
    “(10) We believe in the literal gathering of Israel and in the restoration of the Ten Tribes. That Zion will be built upon this continent. That Christ will reign personally upon the earth, and that the earth will be renewed and receive its paradisaicglory.
    “(11) We claim the privilege of worshipping Almighty God according to the dictates of our conscience, and allow all men the same privilege ; let them worship how, where, or what they may.
    “(12) We believe in being subject to kings, president, rulers and magistrates, in obeying. honouring and sustaining that law.
    “(13) We believe in being honest,true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men; indeed we may say that we follow the admonition of Paul, ‘We believe all things, we hope all things’ we have endured many things, and hope to be able to endure all things. If there is anything virtuous, lovely or of good report, or praiseworthy, we seek after these things.”

16. 16 Comment by Paul D. Alexander on 8 December 2007:

    What was it that Thomas Jefferson said? “It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”

17. 17 Comment by Kirt Higdon on 8 December 2007:

    Don’t buy a new or used presidential candidate from Pat Buchanan. This is the guy who tried to sell us Boy Emperor Bush in 2004. Mr. Buchanan speaks our language; he knows how to talk the talk. But when it comes to walking the walk, he is always shilling for the Republicans.

18. 18 Comment by Frank on 8 December 2007:

    Kirt Higdon,

    Buchanan stands up where it matters; as a commentator, he walks the walk by talking the talk…

19. 19 Comment by robert m. peters on 8 December 2007:

    Dr. Wilson at 14,

    Here is one Christian who absolutely does NOT believe that Mormons are Christians. I know, of course, that there are some Catholic brethren who frequent these cyber climes who believe that we Baptist are cinder-kicking heretics as well, which is their good prerogative, although the understanding from my perspective is not reciprocal at all; nevertheless, Mormons are about as Christian as a mouse which resides in a cookie jar is a cookie. Now, the Mormons whom I know are very good people, very good people indeed; I’d stack them up for their “goodness” against most of the people who warm the pew with me every Sunday morning; in fact, many of them, perhaps the majority thereof, certainly eclipse me in their piety and devotion. But I am a cookie, however crumbled and stale, and not a well-groomed mouse.

    Romney’s weakness for me is that he is a political chameleon. Chameleons are interesting as lizards go but are to be held as suspect when they are politicians. Of course, most politicians are of that variety, including all but one or perhaps two currently running for the office of President. For me, Romney is so much so that he is almost a caricature thereof. The speech which is the topic of this thread is merely the latest and perhaps the best example thereof.

20. 20 Comment by robert m. peters on 8 December 2007:

    Dr. Wilson,

    I forgot to mention that Mr. Romney’s speech, in addition to being an amended version of JFK’s speech, faintly echoes in eloquence and essence as well as the thrall it seems to have brought upon some, weaving in the “sacred” and the “historical,” that speech delivered at Gettysburg some years back. Thank goodness we will not be compelled to memorize it!

21. 21 Comment by Ben on 8 December 2007:

    Re # 16

    “… What was it that Thomas Jefferson said? “It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.” …”

    settles it.

    Who cares about Romney’s “religion” (superstition), be it Mormonism, Hare Krishnaism, Christianity, Budhism, or any other.

22. 22 Comment by Robert Reavis on 8 December 2007:

    ” there are some Catholic brethren who frequent these cyber climes who believe that we Baptist are cinder-kicking heretics ”

    Not me, Mr. Peters. I come from a long line of primitive Baptists from Virginia, North Carolina, Kentucky, Missouri and Oklahoma.
    They were intelligent men who knew how hard it was to ever get the last word in with a determined woman. They married Irish and Austrian women who converted them and, in the process, gave me, my Roman Catholic faith
    I need as many sacraments as possible and don’t regret or apologise for my faith but would not wish any serious man like yourself to put up with and endure the silliness we American Catholics have created in the last fifty years. If you are even considering it, my advice is to wait for better days or come aboard only to help man the pumps. The triumphant entry into Jerusalem is over and we are now somewhere between the agony in the garden and death on a cross. No room for chest thumpers and big talkers at this point, only serious applicants need apply.

23. 23 Comment by Brandon Ragle on 8 December 2007:

    Roland,
    I do believe Silent Cal was from Vermont, but besides that small point, your #12 was solid otherwise.

24. 24 Comment by Brandon Ragle on 8 December 2007:

    RE: #23
    Please disregard. Mr. Kyser was correct in his initial statement. Old Silent Cal was indeed the gov. of Mass.

25. 25 Comment by robert m. peters on 8 December 2007:

    Mr. Reavis,

    We Southern Baptists are actually a group in an uneasy peace with one another. For the sake of Christ, we historically agreed to put aside some major differences. Among “cooperating” Southern Baptists are Primitive Baptist with a very strong Calvinist leaning – our old family church was Primitive Baptist; Free Will Baptist with a strong, very strong, Arminian leaning; and Landmark Baptist with a very strong apostolic leaning, i.e. laying on of hands by one generation of pastors to empower the next. Baptists, despite their differences, decided nearly 200 years ago to subjugate those differences to the cause of Christ and His Gospel. From time to time, the old differences manifest themselves within one congregation which usually does not even know of or recognize the ancient countervailing undercurrents running through the local body. The friction will usually show itself in something as mundane and banal as whether to put lights or chandeliers in the sanctuary.

    I am at the pumps with you.

26. 26 Comment by Jeff Springer on 8 December 2007:

    “If this costs me the presidency, said Romney, so be it.

    That is the kind of defiance this country can never hear enough of.” -The Pat

    yes that’s CHARACTER (at least on paper.)

    now put me in a room with him… i’ll come out with a thumbs Up or down… (by the way i’m the real jeff springer… but since there was an impostor on another board on this site… after this i’ll never use the nome de plume ‘jeff springer’ again – so if you see it again – it ain’t me babe, no-no-no-it ain’t me babe………) not that you care or should…

    teach us to care and not to care. HA-HA-HA-HA!
    __________

27. 27 Comment by roho on 8 December 2007:

    Overanalysis!……………..Pat is a former speech writer, as well as a strategist. In no way is he doing anything other than recognizing a great speech, at a great time, from a strategical position……..I agree with Pat, and I could never vote for Romney, as I realize that a speech is nothing more than a speech…………and with the “Mittster” most likely a LIE!

28. 28 Comment by Chance Gardner on 8 December 2007:

    ditto roho above…

    Mitt’s mitt & a bad dye-job… i don’t need to go into any rooms with or without him.

    huckabee’s a fat slob, on the other hand. but of course not on paper.
    _____________

29. 29 Comment by Paul D. Alexander on 8 December 2007:

    Re: #21

    Ben, I happen to belong to a non-denominational Protestant Christian church. As far as I’m concerned, what matters about Mr. Romney is not his religion or lack of same, but his stances on the issues—especially the war, the economy, and the American Empire.

    I’m satisfied that Ron Paul is the man I’ll be voting for. I consider myself a libertarian and an Austrian-economist.

30. 30 Comment by Rev.Mr. on 8 December 2007:

    re: 29
    I am interested in understanding the term non-denominational Protestant Christian church, could you explain what that is. And how could one possible decide on issues such as war, economy or American ideas with out taking into account the role of God and the responsibilities we have as Christians.

31. 31 Comment by Rev.Mr. on 8 December 2007:

    re: 29
    I am interested in understanding the term non-denominational Protestant Christian church, could you explain what that is. And how could one possibly take a stand on issues such as war, economy or American ideas with out taking into account the role of God and the responsibilities we have as Christians.

32. 32 Comment by Paul D. Alexander on 8 December 2007:

    My church has doctrines close to those of the Methodists, but it’s not affiliated to the Methodists or to any other Protestant church, Rev.Mr.

    And Dr. Paul has always impressed me as a Christian who nevertheless does not wear his Christianity on his sleeve, like Bush does. Bush, I feel, is a hypocrite, while Dr. Paul isn’t, and won’t be (should he become president).

33. 33 Comment by John Rutowicz on 9 December 2007:

    I’m a Lutheran pastor (just to identify myself). Mormonism is in no way Christian except that it is a cult that comes out of a Christian-ish culture. The greatest downside to a Romney presidency would be the boost of legitimacy it would give Mormonism in our culture. There is still some small stigma attached to Mormonism in the general culture. Would that still be true with a Mormon in the White House? The trouble is that the vast majority of “Christians” in our nation are functional universalists. Even those who are not, are constantly being pulled in that direction by our militantly secular culture. Romney’s speech is a defense for a universalistic view of the world, and therefore helps the secularists. I expect the neo-cons to love that, but I expected something else from Mr. Buchanan. I’ve come to think of Mr. Buchanan’s occasional inconsistancies as the product of sentimentalism for an old America and an old G.O.P. I can certainly forgive him his sentimentalism (if that’s what it is). I can’t help but love this guy who’s done so much for the defense of Western Civilization. I’ll vote for Ron Paul just like I voted for Pat when he ran, then I will sit back with a glass of beer and watch the horror show of Hillary vs. Rudy. Politics can’t save us. A blessed Advent to everyone.

34. 34 Comment by Rev.Mr. on 9 December 2007:

    Thank you Paul #32 and Rev. John #33 for the responses.

35. 35 Comment by John Rutowicz on 9 December 2007:

    Also, I forgot to say, I agree completely with Mr. Robert Reavis #11.

    “Don’t forget, dear reader, that Pat is loyal to his sister, Bay, and if she asked him as a Mormon, to say something in defense of a fellow Mormon, Pat would in Christian charity, try to find something good to say.”

    I think this explains Pat’s article better than anything else.

36. 36 Comment by Paul D. Alexander on 9 December 2007:

    You’re welcome, sir.

37. 37 Comment by John Rutowicz on 9 December 2007:

    Rev. Mr. you’re welcome.

    I also wonder if Mr. Buchanan would have been as happy with Mr. Romney’s speech had Mr. Romney been a Mohammedan?

38. 38 Comment by Chance Gardner on 9 December 2007:

    Are people still stupid? … no, i mean THAT stupid?

    Let me put this in a walnut shell…

    imagination/thought … imagination (open-ended i.e. like wishes and ideas/ dreams) led to – / thought i.e. conscious awareness of what we’re thinking ‘unconsciously’ anyway – something complete in itself and something we can do… and thus the ability (in some) to hone it for the better. … imagination or that which is imbalanced toward the imaginary/irrational led to the ability ALSO for thought/that which is imbalanced toward conscious-awareness of the pragmatic or allegedly rational.

    (with me so far?)

    however since we are Conceptual creatures our biological processes themselves are involved inextricably with Both the irrational & the rational every second – and thus in being a ‘great’ thinker, like moi – one notices that when we are Able to hone our awareness of unconscious thought at the conscious level for the ‘better’ – approximate balance between the apparent opposites (i.e. imaginary/irrational & pragmatic/rational) is Requisite and so the rational is Not rational unless it also contains (in the honing) the appropriate amount of the irrational as well, since that exists too in our biological PROCESS!

    get it? [if not re-read... once it's spelled out this way a 9 year old could 'get' it.]

    now we arrive at religions which attempt this approximate balancing Act which is Requisite.

    judaism – imbalanced irrationally/imaginatively toward a blood group/ideology ‘as if’ divine in being so-called “chosen.” It does NOT have an approximate balance requisite between the imaginative/irrational & the reality too of pragmatic/rational to become a civilization – and so ATTACKS to survive. (all attack obviously is out of deficiency and so is in Fact an asking for ‘help.’ – this also leads in this belief system to the notion of the “attackers” being the victims as well.)

    christianity – imbalanced irrationally/imaginatively toward universalism ‘as if’ peace is divine, and God is love, rather than even God is [also] love. ?

    Islam – imbalanced irrationally/imaginatively toward itself as supra-natural or the conqueror of this world’s reality via a will to power through sublimation to the godhead.

    Each deserves its own Area of the world… because although christianity would ideally ‘believe’ as a result of its own imbalance – that it can survive close proximity to the other two ‘religions’ or belief systems…in Fact christianity cannot survive them since they are the antithesis of its own beliefs.

    while islam & judaism cannot survive each other’s beliefs when in close proximity because they are at root really Tribal – one imbalances more toward blood-group as the ideal (judaism) and the other imbalances more toward ideology as the ideal (islam) but both nonetheless in Fact tribal in inTent and not universal – vascillating between their own blood-groups and their own ideology…ONLY in attempting to get their Own approximate within-Tribe [requisite] balance both personally & inevitably tribally (not universally)… Thus they Both will always have as well unattainable-universalist ‘missions.’ …

    This is NOT a judgment for or against the ideologies of judaism or islam or christianity… except to point out it is profoundly STUPID to ‘believe’ they all can co-exist in near proximity to one another. If each and all were to survive.
    _____________________________________________

39. 39 Comment by Ronald Kyser on 9 December 2007:

    #37 “I also wonder if Mr. Buchanan would have been as happy with Mr. Romney’s speech had Mr. Romney been a Mohammedan?”

    There’s a bit of a difference there– you’d have to stretch the definition of “American” almost to a breaking point to include Mohammedans. Whatever the Christian status of the “Palmyran priesthood”– which is about as relevant to Mitt Romney’s campaign as it was to George Romney’s– Mormons are nothing if not American.

    #38 “islam & judaism cannot survive each other’s beliefs when in close proximity because they are at root really Tribal”

    Interesting use of upper & lower case… Most violent religions, e.g. Shinto, Sikhism, Old Testament Judaism, are indeed tribal, which makes their violence rather benign, as it’s defensive in nature. Christianity (and perhaps Buddhism to an extent) is universalist, but peaceful. Islam combines the universalism of Christianity with the bloodthirst of the tribal faiths, so it comes for you with a sword. (And yet it’s still somewhat tribal, what with converts taking Arab names.)

40. 40 Comment by John Rutowicz on 9 December 2007:

    Mr. Kyser #39,

    “Mormons are nothing if not American.” You are, of course, quite right. For me, however, I don’t really care if Mormonism is American. It certainly is not Christian. My concern is to try to delay, as long as possible, the arrival of civic universalism in America. I know we are very far down that road already, but I still don’t like seeing even more cultural lines crossed. I realize Mitt Romney is very unlikely to be militantly Mormon in office. It doesn’t seem that he was in Massachusetts. But if a Mormon is acceptable for a president today, tomorrow a Jew or a Mohammedan will be acceptable to Americans. And the consequences become more serious with each step we take. Religious tolerance only plays into the hands of the secularists. Christians should form a united front against multi-religious tolerance in the civic realm. I believe drawing that line is the only way to hold off the secularist attack. (By the way, I am as pessimistic about that happening as Mr. Buchanan is about the future of America.) I’m sure nothing I’ve said here is anything you aren’t already aware of. I’m certainly no political scholar, just spouting my opinion all over the place.

41. 41 Comment by Jeremiah Bannister on 9 December 2007:

    We have a traditionalist Catholic applauding a speech that was plagued with universalist sentiment. Then he actually comes down on Huckabee for leaving open the idea that Mormonism is a cult? Lest he forget, Mother Church has not changed her position on Mormonism since the 1800’s.

    The Christian tradition just isn’t what it used to be… and neither are its defenders.

42. 42 Comment by Ed Roberts on 9 December 2007:

    “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.”

    Nonsense. If Romney “wins” the nomination it will be because there is no such thing as an actual primary election. Candidates for president are most likely chosen by the party hierarchy long in advance of any such sham as the GOP’s presidential primary.

    Why on earth you should be impressed by Romney’s pretense at defending his religion is more than I can fathom. Romney is a fraud from his toes to the roots of his hair. His religion is apparently as important to him as his oath to the US Constitution is.

    Also, Mormons aren’t Christians, anymore than Unitarians are. Mormonism is a cult, just as scientology is a cult.

    Really, Mr. Buchanan, maybe a little prayer for the gift of discernment might benefit your commentary.

43. 43 Comment by Ed Roberts on 9 December 2007:

    “Don’t buy a new or used presidential candidate from Pat Buchanan. This is the guy who tried to sell us Boy Emperor Bush in 2004. Mr. Buchanan speaks our language; he knows how to talk the talk. But when it comes to walking the walk, he is always shilling for the Republicans.”

    Absolutely correct, Mr. Higdon. Mr. Buchanan also wrote a column in 2003, published on LRC, in which he stated that since the war was begun, it was improper to criticize the president.

    Mr. Buchanan is obviously a republican, first, last and always. His Confederate ancestors would be ashamed of him for his slavish devotion to the party of Lincoln, Seward and the Sherman brothers.

44. 44 Comment by DJGB Popadich on 10 December 2007:

    What a happy life aimed at, depended on where the one tested. Fairly, the life had an odd outlook in various spots of the globe. With the small censure they took in E that:

    “any public policy not directed by moral [laws] is only a form of exploitation”.

    In other word, do we cast out the system lacking a moral fibre, or make it fit?

    While we greeted him, he stood in the middle of the room. Upright and noble, he occupied the most challenged spot.

45. 45 Comment by Kevin Rudd on 10 December 2007:

    For those who deny that Mormons are Christians. What is your definition of a Christian? Are you looking to the revealed word i.e. the Bible for your criteria? Are you comparing it to other’s interpretation of the word? Also, calling Mormonism a cult signifies nothing. All religions can be classified as such.

    As a Mormon who has no affinity for Mitt Romney’s politics, I would like to point out some relevant points concerning Mormons and American politics. Mormonism has been highly resistant to leftish fads that have permeated other Christian sects. They were never raging abolitionists, recognizing that where slavery was the law, no good would come from fomenting rebellion. There has been no liberation theology movement in Mormonism. The Church welfare system has always been conservative and based on work and education. Although we believe in the literal gathering of Israel and Christ reigning personally on the earth during the millenium, we believe it will be done in the Lords’s time and is not to be hastened through imprudent acts. We also believe that the Constitution was divinely inspired, though people like Romney can obscure this through their actions.

    For me, there are two distinct issues here. First should Mitt Romney’s membership in the church worry anyone who is inclined to vote for him. I answer no. He seems to be very uncomfortable with some past (polygamy, restriction of the priesthood) and some present doctrines (abortion). Establishing some sort of Mormon theocracy is the furthest thing from his mind. The second issue is whether a devout Mormon would be problematic as President. I again answer no. They have been running Utah for many years and have shown no inclination to implement anything that is out of the mainstream of American politics. From the rampant illegal immigration that has occurred in Utah, I wish the members there would stand for something outside the mainstream.

46. 46 Comment by Joe Eaton on 10 December 2007:

    I suppose it was inevitable that such hatred of Mormonism and perhaps Mormons themselves would surface if one was a serious candidate for the presidency. Can’t we just get along when dealing with big government, Democrat or Republican style; unchecked illegal immigration; a tragic and unnecessary war in Iraq; the wearing out of our military and inadequate care of our active duty and veterans; unrestricted abortion and same-sex marriage? If Romney is not your choice, don’t vote for him. He certainly is not my first choice, based upon the above criteria.

    As a Mormon I “claim the privilege of worshiping almighty God according to the dictates of my own conscience and allow all men the same privilege. Let them worship how, where or what they may.” While we regard the Book of Mormon to be the word of God and the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly we believe the Bible to be largely literally true including much that many would regard as allegorical. Study and ponder the Bible and the Book of Mormon, strive to do His will, then ask God to guide you in light and truth. May God be with and bless all who are striving to be or find good people running for public office. Let’s stop the bickering and get to work.

47. 47 Comment by Rev.Mr. on 10 December 2007:

    I would say a Christian is one who believes in only one God. He believes in the trinity , the Father ,the Son and the Holy Spirit are one. He believes that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit. A christian does not believe in baptism of the dead. Also a Christian is one who believes that public revelation ended with the Bible as we know it. (this from a Roman Catholic view)

    To change the teachings of the Church because one person felt inspired leads to chaos. We as people have private revelations daily. We then discern with Gods help through scripture, friends and the Church how to apply these inspirations to our daily lives, how we vote, how we think, who we work for, etc..

    Yes, it does matter.

48. 48 Comment by John Rutowicz on 10 December 2007:

    Mr. Kevin Rudd #45 asked;

    “For those who deny that Mormons are Christians. What is your definition of a Christian?”

    The following is a sufficient answer with regard to Mormonism. I would quote the Holy Scriptures, but I suspect you have heard those quotations already, and have rejected a catholic interpretation of them. So, there is no point in tossing scripture quotations back and forth. A catholic interpretation of the scriptures is one that is rooted in an historical continuity of interpretation, the Holy Ghost indwelling the faith-life of the church throughout time. Interpretation cannot be rooted in one man having visions (Joseph Smith or Mohammed). My “tradition,” Lutheran, argues with Rome over who is truly upholding the catholic faith, but neither of us deny the existence of a catholic faith. Those who deny the ancient creeds of the church have the burden of proof laid upon them for their interpretation of scripture.

    The Athanasian Creed

    Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.
    And the catholic faith is this, that we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; Neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Substance. For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost is all one: the glory equal, the majesty coeternal. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Ghost. The Father uncreate, the Son uncreate, and the Holy Ghost uncreate. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Ghost incomprehensible. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Ghost eternal. And yet they are not three Eternals, but one Eternal. As there are not three Uncreated nor three Incomprehensibles, but one Uncreated and one Incomprehensible. So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Ghost almighty. And yet they are not three Almighties, but one Almighty. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Ghost Lord. And yet not three Lords, but one Lord. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by Himself to be God and Lord, So are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say, There be three Gods, or three Lords.
    The Father is made of none: neither created nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor created, but begotten. The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son: neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Ghost, not three Holy Ghosts. And in this Trinity none is before or after other; none is greater or less than another; But the whole three Persons are coeternal together, and coequal: so that in all things, as is aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshiped. He, therefore, that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity.
    Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe faithfully the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the right faith is, that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man; God of the Substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and Man of the substance of His mother, born in the world; Perfect God and perfect Man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood; Who, although He be God and Man, yet He is not two, but one Christ: One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking the manhood into God; One altogether; not by confusion of Substance, but by unity of Person. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and Man is one Christ; Who suffered for our salvation; descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead; He ascended into heaven; He sitteth on the right hand of the Father, God Almighty; from whence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies, and shall give an account of their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting; and they that have done evil, into everlasting fire.
    This is the catholic faith; which except a man believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.

49. 49 Comment by Joe Eaton on 10 December 2007:

    In response to #47, Rev.Mr.: Mormons do not believe in baptism OF the dead. We believe in baptism FOR the dead so that those who would have accepted the gospel in this life if given the opportunity would receive baptism.

    While stationed in Pakistan almost 30 years ago I couldn’t help feeling that this mass of humanity did not have opportunities to hear the gospel and make informed decisions about their eternal future. They will have the gospel preached to them after death. They will then have the opportunity to accept or reject. Could a just and loving God condemn his children on earth for not perfectly doing his will if they were unable to learn it in this life?

50. 50 Comment by Rev.Mr. on 10 December 2007:

    Joe, as Catholics we don’t either. My apologies, I did not mean to question you own personnel convictions. Here is what the RC Church teaches about salvation.

    846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

    Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336

    847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

    Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience – those too may achieve eternal salvation.337

    848 “Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men.”338

51. 51 Comment by Rev.Mr. on 10 December 2007:

    Mr. Rutowicz, wow, now that’s a creed!

52. 52 Comment by David Collins on 10 December 2007:

    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?

53. 53 Comment by Kevin Rudd on 10 December 2007:

    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?

54. 54 Comment by John Rutowicz on 10 December 2007:

    Rev.Mr. #51 said:

    “Mr. Rutowicz, wow, now that’s a creed!”

    That’s why we only recite it on Trinity Sunday.

55. 55 Comment by Kevin Rudd on 10 December 2007:

    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.

56. 56 Comment by John Rutowicz on 10 December 2007:

    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.

57. 57 Comment by Kevin Rudd on 10 December 2007:

    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.

58. 58 Comment by John Rutowicz on 10 December 2007:

    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.

59. 59 Comment by Rev.Mr. on 10 December 2007:

    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.

60. 60 Comment by John Rutowicz on 10 December 2007:

    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.

61. 61 Comment by Kevin Rudd on 10 December 2007:

    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.

62. 62 Comment by Kevin Rudd on 10 December 2007:

    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.

63. 63 Comment by John Rutowicz on 10 December 2007:

    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.

64. 64 Comment by Kevin Rudd on 11 December 2007:

    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.

65. 65 Comment by Rev.Mr. on 11 December 2007:

    #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.

66. 66 Comment by John Rutowicz on 11 December 2007:

    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.

67. 67 Comment by Ronduck on 11 December 2007:

    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

68. 68 Comment by Jay on 11 December 2007:

    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?…

69. 69 Comment by Jack on 11 December 2007:

    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.

70. 70 Comment by John Rutowicz on 12 December 2007:

    #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?

71. 71 Comment by Sean Scallon on 12 December 2007:

    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.

72. 72 Comment by Red Phillips on 12 December 2007:

    “… 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.

73. 73 Comment by Jack on 13 December 2007:

    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.

74. 74 Comment by Jack on 13 December 2007:

    Pastor _Rutowicz_ : beg your pardon for the misspelling in previous post.

75. 75 Comment by John Rutowicz on 13 December 2007:

    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?

76. 76 Comment by Jack on 13 December 2007:

    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.

77. 77 Comment by Sean Scallon on 13 December 2007:

    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.

78. 78 Comment by A visitor on 17 December 2007:

    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.)

79. 79 Comment by John Willson on 28 December 2007:

    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.

80. 80 Comment by Criag on 28 December 2007:

    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.

81. 81 Comment by John Willson on 29 December 2007:

    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.

82. 82 Comment by Criag on 29 December 2007:

    So you were referring more to the origin of the Book of Mormon than to the actual doctrinal content of the book?