The Mitt-Mike Religious War
Four weeks before New Hampshire and three weeks before the Iowa caucuses, the Republican race has become a proxy religious war.
On one side is a Baptist preacher who called homosexuality "an aberrant, unnatural and sinful lifestyle" that "can pose a dangerous public health risk," urged the isolation of AIDS sufferers, and declared in 1998 that we must "answer the alarm clock and take this nation back for Christ."
On the other is a devout Mormon whose finest hour was last week's televised address in which he refused to back away from any precept of his faith but affirmed: "Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Savior of mankind."
Yet, the Baptist preacher has implied that Mormonism may be a cult and is running as the Christian conservative, i.e., God's, candidate.
This is not the wonkish stuff of which so much politics is now made. This is high-voltage, and faith and morality are likely to be major issues in political debate in the weeks between now and the first engagements of 2008.
The Baptist preacher, ex-Gov. Mike Huckabee, has taken a sudden and strong lead in Iowa, with ex-Gov. Mitt Romney the only man who can stop him there. And what Huckabee has said about the homosexual lifestyle is less likely to hurt him with caucus-goers than to solidify his support as a godly man. Moreover, he is surging nationally, as the former front-runners—McCain, Rudy and Thompson—slowly fade.
Indeed, with the Mitt-Mike religious war on the Republican side and the Bill-and-Hillary vs. Obama-Oprah celebrity battle on the Democratic side, it is hard to see how other candidates can attract the media before Christmas, New Year's and the bowl games. Then, Iowa and New Hampshire are suddenly upon us. How, for example, does John Edwards attract attention, let alone Biden, Dodd, Richardson and Kucinich?
The folly of Rudy, McCain and Thompson dissing the Iowans by taking a walk on the straw poll in August is apparent. While Romney won comfortably, Huckabee was the real winner. By running a surprising and strong second, he drove his rival for the Christian vote, Sam Brownback, out of the race and became a favorite of the national media. Given the opening and opportunity, he did the rest himself.
Using moral and social issues that appeal to the Christian right, and an economic populism that appeals to working folks left out of the market run-up and left behind, Huckabee has run a fine race and could break away, as may be seen by the hailstorm he is undergoing. As he says, no hunter shoots at a dead animal.
The questions now are whether Huckabee has peaked, whether he can be stopped, and, if so, who stops him?
Today, the one man who can do that is Romney. If Romney wins Iowa, not only would that break Huckabee's momentum, but Romney would likely surge to victory in New Hampshire, five days later, where he leads, and in Michigan, a week after, where his father was governor and Romney is a famous name. Comes then South Carolina. If Mitt is 3-0 going into South Carolina and everyone else is 0 for 3, it is hard to see who beats him there.
If Romney loses Iowa, however, he has to win New Hampshire or he is done. But if Huckabee wins Iowa, he need not win New Hampshire for he has already moved into the lead in South Carolina.
The question for the other Republicans is the same: Where do you win? And if you don't win early, do you have the resources to go on?
John McCain, the candidate of the Union-Leader, either wins New Hampshire or goes home. For he is going to be humiliated in Iowa if he does not drop out. And if he cannot win the Granite State, his strongest in 2000, how does he raise the money to carry on, and where does he win?
Fred Thompson appears to have little chance to win any of the first three. He is banking on holding on until South Carolina, despite a probable three straight losses before then and no publicity to rival what Huckabee and Romney are getting right now. Fred may not make it to South Carolina.
Which brings us to Rudy, the front-runner. His hope: That Huckabee wins Iowa, McCain wins New Hampshire, Romney wins Michigan, and Thompson or McCain wins South Carolina. Then, after four defeats, he comes roaring back in Florida, grabs the headlines going into Feb. 5, when half the primaries are held, and marches forward to the nomination.
Whoever thought up this strategy is the kind of guy who plays Russian roulette with four bullets in the chamber. The peril of the Rudy strategy is if a Romney, a Huckabee or a McCain wins in New Hampshire and South Carolina and catches a fire no attack ad can put out. Already, Rudy's national lead is vanishing. How he maintains it through December and four straight January losses is, as they say, problematic.
COPYRIGHT 2007 CREATORS SYNDICATE INC.
Entries(RSS)
How intresting to watch a lower tier candidate create momentum......And Huck is better than any of the Globalist in the top tier...............If he had truely been on the same page with Tancredo regarding immigration.....................he would be so much farther down the yellow brick road. Maybe a brokerd convention, turning into a slug-fest would be a wake-up call for the GOP?
Huckabee is a very outwardly likeable guy, but he's weak on immigration, taxes, and talks the same war mongering game the other R's (cept Paul of course) talk. Im under the impression he wouldnt have gotten into Iraq, but from the way he talks if he were elected we'd still be there.
And roho, I would not hold my breath. Ever since the days of Buckleyism, who proclaimed the ability to 'purge' conservatives groups or allies of the greater conservative movement as well as 'extreme elements' (IE Goldwater), all we have gotten are big government phonies. Oh sure, Reagan could talk the talk, but when it came to walking the walk he simply ran more deficits than all his predecessors combined. Sure we can pray for Paul, but while he has strong support he's going to have to pull an upset in Iowa IMO to capture the win.
But if youre hoping for a Coolidge Republican who will REALLY reduce the size of government, I just think it aint happening.
No columnist's a better analyst of Beltway doings and national politics than Pat Buchanan. No Republican columnist has the pulse of the party better than Pat.
What's discouraging is that in all Buchanan's recent columns the true and traditonal Republican, Ron Paul, hardly figures. Ron Paul isn't a Republican player, as Pat knows, but the neo-con candidates are. Sad.
America may be pulled down along with the Decline of the West but the Republican party will founder because of a dearth of the best.
A couple years ago, Governor Mike Huckabee went to a national LULAC(League of United Latin American Citizens) convention with John Tyson, the CEO of Tyson's Chicken, along side. Huckabee, to the glee of the conventioneers, happily announced to the crowd that he looked forward to white males being a minority in the United States. So he supports demographic revolution in America. That is as much as need be known about Mike Huckabee's thought process. It would be better to have Hillary Rodham Clinton as president, a woman who is pretty honest in her contempt for the historic American nation, rather than Mike Huckabee, who dishonestly pretends to be a friend of middle-Americans.
I haven't had time to follow the debate under Pat's last column, but why is Pat praising Romney's speech which was a pluralistic love fest? And the spin he puts on Huckabee in the second paragraph is strait from the Establishment smear Huckabee playbook.
And no mention of a possible strong Ron Paul showing in Iowa, NH, Mich, or SC?
His technical analysis is sound, but I like Pat the polemicist better than Pat the wonk.
"Huckabee, to the glee of the conventioneers, happily announced to the crowd that he looked forward to white males being a minority in the United States. So he supports demographic revolution in America."
Derek, do you have a quote or a link for that?
Source- Arkansas News Bureau article of June 30, 2005 and reported and written by Wesley Brown. John Tyson is also quoted. both Huckabee and Tyson come off as acutely obsequious towards LULAC in the article.
I think it's safe to say that the only conservative candidate in this race, Ron Paul, doesn't stand a chance.
Fine. The media successfully suppressed his campaign, and the Christian Right continues its descent into fascism. A note to all of you optimists out there; I always expect the worst, and I'm never disappointed. This country is beyond redemption, and the best that we can hope for is a quick death.
As Fred Reed once said, "No country with an elaborate entertainment center has ever risen in revolt." Real change will never happen until Americans are actually deprived of something. And I don't mean freedom, I mean material things; important things. LCD's, iPods and SUV's.
The good news is that at the rate our government is spending and our currency is plummeting, this should happen sooner rather than later.
The United States of America, R.I.P.
Link to Mr. Leaberry's referenced article:
Huckabee promotes 'open door' policy at LULAC convention
..."Pretty soon, Southern white guys like me may be in the minority," Huckabee said jokingly as the crowd roared in laughter.
The Actual religious war is judaism vs. Christ and/or every American at the moment. We're losing or have lost already - and so the other heated religious battles are sadly merely sideshows to decide who gets to be ruled and take their orders from jerusalem. But it's a good start if not merely futile now - the conscious focus on religion. Since it's always inevitably about religion first, since the imaginative/rational dynamic is inextricably linked = it is the biological processes in all conceptual creatures as a comprehensive matter meaning individually and collectively - under God. So after air, water/food & shelter it's always religion next [be it so-called religious or so-called secular ideology at the conceptual level] and then it's gold/money, & politics, in that order.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/shamireaders/message/1027
The Zionists rule America from in America and from Jerusalem. They don't want to talk about religion though (religious/secular ideology) because so far they haven't had to. The better strategy presently is to pat you on the back and tell how great you are...And especially how great is your Value of freedom of religion, just like you're Value of a free press/media is so great (which you've lost for any Actual intents & purposes.) Etc. It's better to pat you on the back: "You're great!" And watch your sideshows now. They're funny. It's conversely not so smart to have to now discuss judaism the religion/ideology which has defeated you... err, you're so great! Let's stay with that, and also how bad Islam is too, ok? But it's a world of degrees you see, and some take advantage of you to a greater degree and some take advantage of you by comparison to a lesser degree. In other words there's fly sh-t in the pepper not just the salt!
__________________________________________
"On the other is a devout Mormon whose finest hour was last week’s televised address in which he refused to back away from any precept of his faith but affirmed: “Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Savior of mankind.”"
Good gravy. Is this the same Pat who hailed the motu proprio?
Where are the Roman Catholics decrying Mitt Headroom's sweet-talking snow job? Mr. Kirkwood, are you out there?
Mr. Rublev's dog, Pat was analyzing Mitt Romney's speech and not endorsing Mormonism or whether Mormons are Christian as Roman Catholics understand the term.
Point well taken, Mr. Leaberry. My fear is that a lot of voters will take the speech as just that, Romney's "finest hour," and perhaps vote accordingly (with what he meant not being what they heard).
EXCELLENT post John D. post #11 ...
Humor: If Bill Clinton was our first 'black' president; then george W. bush was our first 'jewish' president.
Good link too I highly recommend Jim Petras' article there!!! here it is repeated as you posted it above:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/shamireaders/message/1027
Amen!
p.s. Shakespeare's reminder -
"Then if he thrive, and I be cast away,
The worst was this: my love was my decay."
HA-HA-HA-HA ...
John D., it's funny - you're right!
________
Yet, the Baptist preacher has implied that Mormonism may be a cult and is running as the Christian conservative, i.e., God’s, candidate.
It is an implication from silence. In fairness to Huckabee, a candidate for President shouldn't have to affirm that Mormons are Christians or are not a cult. What does it gain him if he answers no? If he answers yes, he has just given an imprimatur that he really can't give without getting grief from Christian leaders.
"This is not the wonkish stuff of which so much politics is now made."
If not, it's so close that I can't see a difference. Mr. Buchanan seems to have been huffing glue. I can think of no other explanation for how enamored of Romney he has become.
Come to think of it, during the 2000 campaign, he would suddenly swoon over something little jugeared Dubya said. We'll see more of this as the media tries harder to pretend that there's anything of substance being said by Rudy, Huck or Mitt. Pat will cock his head to the side like a dog watching the drunken antics of his owner, and write another column, maybe praising Fred Thompson for behaving like a 2nd rate actor portraying a conservative.
This kind of thing happens during the electoral follies.
"Yet, the Baptist preacher has implied that Mormonism may be a cult..."
Because Mormonism is a cult. Is Pat just trying to appear fair here? This really reads like he is carrying water for Romney.
1. [...]I think it’s safe to say that the only conservative candidate in this race, Ron Paul [...] -- John C.
Americans mean by “conservative” libertarianism . If this is John C’s meaning, then he is correct. We really don’t have conservatism in the USA.
2. Four times in Gringo history since 1776 religion played a major role: Blaine’s “Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion”, the Klan’s anti-Catholic crusade against Al Smith, the 4th Great Awakening (1978 onward), and Wilson’s Liberal Protestant “War for Righteousness”
The Dimmykrat race is even more religious than the Republican. For almost all the Dimmykrat base is of a certain religious persuasion, whereas the core of the Hamiltonian party, with Dishonest Abe as its prime example, are largely agnostics. If the Church of England was the Tory Party at prayer, the Dimmykrat Party is Liberal Protestantism and the Marxist Liberation Theology of certain Catholics on the hustings.
3. John D needs to cite the page number of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, whence he seems to have taken his statement.
"Because Mormonism is a cult."
If Huckabee, a conservative seminary trained evangelical, implied otherwise the evangelical orthodoxy enforcers would go ape as well they should.
Romney speech struck me as the kind of historical revisionism that portrays America as a bastion of purist liberal religious pluralism that we hear too much of on both the left and the neocon left. Romney's "finest hour?" I don't get it.
“... needs to cite the page number of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion ...”
Mr. Cundiff,
Are you thereby implying that the above tract is a seminal source of factual information, worthy of exact quotations?
As for whether the U.S. government is in fact subservient to the interests of so-called Israel and its local fifth column, that is a separate issue, amply amenable to direct observation.
@ Red Phillips (#'s 18 & 20)
Amen and amen. That Romney has the rights to practice Mormonism and run for the executive office is without question.
For him to play a semantic game with his listeners is unethical.
For Buchanan to call this Romney's "finest hour" is mind-boggling.
Re: Red Phillips
As a Mormon who carries no water for Mitt Romney, I would like to point out that throughout its history Mormonism has been highly resistant to leftist fads in the political arena. No raging abolitionists, no liberation theology, no hastening of Armageddon by our actions in the middle east. Their actions for 175+ years seem to put them well within the American political mainstream--too far within for my tastes--but nevertheless within.
Again I'm not voting for Romney, but it seems that Huckabee has let his religious beliefs guide him to some ridiculous policies e.g. paroling the rapist, support of illegal immigration.
Concerning cults, when you get into the doctrines and past practices of all Christian sects you see that Mormons aren't the only ones living in glass houses. I seem to recall some pretty harsh allegations from Catholics about evangelicals, and vice versa throughout the years.
Just out of curiosity, what makes Mormonism a cult, but Baptist a religion?
Anyone looking for American Roman Catholics to get very exercised by the prospect of a Mormon president should recall that American Roman Catholics are, by now, pretty used to being ruled by one or another brand of heretic. Distinctions without difference.
Kevin,
Mormonism is a cult from a theological standpoint, not a psychosocial standpoint. It is a cult theologically because it denies essential, fundamental doctrines of the historic, orthodox (small o) Christian faith. To the degree that they appear to endorse some of those essentials, it is because they invest words and concepts with meanings different than the traditional Christian understanding.
That is why Romney's speech was disingenuous. When a Mormon tells an evangelical they believe Jesus is the Son of God and the Savior of the world without elaborating on the differences then that is deceptive. Neither Mormon's nor Christians are well served by trying to paper over these differences.
BTW, I am not a Huckabee supporter. I support Ron Paul. I just reject the elevation of the liberal concept of pluralism to unquestioned dogma.
Bill, if you think Protestants are "heretics" to the same degree Mormons are, you don't have a clue.
All of this reminds me of Walker Percy's novel "Love in the Ruins", the knotheads and Leftpapas going at each other in a dystopian future where the center doesn't hold. I think he even postulates a Mormon president.
BTW, excellent post Red #25. We should make judgments of a man's intellect and character by his religion and public record.
Red
I don't think those differences are nearly as great as you think. They mostly fall into the area of the mysteries of Godhood that I don't think mortals are fully able to comprehend. The core belief that Jesus Christ, the literal Son of God, born of Mary, without sin, took upon himself the sins of the world, was crucified and resurrected the third day, finishing his work, that all mankind may be saved through faith in Him, is the same doctrine. Mormons believe in the Biblical Christ. He is Creator, Redeemer, and Judge. Again, there are mysteries that we disagree on, I think these are still open to the realm of debate-- e.g. did Christ atone for original sin-- because the Bible is not clear concerning them. But this should not detract from the all important beliefs that we share.
Kevin
The "mysteries of Godhood" to which you refer is the central doctrine of Christianity - the triune nature of God - una substaniae tres personae. Jesus is the fully incarnate Logos, fully God and fully man. To use the words of historical Christianity without the same understanding as orthodox Christians is to subvert their meaning.
The Arian heresy was finally purged from the early church by the first Nicene Council in 325.
This is my point. Not even 300 years after Christ organized his Church there were many doctrines that were not clearly understood and the scriptural record was not sufficient to bring clarity. Yes, the Bishops hammered out their creed, but without accepting continuing revelation are we to believe that the mysteries of Godhood can be ascertained by committee? The Nicene creed represents the winning side, not necessarily the truth. To claim that Christianity is defined soley by those whose will prevailed is just might makes right. By the way Mormons believe that Christ received from Mary the mortal capacity to sin and to suffer and to die, and from his Father the capacity to avoid suffering and death if he chose. He did embody all human capacities along with those of deity.
Pat ceased talking to his sister, Bay, when she left the family faith to marry a Mormon. Bay divorced (such virtue!) and was de-shunned. Now, Buchanan favors Romney, rather than Ron Paul. What happened?
Now if only the prodigal daughter would admit the obvious and join Mary Cheney in a newfound honesty - Pat might sound reasonable rather than arbitrary.
Mr.Rudd, it seems your insecurities have retarded your ability to make good judgements. If you doubt that men of the past were able discern Gods will, how long will it be before you doubt your own churches ability. ( I think that it already has questioned it's ability ie: polygamy). As well your rejection of Mitt Romney speaks volumes about your faith in a fellow Mormons ability to include his own God inspired ethics, morals and beliefs as part of his daily decision making processes.
Kevin,
Here is what I don't get? Why does Mormonism seem like it wants to accentuate its similarities to Christianity, instead of pointing out where we are allegedly in error. If you follow the debates on this website then you know that the Protestants and Catholics are always very ready to say where they are right and the other guys are wrong.
Isn't the debate best advanced by honesty and everyone putting their cards on the table?
Red,
Pardon my unnecessarily inflammatory rhetoric. I recognize that the distinction between fundamentalist Protestantism and Mormonism is not without a difference. But historically, there has been little difference in the regard in which fundamentalist Protestants hold Catholics and Mormons. Historically, at least, one was as un-Christian as the other in the view of Fundamentalist.
American Catholics have typically been more reticent in the reverse negative characterization of Protestants, living, as they do, in a Protestant culture. But the label "heretic" has traditionally been applied to those that deny the teachings of the Church? But we don't mean that in a mean way.
Re: Woodcutter
That's just my point. I'm not the one claiming that revelation ceased with the books that were compiled as the Bible. In every dispensation of the gospel God chose prophets and they received the authority of the priesthood to proclaim His will and to act in his name. Only with this ability to receive revelation can doctrine be proclaimed to the church as a whole. I don't remember any biblical reference to the Lord's will being revealed by committee. On the other hand, I have no doubt that God's chosen and duly appointed prophets can reveal his will to mankind.
Seriously now, it is quite "retarded" to think that one rejects his faith if he does not support the political views of one of his fellow members. Does Ted Kennedy cause a crisis among Catholic believers?
Red,
You're correct and that is what I'm trying to get at. We make the claim to be Christ's church on the earth. The only true church on the earth. It is to be judged on this claim. To define a Christian as solely one who follows the doctrine of the church as it has existed historically is to rob the term of its positive content. All claims to be the true church must be judged in the light of the revealed word. If ones faith in Christ is consistent with the teachings of the Bible, one ought to be able to say that he is a Christian, regardless of whether he believes in the doctrines that weren't clarified until hundreds of years later by the early church. This doesn't preclude the fact that Catholic teachings may be 100% true. Only that they should not be accepted a priori as being true. Because they are not part of the scriptures they need to be judged along with other interpretations of the Gospel.
Our differences are actually quite simple to state.
Catholics believe that the Apostolic Church Christ established during his ministry has continued to be the body that God has chosen to bring salvation to his children. Mormonism believes that the original Church, due to among other things, changes in the organization and means of operation ceased to be the Lord's Church, and lost its authority to administer divine ordinances and receive the gifts of the spirit. Thus a restoration of this divine authority was required. Joseph Smith was called as a prophet and received the authority to reorganize the priesthood on the earth. This he did in the form of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints in 1830.
One reason that people try to emphasize similarities is that although ultimately we must be in accordance with the singular truth of all things, it must be recognized that any who are seeking to due the will of the Lord ought to be respected for their good works, and from there they may possibly be led to a greater level of truth.
"If not, it’s so close that I can’t see a difference. Mr. Buchanan seems to have been huffing glue. I can think of no other explanation for how enamored of Romney he has become." -E. Roberts
For Pat - Romney's the only gal at the dance...(bad dye job & all.)
The Mormons consider themselves new-zion (gosh forbid) avec j.c. - with Jesus Christ. So we can applaud them therein.
I have always said - if you're going to base xianity (as we have) on what came before in the old T. wouldn't you seriously want to study judaism first and the Actual history of the recalcitrant jews who were kindly after their defeat/s repeatedly by the romans finally permitted "diaspora," and glimpse the Actual history of the region at that time, and of the completely peaceful jews who never revolted who got along fine with the romans were never ejected from the M.E. and are therein to this day? It's like cholesterol (as in everything) there's the good kind and the bad, and i'm afraid the bad has won over since their 'return.' ... & Even if that's not it, it's only the ideology to blame wouldn't you want to therefore all the more at least study 'judaism'-?-so you know what you're up against? And i have also always said you could take judaism the ideology and drop anyone's blood group into it (heck, many of the so-called jews 'returning' to palestine [converts] were never even there as a blood group or gene pool in the first place - demonstrating this point - the resiliency of the ideology itself.) And if anyone regardless of the blood group/gene pool was dropped into the ideology of judaism, you wouldn't have the wool pulled over your eyes as you do as xians who haven't a clue about judaism (astonishingly) today. Namely that's most of you all, by the way.
NOT YOUR fault per se - except in that your hubris - has you 'believe' you Can survive in close proximity any other so-called religion or cult or ideology like judaism or islam etc. Being conceptual creatures I expect you will continue to choose to believe that until well, you don't exist anymore, frankly speaking, sadly.
mormonism is the LEAST of your worries. maybe pat knows that? as a matter of fact mormons or the 'new-zion with its cherry on top or jesus christ - god almightly - ' may even prove more resilient in terms of its own survival than the rest of zion/xiantiy meaning jews & xians of other sects alike (except for maybe the staying power of the twin orthodoxies of roman catholic & greek orthodox -) ... Simply because mormonism has dropped itself into the zionist survival framework/ideology. All the rest of you christians have you noticed according to mormons are 'gentiles.' Stand aback - d'ey the 'newZion.' I wonder if they're going to want Palestine? I'm SURE they'd do MUCH better with it, thanks to the prince of peace.
i have not studied mormonism sufficiently - except doesn't one smell it or notice it and i don't mean it's odiferous... if it quacks like a duck etc. ... that is has j.c. at the top, and is sort of like 'jews for jesus' without the history of the recent mormon past.
any of you 'gentiles' noticing - "anything" ? Huh? ... I kid, I kid.
I wear the BELLS !
carry on!
________________________
Without delving too far into the tomfoolery of Mormon "theology", based on the "inspired" vision of a 19th century North American crank, let me note that to suppose (as the Mormons do) that somehow the truth of the true religion was hidden from the perception of all who called themselves christian, until the angel Moroni vouchsafed the contents of the Book of Mormon to Joseph Smith, is to reject the entire history and theology of the church, in its Roman Catholic, Othodox and Protestant forms.
And let us not bandy terms about Christology, a mormon will not confess the Nicene Creed, and will endeavour to bend scripture to their own interpretations. The early church determined what writings were canonical; under the leadership of the holy spirit. Under that same leadership, the church fathers battled the heresies of Pelagianism and Arianism that Mormons embrace.
However one regards the history of the church since the Reformation, that history is built on the foundational doctrines of the early church. The church, the bride of Christ, waits on the leading of the Holy Spirit, the same Holy Spirit that has led her since his coming at the time of Pentecost. We need no "latter day" interpretations and extra-biblical nonsense to know the will of God (as in the triune Godhead).
I am new, so I am not aware of certain things. Is Mr. Kevin Rudd the regular Chronicles apologist for Mormonism?
Mr. Rudd since you are educating all here on Mormonism, I have a question. I am not as intimately acquainted with Mormon history or doctrine as you are, but how many miracles did Joseph Smith perform? I was under the impression that the answer was zero, but perhaps I am mistaken.
"Which brings us to Rudy, the front-runner. His hope( read Plan): That Huckabee wins Iowa, McCain wins New Hampshire, Romney wins Michigan, and Thompson or McCain wins South Carolina. Then, after four defeats, he comes roaring back in Florida, grabs the headlines going into Feb. 5, when half the primaries are held, and marches forward to the nomination."
So far they are working it to perfection. Even Huckabee says his recent rise can only be explained by "divine intervention" --- read "desired" intervention.
"Whoever thought up this strategy is the kind of guy who plays Russian roulette with four bullets in the chamber. The peril of the Rudy strategy is if a Romney, a Huckabee or a McCain wins in New Hampshire and South Carolina and catches a fire no attack ad can put out."
No Pat, they are not suicidal, rather assasins with all six chambers full and extras in their boot. "a fire no attack ad can put out ?" Well, I would have thought you knew better from your own experience, but since you are still stubborn for a party that provided you bus tickets to leave, just sit back and watch it happen ---- again.
G. Oren
Your details of the founding of Mormonism are inaccurate but that isn't all that important to your argument. No, a Mormon will not confess the Nicene Creed, but then again in our eyes neither would any of the twelve Apostles. It's a formulation that came about well after the founding of the church and is not in harmony with the teachings in the Bible.
You speak of extra-Biblical nonsense. Just what do you think the Church was teaching at the time of Constantine? How is it that the Church at that time bore very little resemblance to the Church that Christ organized, i.e. doctrine, organization, ordinances? Whence came the changes?
You speak of the Pentecost. By the time of Constantine it was noted that these gifts had almost ceased to occur. Why? The history of the early Church is not a simple one of faithful adherence to doctrine and ordinances with the occaisional heresy challenged and removed. There was widespread doctrinal chaos on many fronts. There was rampant apostasy in the churches even as Paul ministered. Doctrine was finally established but it is by no means clear that it was what Christ taught.
Mr. Rutowicz
No, I'm not the resident anything for Chronicles. Concerning your question. The gifts of the Spirit were clearly attendant to the establishment of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, i.e. healings, prophecy, tongues, etc. Joseph Smith left works that claim to be revealed from God, they can be examined for their own merit--Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants etc. Let all decide whether they be of God or not. What you would constitute a miracle, and why that would be a sine qua non for being a prophet, I do not know.
Once again, everyone is wrong except the exalted Joseph Smith. The Church has followed the Holy Spirit since its founding, if the charismata were not evident, do you think the spirit still did not lead. I will not fall into the trap of arguing dispensationlism, another ridiculous formulation. As a charismatic, I embrace a high view of the sprits leading and a high view of scripture, though not the biblioidolatry practiced by some misguided fundamentalist. The gifts are not the essential point of Pentecost or the life of the early church, they only have a purpose in growing the church into the body of Christ. If you insist on signs then Mormons can add Montanism to the list of heresies.
Of course there was doctrinal chaos, that is why the church councils were necessary. As these issues came to the fore they were dealt with by men of faith trying to follow the spirits leading. Christ left no blueprint for how the church would function, he gave us the sacrament of communion, then told us that the paraclete would come and lead us into all truth. That it was not until 367 that the canon was agreed upon indicates that sound doctrine was in place even before the acceptance of what would become the bible.
Constantine was a follower of Arianism and did not accept baptism until just before his death. For Christs sake read Eusebius, read Iraneus, read Origen. You make facile assumptions about the early church that are completley unsubstantiated.
I have refrained even from discussing the more ignoble characterisitics of Mormon "theology", that I label tomfoolery. But I see that TJF has addressed some of the more offensive ones at post #15 on his blog and some farther down. He draws blood with a much sharper blade.
Mr. Oren
"Christ left no blueprint for how the Church would function." So he spent forty days with his Apostles after the Resurrection and we are to believe that the topic of running the Church never came up. Instead of the foundation of Apostles and Prophets it would be the Doctors to save the Church from error 300 years later.
"That it was not until 367 that the canon was accepted indicates there was sound doctrine in place." That would be news to Paul who wrote so much of early church apostasy.
What accusations of the early church are unfounded. Do you really believe the Church at the time of Constantine had the same doctrines, ordinances, and organization as the Church Peter led?
"Every one is wrong except the exalted Joseph Smith." No, there are many non-Mormon scholars who have written about these things. Joseph Smith spoke very little of these matters.
Mr. Rudd:
I see on TJF's post and on Pat's earlier post about Mr. Romney that you have been engaged in an all fronts defense of your heresy. After reading your back and forth with John Rutowicz, a much more learned and capable interlocutor than I, I see that further conversation with you is fruitless.
Facts:
Catholics confess the Nicene Creed.
Eastern Orthodox, Anglicans, Methodists, Baptists, Presbyterians, and a host of other schismatic and heretical sects all confess the Nicene Creed.
Mormons do not confess the Nicene Creed.
Shintoists do not confess the Nicene Creed.
Buddhists do not confess the Nicene Creed.
Hindus do not confess the Nicene Creed.
Mohammedans do not confess the Nicene Creed.
Mormons have more in common with Mohammedans than they do with Catholics, or ever heretical Baptists.
Mormons can not even be called "heretics", they are outright pagans, that is, they are not "Christian", as the word has been defined for almost 2,000 years.
That does not make them "bad people", only non-Christian. They may CLAIM to be Christian, but are not, by standards, once again, that have been defined for almost 2,000 years.
As a Catholic, I believe the Catholic Church is correct, and that the Mormon "faith community" is in error.
As a Mormon, you believe the Mormon "faith community" is correct, and that the Catholic Church is in error.
I can not change your mind, just as you can not change mine - but I can pray that you embrace the Holy Spirit, and be brought into orthodoxy.
Mr. Capp
Brilliant.
American are governed by the president
Hitler wasn't governed by the president
Stalin wasn't governed by the president
The Pope isn't governed by the president
The Pope has more in common with Hitler and Stalin than Americans.
The Nicene Creed didn't come along until about 300 years after Christ organized His Church. I'm worried about how He defined the term.
Monsieurs Kevin Rude and Andrew Crap, stop idle fighting about your two heresies. I am watching cable TV now, 'bout quarter of two, Iowa poll says: Huckabee 32%, Romney 20%, Thompson 11%. Bet Huckabee is the winner.
E.A., you are right! These two heretics should both be cooked in oil at St. Peter's square!
The only thing I like about Catholics is their famous torture methods - and the only thing I like about Mormons is their poligamy