Unchristian behaviour
If you are coming afresh to the Mitt Romney Mormon controversy (he made a big speech today at President Bush's father's library in Texas) and you wonder what all the fuss is about, take a look at this little message aimed at his wife Ann, whose father was from Wales, and was presumably not a Mormon.
I remember meeting her more than a year ago, when the campaign was getting going, and talking about the travails in store. I wonder, though, whether she could have imagined some evangelical Christians would be so, well, un-Christian.
Two things though. Are we over-hyping the wild fringes here to get a story, or are Americans genuinely worried about the Garden of Eden being in (the Mormons apparently believe it was ) - and why deliver the speech in
Seriously, of all the places Mitt Romney might go to appeal to conservative Republicans I reckon the Bush Library would be about the worst choice, except, perhaps, Salt Lake City itself...
Hello, I'm 
颁辞尘尘别苍迟蝉听听 Post your comment
America doesn't need to be lectured to about religious intolerance. While nobody has a monopoly on discrimination based on religion and every country including the US has experienced it, there has never been even a hint of a real religious war in the United States. Britain's courts on the other hand only just yesterday finally declared its laws against blasphemy illegal, 216 years after the US did the same with the passage of the Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the Constitution.
What is a cult? It's the other guy's religion, the false words you don't believe in. In America, we expect the government only enforces civil laws, the hopes of our own religious kooks notwithstanding.
Probably from a European perspective, all this appears somewhat nonsensical.
However, as an English transplant marooned in Oklahoma, I would note that, beginning with the Bush II election, the Republican party has become a party with a primarily religious purpose and motivation. The core group of the Republican party is no longer one dedicated to either business interests or foreign policy, but one obsessed with fundamentalist religious doctrine. if you are on a divine mission to govern America in the path of christian righteousness and therefore, inevitably, doctrinal correctness ( as several of the current candidates are) such issues assume the importance of a medieval charge of heresy.
The guy in that video seriously needs to get a grip.
He talks about Mormonism being a cult yet is clearly seriously misinformed and is very callous in his assessment of their beliefs.
I would be interested to know how many people in America watch Bill Keller.
It's a shame people like Keller cannot be more tolerant of other peoples beliefs instead of trying to impose his own diluted form of Christianity upon them. It's yet another example of a closed mind unwilling to open up to the reality of society - the basic fact that not everyone believes (or should have to believe) the same thing as you do.
Again, if I were an American I would not vote for Romney. But neither he or his wife should have to justify their religious beliefs to anyone, particularly those people who are ignorant and bigoted. They certainly don't have to put up with being patronised by people like Keller.
As for the Bush Library speech - I also think that may have been a misjudgement but I don't think the location really matters too much. Indeed, I'm sure there are a lot of Americans who still have time for the former president, even though he did misinform them about their taxes.
I'll take it that Britons are fine with being forced to pay for the upkeep of a state-sanctioned Christian denomination because its clergy aren't seriously interested in carrying out its mission and the electorate don't really believe in it either, so everyone shares the hypocrisy amicably. Americans tend to believe that nobody would go through so much trouble or expense for appearance' sake, so they try to actually practice the religion, a mistake that causes endless grief...
I think evangelical Christians do need to take issue with Mr. Romney's beliefs as it goes to his creditability. If you believe the Bible is the Truth, then he essentially believes a lie. However, that may not stop them from giving him their votes since acceptable candidates espousing their values are slim pickings. The bigger issue is the media coverage. I wish the reporting would focus on telling us how the candidates would deal with several issues and discuss concrete plans so we could decide what kind of a president they would make instead of fanning the flames of sensationalism. We need to know areas of controversy, yes, but the way they are reported, a story like this one often overshadows the more important issues.
There is nothing unchristian about a religious figure calling out the differences between the Mormon faith and the Christian faith. There are stark differences and that difference is that they don't believe Christianity in the context of the Bible. The bible makes no mention of Joseph Smith and all the other things mentioned that go with the Mormon religion. I am not perfect, I do sin, I don't attend church so I am no radical religious right crazy person! Not only radical right wingers believe in God. I am an American, I do believe in God and Jesus Christ and I do believe that beliefs form who we are as individuals and how we live our life. As much as people would want to seperate religion and policy, it is utterly impossible. If you are a religious person then everything you do is based on principle beliefs you have that come from a religious belief. The only people who can seperate church and state are those who love Christ as a hobby and don't have religious principles that they apply to their normal everyday life. Christ is not a part-time activity. Thus, believing in Christ, you do show love and compassion to all. Thou shall not kill, commit adultery, etc, those are teachings of the bible and we live with those teachings in policy. I am not saying Mormon's are bad people or wrong. I feel if they are good people and have good intentions for all people then they only have to be judged by the Creator, not me. But it is wrong to say it is the same as the Christian religion when it certainly is not and any Christian religious leader has an obligation to bring that to light.
The choices leaders have to make is often between two 'evils'. That's why in society with an increasingly verbal and informed constituency, leaders fail to lead and resort to political correctness.
Mr. Bill Keller (of the video clip) had the difficult choice to make between: (a) be silent, quietly pray for and - possibly - personally seek to meet Lady Ann; (b) inform the voters about what he believes.
Mormons themselves agree to Mr. Keller's observation that the interpretation of Scripture has to be according to their founder Mr. Smith, and that Mr. Smith's interpretations fared far and wide from the foundational doctrinal believes shared by the entire Protestant, Evangelical, Pentacostal, Catholic and Orthodox christianity.
大象传媒 Reporter Mr. Webb labels Mr. Keller as displaying unchristian behavior. I side with Mr. webb, that I rather speak about what is good and right, to build up and encourage. Rather that than to criticize and bring down. But... Mr. Keller too is a leader in his field and he had to make a choice. This was his choice. We may have our opinion about the choice, but there really is very little to comment about his shared observations regarding the difference between Mormonism and the entire body of Protestant, Evangelical, Pentacostal, Catholic and Orthodox christianity.
All religions started after the Christian religion will be labeled a cult because if you look at the 2 definitions for cult you will see that most people intertwine them. This produces one meaning which would be: a new way of worshiping that a lot of people are enthusiastic about. Check it out for yourself!
As for the location, he gave the speech in Texas to draw a parallel between himself and JFK, who had similar problems with Protestant bigotry because of his Roman Catholicism.
All of the claims he makes about Mormon doctrine are technically accurate. So in what way does this constitute un-Christian behaviour? The Mormon church is, quite literally, completely unlike that of any mainstream Christian faith. I am neither Mormon, nor Christian, but have been studying the Mormons for 12 years.
I am eagerly waiting for the day when we will have a proud atheist candidate. Then maybe we will hear less about "my God is better than yours" and more about immigration laws and universal health care.
Just out of curiosity what is un-Christian about these comments? Is it the content or the manner they are delivered in.
If its the manner they are delivered in then I guess the argument isn't strong but as legs. Christian's are encouraged in the bible to be gracious and at times Keller seemed a little provocative or snarky. Generally though its understandable that if what he said was true he may be justifiably irritated and that could have caused him to deliver this message in a less that ideal tone. His tone was far from nasty though. Still not an ideal tone of delivery.
Secondly if its to do with the content... is it true? If it is then there's nothing un-Christian about telling the truth in fact its the opposite. If what he is saying is true then she was attempting to say erroneously that something he believed to be utterly false was no different than something he believed to be utterly true. Bear in mind he is convinced of the truth of the Bible. If he were why should he not ask a high profile personality who has made insulting and false claims about his faith and what he perceives to be the truth to stop doing it?
Basically, the tone could be seen as un-Christian in its lack of grace but the content if accurate is perfectly in line with the truth focus of Christianity.
I found this to extremely entertaining. Thank you for posting this video. I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (aka Mormon). If Christianity is to be prescribed by the likes of Mr. Bill, then I submit no protest to those who might consider me a non Christian! Mr. Bill is a great missionary for my church. His supercilious message will encourage honest inquiry. Thanks Mr. Bill!
Mark commented that "there has never been even a hint of a real religious war in the United States." I guess it depends how you define "religious war."
In 1838 the Governor of Missouri issued an "extermination order" directing state officials to kill all Mormons or drive them from the state. I consider the resulting bloodshed a war.
We do have an ideal of religious liberty in the U.S., and the federal government does well in that regard, but U.S. citizens have some room for improvement (as is obvious from the above Youtube video).
I agree with Martin. The Republican party is now a danger to all folks not belonging to the extremist fundamentalists churches.
Mark misses a point. The Republican party is not content to enforce civil law, it wants to set up laws to support fundamentalist cult-like beliefs. This is no longer a party for moderates.
Thank you for actually asking the question few in America seem to be willing to ask, and that is why so many Christians are acting so un-Christian toward people of a shared faith. It is a sad comment that the media in America has seized on this issue by letting evangelicals get their message out while rarely if ever letting the Mormon voice be heard. If anyone would take the time to get to know a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the Mormons), one might find out that they strive to follow Christ's teachings--even if some other Christians don't seem willing to let them into their privately defined club. If anyone were curious about Mormon beliefs, they might choose to read a non-partisan description on the 大象传媒 religions website, or they might want to actually go to a Mormon source (instead of an anti-Mormon one) like mormon.org. Surely, a Christian with love for mankind would be willing to do that much.
As an American, I anticipated that Romney's religion would be a much larger issue during his campaign. Martin is correct in saying that religion has become a political device, but is hasn't been used (or misused) much at all during these campaigns. Back to Romney though, this is first instance in which he is openly criticised for his beliefs, that I am aware of, and so it is a surprisingly small issue compared to what the press might have you think. I myself live in Texas and have never seen or heard of Bill Keller or Live Prayer, so this guy's influence is most likely limited to his own cult.
As a U.S. citizen and member of the Church of Jesus Christ of latter-day Saints, A.K.A a mormon, I find the attention being paid to the United States' presidential election baffling. What does a candidate's gender, religion, or ethnicity have to do with their ability to be an effective executive leader? In particular, why do people in other countries care about such trivial details. I may be mistaken; however, I had thought western civilization declared these matters to be of no importance for government. In fact, I believe it is illegal to makes decisions based of such factors. So, it disappoints me that, so far, there has been little discussion of the candidates' positions on policy issues. Everyone knows that Romney is a mormon, Clinton is a woman, and Obama is black, but few seem to know Romney's plan for the budget deficit, How Clinton will pay for her health care proposal, or through what miracle Obama will simultaneously remove U.S. armed forces from Iraq and prevent the country from turning into another Somalia. But hey, these are only the things that could affect my life, job, and country, why should I care?
That has got to be one of the most evil speeches I've ever heard. Difficult even to sit through it. Ugh.
But to answer your question, yes, it's pretty fringe-y. Only Evangelicals would buy into this, and only some of those; non-Christians would mainly roll their eyes and mainstream Christians would be downright offended. (I'm one of those and it makes me cringe.) And there will be Evangelicals who feel uncomfortable with Mitt's beliefs, but even more so with this kind of behavior. And of course they may or may not let Mitt's religion be the thing that decides their vote.
Those who scorn Mitt (and a lot of Americans do) mostly do so because we see him as a vacuous panderer who'll sacrifice any values he does have to get elected, not because we're worried that Joseph Smith was a liar.
I disagree that the core Republican Party is obsessed with religion, though. That's what it looks like from the outside, no doubt, but the closer you get the easier it is to see that they're the same cynical tycoons and politicos they ever were. They've just seized on the ploy of manipulating less-educated, susceptible Christians into fearing that God will be angry if they don't vote Republican. It's exactly the same tactic they're using with the general public when they try to get us to support the war on Iraq by warning us about the terrorists.
The downside of manipulating the Evangelicals, of course, is that those folks were sincere and expected the politicians to be so also, so now they have to keep mouthing their piety to keep those votes coming in. And don't forget that this YouTube preacher has his own angle to play: he's building his own career and getting donations from viewers based on how well he's playing off those same fears.
A disgusting racket. About as far as one could get from the Sermon on the Mount.
I have to dispute the first comment, many in the US are horribly intolerant when it comes to religion, and while there's not a large amount of religious violence in the states we have a president who branded our "war on terror" a "crusade" in the state of the union address, and we've had a number of bombing of abortion clinics by those who claim to be standing up for a "right to life" (the irony of which is staggering)
Our government has a separation of church and state, but as long as large, well funded and organized churches keep trying to take power within our system this is largely meaningless. From the fact that we have creationism being taught in public schools, to the lack of public funding for anything other than Abstinence only anti-pregnancy and aids programs, the US is currently caught between it's secular ideals and the extremist views of the "evangelical right."
Martin, to be more precise, many rank-and-file Republican voters care about fundamentalist "Christian" values, but Republican politicians are merely putting on a show of religious fervor to continue to win their votes. The Republican pols are still very much dedicated to business interests and an aggressive foreign policy.
You are correct that this unfortunate trend has been around for quite a while (even before Bush II, I recall), but note its true move to eminence under Karl Rove, political puppet master, who is very likely an agnostic or atheist (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Rove#Religious_views). I personally don't care what faith, if any, a candidate holds as long as they're not ruled by it (I fear Huckabee for that reason). What rankles me is the flagrant hypocrisy used by Rove and his cohorts to court one vocal group's support in order to pursue completely orthogonal and sometimes contradictory political goals.
I would point out that these same politicians trying persuade voters of the depth of their Christian faith have, in the course of the same election, tried to persuade voters of their toughness by explicitly endorsing both torture and pre-emptive war. This is more about playing to an ugly variety of religious fundamentalism than about the message of Christ - at least as I learned of it.
These candidates are a mixture of a cross dresser Rudy, Mitt who like his Father will lose because he lives to high to relate to the normal American, Fred puts people to sleep and thinks it 1924 again. McCain sold his soul to the Devil aka Bush/Cheney team and it's been down hill since then. Mrs. Romney would like the people to feel sorry for her because she has MS. But most Americans who have MS have no medical care and will die. We have seen that Candidates aren't always what you see. Mitt wants us to believe he and his wife are perfect well we see the following Christians Fingers Foley molesting kids, Larry Craig men's room king, Vitters hiring prostitutes and more GOP information to come out. We just saw George W. Bush a Christian who follows God's teaching yes and Bush stood in front of the Public and the World and out right lied about when he knew about the NIE report. Now if the current President of the United States is a Christian and open liar who can we believe. Mitt isn't wanted by the GOP and that's why he will lose, the GOP prefer a Mob King cross dresser Rudy, now if Huckleberry wins Iowa the press will show how he got a murderer out of jail and he killed again.
I find all this talk about religion very regressive to democracy in America. What about us atheists? Listening to the candidates you get the feeling that it is unacceptable to be "without a god". I can see why 25% of US students think evolution is fiction or are unaware of its existence!
I want a president that will implement sound economical and foreign policies. I will vote for someone who demonstrates leadership and intellect. America is too diverse to have a president that will represent all of our moral beliefs.
However, this being the case, the candidates need to keep their more radical beliefs to themselves. For example, I really did like Romney before he started talking more about religion than anything else. The deal breaker for me was his suggestion that creationism, or newly repackaged under the name of "intelligent design", should be offered in our schools. NOW I am not convinced that he won't act on his Mormon beliefs and implement them into policy!
Could Romney have guessed things would turn out this way? He brought it upon himself!
And he is not alone. Take Huckabee. Having grown up in Europe, I cannot fathom a European leader to call his perceived electoral advantage (Huckabee currently leads in Iowa) the work of "the same power that helped a little boy with two fish and five loaves feed a crowd of 5,000 people." Wow! I'm speechless...
re claims of no religious war in the US - the washington sniper John Mohammed was a member of al-fuqra - a terrotist organisation. He was killing 'infidels'. Its on your doorsteps.
Many in the US who complain about the "scary" religious fundamentalists have little idea what they actually believe. It has become a type of slur, a code for a group with whom you vehemently disagree.
People constantly speak disparagingly of fundamentalists, but in doing so, they are every bit as intolerant.
Do you really think a liberal is any more tolerant of a pro-life position? Not likely. They hate and judge every bit as much as those whom they criticize.
My point is that criticizing religious people is a cover for an intolerance of their viewpoints.
How is this exactly "Unchristian" behavior? Just grow up a member of a visibly religious minority in the US and this will likely be the only type of experience you have of "Christians".
It just so happens that there are plenty of tolerant and accepting people claiming to be Christians out there, but they aren't the ones to introduce themselves as such, you have to ask them. If you don't ask you're likely to believe this is "exactly" Christian behavior.
I've read more of the Bible than most of my "Christian" friends and associates. From my viewpoint the bible (and thus Christianity?) supports and promotes this kind of intolerant speech. Read Exodus 23:34
I still believe, however, that we should "love our neighbors" even if their religious texts supports and promotes pettiness and violent atrocities. Especially if they don't act in these ways.
Sorry if I offend anyone. I just mean to ask the author how exactly Bill Keller's message was unchristian, and to point out that if Christianity is based on a literal interpretation of the bible then the author is wrong in his assessment of Bill Keller as "unchristian".
As an atheist, I find this debate on the outlandishness of Mormon beliefs to be ridiculous in the extreme.
Is believing Garden of Eden to have been in Missouri really and truly any more ridiculous than worshipping the son of a virgin who was impregnated by a ghost?
To my knowledge, Utah's government is packed with Mormons who have been running the state government since 1896. The last time I checked, Utah was neither a cauldron of anarchy or even ineptitude.
Now, if Mr. Romney wins the nomination, I won't vote for him, because he's a conservative Republican... not because he's a Mormon.
Religious tolerance means that people are free to practice their beliefs without fear of persecution.
This does not mean we should tolerate irrational beliefs by our elected leaders.
Personally, as an atheist who was involved in the LDS (Mormon) church as a child and teenager, I am far more willing to tolerate the beliefs of mainline protestants, most Catholics, Unitarians, reform Jews, etc., because they largely seem willing to see scriptures as metaphors, and specific religions as the creations of men. Whereas Mormons and evangelicals seem to share the ideas of scriptural literalism, and direct telephone lines to God. Do we want these people making life or death decisions for millions of people?
An extreme example: how many would call it "intolerant" to oppose a Scientologist Prime Minister of the UK?
America has never come close to a religious war? You might want to revise that (post #1). Ever heard of the Utah War? Or the torching of churches in Philadelphia and New York and the ensuing risk of all out inner city war between Catholics and Protestants. I'd say they've had their fair share of religious turmoil.
What an excellent topic! And, it took an Englishman to bring it up. Our media here in the states is afraid to broach the subject, but it needs exploring, especially now. I find it frightening that many evangelicals are so closed minded and utterly ignorant about other people's beliefs, whether it be religion or evolution. With increasing irritation, I have noticed self-declared evangelical callers to non-religious national radio talk shows smugly declare that, while they themselves are Christian, they did't regard Catholics as Christians. I heard it again yesterday on NPR (National Public Radio).
What do they base their reasoning on? Certainly not history or fact. Last I heard, Catholics were the only Christians for more than fifteen hundred years until the Reformation split the Church into many sects and the first to use the fish symbol to identify themselves as Christians. But, apparently, evangelicals don't seem to want to acknowlege any of it. They have told just us they think Mormons are not Christian. Can you imagine what they think of Jews, Muslims, Hindi's or, God forbid, non-believers? Their unpleasant attitude of religious superiority swathed in false humility comes across to me as less than Christian and more as self-serving. The problem is, our candidates are shamelessly pandering to it.
I find Keller's commentary hilarious. He ridicules the Mormons' ludicrous beliefs while espousing his equally ludicrous beliefs. But then I get depressed when I consider that the fate of my country is in the hands of millions of people who seriously believe in all these silly fairy tales.
EVERYTHING the man said about what Mormons believe is true. As a recovering Mormon I know that what is taught and presented to outsiders is very different from what is really believed.
I find it so amazing that many Mormons do not even know the church's real history and real beliefs. Yes the Garden of Eden was/is in Missori, a 12 year old boy has more authority than his mother, a woman needs to provide a secret name and handshake to her husband to enter heaven... you only hope he dies first or I guess you just wait around for him. This drives up divorces if the man falls away from the church because HER salvation is tied to his salvation. If he is not worthy you better find a better man...some family centered group.
The God of the bible is a very differnt God than that of the Mormon faith. The mormon God is flesh & bone & was a man, He had physical sex with Mary...not some magical conception. Mormons ARE a cult but they have learned how to modify their image to look mainstream. It has always been a Mormon dream to rule the USA. Joe Smith & Brigham Young both wanted the office. I dread the thought of a Mormon president.
To learn the history of the Mormon church I urge everyone to read the book (Banned book by the LDS)"No Man Knows My History" by Fawn Brodie.
You will learn so very much.
It's interesting, too, to see the reactions of people to Romney's discussion of religion.
Having a religious belief that one is willing to publicly state has, in itself, become a threatening gesture. And a deeply held religious conviction is now, by definition, considered radical.
I think these responses are, well, radical.
Having been raised a good portion of my life in Utah with a Mormon-Convert Grandmother, and being involved enough to have been inducted into the priesthood, I have to say that Mr. Keller is very ill-informed. He could be a good Republican though, because he mixes just a bit of fact in and then presents it with just so many inaccuracies as to make the Mormons appear worse than they actually are.
The Mormons, as with all other religions have accomplished many great things and have, as well committed atrocities.
Mr. Keller is being all-too "Christian" in the modern sense. The values of true Christianity appear to be lost on Christians of Mr. Keller's ilk.
As a person who considers myself a Liberal (love and kisses Andrea), I find that all religions offer us the greatest of what we as a species can be and can become and give us insight as to the worst of what we can and have done.
Also, Andrea, you are not practicing what you are preaching. You are condemning liberals for being intolerant. This argument does not hold up.
Liberals are not pro- or anti- abortion, they are pro- choice. We believe the law should allow you to choose according to your belief. There is nothing wrong with being pro-life. A true liberal just doesn't have the audacity to believe that anybody or any government has the right to make such a choice for you.
Liberals believe that you should "judge not lest ye yourself be judged" and so they embrace their fellow men and women as equals, regardless of religion, race, national origin, sexual orientation or creed.
The intolerance that comes from Liberals is not regarding what you as an individual believe and choose to do, so much as it is regarding what you as an individual or minority group decide to have imposed on everybody else who disagrees with you.
Liberals don't criticize people who are religious, they criticize people who force religion and [personal] religious values and opinions on others and try to force religious behaviors on others. And I would argue that Liberals, in general, are as religious as Conservatives, even fundamentalists perhaps. We just don't need to make it a public point [God already knows what's in our hearts and minds] and we don't view religion as being well served by a fascist state of politics.
To Rich,
I am one of the ministers of the Church of England (the "state-sanctioned Christian denomination" I guess). My upkeep is paid for by my congregation and other members of the Church of England. We receive no public money for these things. No one is forced to pay - the giving is all voluntary - as it should be.
Ana, the below statement is taken from a statement of Mormon beliefs:
We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.
Surely not a bad way of doing things, and a lesson that many politicians and commentators would do well to learn.
This and a number of other "Mormon" concepts inevitably colour Mitt Romney's thinking, but that is not necessarily a bad thing. Judge him on his policies, not the presumed origin of his thoughts, and don't think that you know what he is "really" thinking just because you know which Church he attends. You may just find that we Mormons are more enlightened than you suppose.
Justin, I love your blog, but please please please avoid getting on to this very sticky wicket.
We know your views on religion - your 'From Our Own Correspondent' following the New Orleans floods have made that abundantly clear. I share many of those views.
But to dismiss comments like this as being 'unChristian' show that you have no real understanding of evangelical Christians are about, and therefore are, in my opinion, ill qualified to offer an unbiased view of who is right and who is wrong here.
I would recommend that you get back to focusing on politics, which you are very knowledgeable about, and keep well away from religion, which you know little about. But the point is that in America, despite church and state being constitutionally separated, religion and politics are joined at the hip.
Just a quick rhetorical question for you. If Mitt Romney castigated the Scientologists for being a bunch of money grubbing charlatans out to con people by preying on people's pre-occupation with celebrities, whose side would you then be on ??
I will leave it with you..
Romney and others can claim that Mormonism is a religion as much as they want but that will never change the fact that Mormonism is a cult. And if the President of the Mormon Church decides that God told him to influence US policy...you better believe that he would be on the phone with Romney telling him exactly what to do. I am someone with a Bachelor's degree in both Bible & Religion and fully understand that Mormonism is a cult and why. A cult is any group (regardless of size) that interprets the doctrines of a religion in an unorthodox fashion. Unlike Religions which create their doctrines based on interpretation of book(s)of scriptures within their context, cults create their doctrines first and then take the scriptures from the books of other religions and force them outside of their context to fit the twisted ideologies of the cult. Cults have come out of all religions and Christianity is no exception. The 2 largest cults that have come from out of Christianity have been the Jehovah's Witness cult and the Mormon Cult.
Next time someone tries to tell you that Mormonism is Christian, keep in mind that Mormon doctrine teaches that their god was once a physical human being who attained god status (the Adam God doctrine of Mormonism), there is no trinity, Jesus Christ and Satan are half brothers (Satan was not an angel created by God), Blacks were once considered a cursed race by God (until civil rights movements made that inconvenient), Women are second class citizens and will be eternally pregnant with their Mormon husband in the after life ruling over their own planet, you can baptize the dead by proxy using the living and lastly, Mormonism fails every test of archaeology as nothing claimed by Joseph Smith has never been found.
In retrospect, those who have done their homework regarding the Book of Mormon are pretty clear that there was never any Book of Mormon and that Joseph Smith stole the draft of a fiction story titled 鈥淎 View of the Hebrews鈥 and published it under the heading of 鈥淏ook of Mormon. Ultimately, Mormonism fits every parameter of a cult and like all cults...they can change their doctrines at the drop of a hat which is something true religions never need to do. They may claim to believe in God and Jesus Christ but they are referring to a totally different God and a totally different Jesus Christ compared to Christianity.
Interesting discussion. Thank you to everyone for a measured consideration of the different perspectives in this debate. The further question I would put to the likes of Bill Keller is why he believes that his brand of faith is "superior" to anyone else's. That's the reason we're all in a mess with suicide bombings carried out under the guise of Muslim orthodoxy. Gun-toting, war-mongering, right-wing evangelicals, wherever they may be, are no better.
Describing myself as a post-Christian, I believe that the core of all human spiritual belief is the same. Differences of religious expression are simply an outgrowth of location, time, experience and limited perspective. I grew up in a conservative Christian household and understand very clearly the point of view expressed by people like Mr. Keller. However, I long ago realized that most of the world's largest wars have been perpetrated in the name of someone's "god". Obviously, if there is such an entity as "god", there has to be a right one, so not everyone can be right about this. Since there is no material proof of God's "existence", I wonder how any rational person can believe in one particular version of faith as being superior in the face of the overwhelming evidence that religious intolerance is perhaps the most destructive social force on earth?
I must add that I am a spiritual person who believes the energy that infuses the cosmos (scientifically substantiated through quantum physics) is real - the clearest evidence of the existence of the divine, in my view - and that we are all in a profoundly wonderful and mysterious way connected to each other and to the entire universe.
In the interests of honouring "god" by not forcing him/her/it to conform to one nation's bigoted view of its own global superiority, I believe that the US should enforce its own constitutionally-defined separation of church and state so that election campaigns (presidential and otherwise) may not use religious belief as a basis for debating the merits of individual candidates.
Perhaps this is pie-in-the-sky naivet茅 on my part, but unless we make better choices on a national and global scale than in the past, our world will not improve. We seem to be doomed to repeat the mistakes of past generations because we cannot learn. I'm glad I'm not an American having to sort this mess out!
I am LDS, and am not surprised that Romney has made this speech. Almost any member of the church (including myself) has had to defend themselves against discrimination at some point. I would prefer to keep all religion entirely out of the government for that reason - we as a country need to stamp out bigotry whereever it exists, and that includes the government. Our government is for everyone, not just those who believe in God.
That said, I would never vote for Romney because he's a) a Republican and b) a shameless flip-flopper.
I, on the other hand, am an Oklahoman stranded in the UKoGBaNI, and I find this whole religious hoo-hah bizarre in the extreme.
It is true that many Republicans have made a sort of pact with many evangelical Christian denominations. However, most of these denominations do not evangelize with such unrelenting zeal as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. A lot of resentment of Mormons comes from the constant proselytizing, as well as doctrinal differences. As I myself am a Quaker, I find proselytizing foreign to my way of life in the Light of Christ Within.
But the fact about most Americans, no matter what their affiliation, is that they are content to live and let live. It is only when beliefs are literally pounded on one's door do we get testy.
Can Mitt win? I doubt it, but I don't think his religion will have that much to do with it when it comes to actual voting He won't win because the Republican field is too crowded and unfocused right now.
Oh, by the way, there are lots of atheists in the USA, as well as agnostics and apatheists (who don't know and don't care).
I fail to see what is un-Christian in what this guy has to say about the Mormon Church. I couldn't find anything he said that was factually incorrect, and he seems to have a sincere belief that it is a cult and his own religion is preferable. Nothing un-Christian about that is there; indeed surely it would be un-Christian of him not to try to re-educate someone who had chosen the 'wrong' path?
People believe all sorts of strange things; the Mormons just happen to believe stranger things than most others. The question has to be, is someone who is prepared to be so unthinking as to belong to such a religion capable of rational and independent decision making in the role of President; but I suspect this is a question the citizens of the US don't really want to confront (if the current incumbent is an indication).
Anna - I point you to 'The God Delusion' by Richard Dawkins. Not because I wish to dissuade you from nor demean any religious beliefs you may have - but because there's a fairly good account of the liberal and atheist communities apparent distaste for the religious establishment, pro-lifers etc.
Personally I see no reason that morality should ever be linked to religion. Morality is an inbuilt part of the human survival instinct. We invent God to give our conscience a name. Yahweh and Allah and Jesus are the voices of a thousand years of evolutionary training that taught us that certain things helped and others didn't. The demonisation of Homosexuality for example and indeed the sacredness of a child's life come from a time when a tribe could perish without a much larger ratio of birth to death than we could possibly imagine. A gay couple could cost a tribe upwards of thirty children (many of whom would obviously have died in infancy of course) but obviously these things were endagering our survival and so they were outlawed.
Now homosexuality should not only be accepted for exactly the same reasons, but also things such as the so called 'sanctity of life' principle. The world is filling up fast - and if pro-lifers were so keen on ending abortion, perhaps it is the right thing to do to adopt the millions of unwanted children around the world instead of having their own? I don't hate pro-lifers with the same passion (a passion that has led 'pro-life' people to commit murder) as they hate their opposition, but what I do despise is - as is mentioned above, the incredible moral duplicity of many religious - and specifically those of a fundamental persuasion. I find it sickening to see the acts commited in the name of a God who is Love. That's where my own problems come. But as I've said, Dr Dawkins' does a far better job than I ever could.
Actually, Andrea, I've met my share of religious fundamentalists, and they are truly scary people.
Most aren't very educated, don't think very critically, and are compassionate -- but only to their own kind.
While you have a point that some liberals can be just as vehement about their positions, I would offer that most of the folks who identify themselves as liberals at least are willing to discuss issues, and even concede points.
Unfortunately, I have yet to meet a fundamentalist (of any religion) who can successfully converse his or her way out of a wet paper bag.
I'm a born-again christan and nfortunately I don't agree or condone Mr. Romney's religion. I too believe it to be a cult as I belive the Bible is the true word and the Mormons have their own Bible. I will not be voting for him. However, I don't believe it's fair to discriminate and persecute someone for their faith, sexual preference or the like. Christ didn't teach that. I think Mr. Romney made his speech with the best of intentions but it's not enough to win me over and it really has nothing to do with Republican or Democrat. Our founding fathers believed in the Christian faith and I believe if they were still alive they would want a candidate who thought as they did. I have a really hard time voting for someone who didn't believe in THE Bible and had their own.
Bill who?
I'm sure he has his audience, even Ann Coulter (snicker) probably has a following...the "right" over here is pretty far out.
What makes me nervous about Mitt: A video shown this morning where he says his worst mistake was ignoring his own religious views and trying to let people "make up their own minds" about abortion rights. I don't want (another) man in office who thinks HIS religious opinion should govern MY behavior.
Conservatives want a government too weak to interfere with business but powerful enough to get into our bedrooms and/or hospital beds. I hope to God (choose your own) the rest of us get up off our posteriors and VOTE!
I find Mormonism no more or less a problem for political office holders than any other religion (or cult if you want to be pejorative).
What matters is what they do. After all we in the UK have just had 10 years of Tony Blair, who seems to have allowed his religious beliefs to colour many of his policies, including invading iraq...
Personally I'm an atheist. But I'd rather have as President or Prime Minister someone who has religious beliefs but doesn't impose them on others and is guided by the facts, acting in the best interests of Humankind, than a self-interested zealot of any faith or none.
Nobody with a brain could listen to Bill Keller's harangue and not feel deeply saddened by the monster into which American evangelical Christianity has swollen.
I didn't agree with the thrust of Romney's speech today, but he at least conveyed a genuine respect for other religions as opposed to Keller's backhanded compliments and venomous scare-mongering. I'm surprised that he didn't dub Joseph Smith Emmanuel Goldstein at one point. It was on the tip of his tongue.
Even if everything he said is true, why does any of that mean Mormons aren't Christians? The only charge that carried any weight as far as that goes was that Mormons don't believe Jesus Christ was divine, but every Mormon I know believes he was divine, so in my mind his credibility is completely destroyed.
Every word he says is true. Mormons, like Mohammedans,and all other non-Christians, are damned to Hell for all eternity.
As a European, it is perplexing that most Americans will now have a much deeper insight into each candidates' faith than the concrete measures they will take on issues such as healthcare, education, the environment, poverty, Iraq, immigration, foreign policy, the economy, the national debt, feeble dollar, subprime fiasco. To an outsider, it appears that what matters more to many Americans is a president who denies gays equal rights and who believes that Christians will shortly be saved from Armageddon during the imminent Rapture.
It does not take belief in a religion to have a moral foundation. I do not have to follow a prescribed religious agenda or hold any particular book as sacred to know that murder is wrong, that adultery hurts people, that stealing is hurtful, that lying is wrong - anyone with any sense of empathy can have moral values without them coming from a Biblical source. Christians and indeed any other persons of faith claim a moral imperative because they had to be told by their god that these things are wrong, rather that knowing that these things are wrong: stealing a life, a spouse, money, truth, all the things that are antithetical to being good and being in a society with your fellow humans.
America's founding fathers very specifically wanted to keep religion out of government to avoid the tyranny of the majority from crushing the rights of the minority. We are a pluralist society and that includes many religions. And all religions and atheists and agnostics too want what is best for humankind; there is no monopoly on morality in religion; AND lately there is a lot less wiggle room for all the hypocrisy in those corners as well.
Just for the record: The US Government sent cavalry to Utah who killed all the Mormons in a town even though those Mormons were not involved in an earlier killing people in a wagon train passing thru Utah.
I am a non-Christian Unitarian.
Deb from Maine
Apologies - my last post was for Andrea.
The sheer ignorance and intolerance surrounding this so called 'religious' debate is nauseating. My heart goes out to the secular masses in the US (and indeed everyone else there too) when such faux debate dominates at the expense of debate on the real issues. How sad is it when people attack each other for not being 'christian' enough when they really are all the least christian bunch I've ever seen. But what makes me smile most is when US posters to this ask if we are happy for Church representatives taking part in our political system. Increasingly we are not happy and their grip on our society is rightly diminishing day by day. It is about time the US electorate saw through the 'religious' hype - or else they really are no better than the islamist theocracies in the middle east..but then again, massacre in the name of god is better than than educating your childen to think for themselves isn't it. Evolution deniers..please!
Tonia Vickery wrote:
"I am not saying Mormon's are bad people or wrong. I feel if they are good people and have good intentions for all people then they only have to be judged by the Creator, not me. But it is wrong to say it is the same as the Christian religion when it certainly is not and any Christian religious leader has an obligation to bring that to light."
Clearly Ms Vickery hasn't actually researched anything on Mormons or their beliefs, but appears to be basing it on the usual hearsay & badmouthing that is spread about Mormons. We do believe in Jesus Christ - he is the cornerstone of our faith. It's very sad to see people who want to justify the worlds view of "Christianity in water" by denigrating other peoples beliefs. If wanting to genuinely compare one's beliefs it would be common sense to do some research, read about their doctrines, learn about their values & then it is possible to come to an educated decision on it. Until then, I hope people would refrain from being derogatory about someone else's faith without having any actual knowledge about it.
Oh hokum with all this pseudo religion bullywaft! The Americans still effectively burn people at the stake (metaphorically speaking) If you plug people into high voltage & current electricity they burn it's that simple! & that's Christian? & what about poisoning? Oh sorry (lethal injection)..According to what I've read, (Vengeance is mine sayeth the lord) I obviously missed the bit about unless you're American!...Awww keep it man!
Andrea says that liberals hate and jusdge every bit as those whome the criticize.
I have not met her so she may be suprised that I, though liberal, try to live by the precepts of many religions: Tolerance and acceptance of others religions by some African religions, the love of my neighbor espoused by Christ himself, compassion espoused by Buddha. The Bible says that judgement is reserved for Yawheh.
That being said not all religions in the US hold that abortion in a "sin" so in my view taking away women's right to rely on their own conscience is a mingling of church and state that I work against.
Mormans should have every right to be President as any other native born US citizen. I vote for whomever most closely holds my views on domestic and foreign policy regardless of their religion.
Sensationalist messages get attention. This issue being featured on this blog is proof of that.
In the states, where so many views are heard so loudly, the moderate voices are simply 'too boring' to justify air-time... but the truth is moderate voices are the mainstream. This religious view is YET another view that tries to put people in boxes... when the truth is much more pluralistic than that.
Some may call Mormons religious views cult-ish, just as some Catholics may have called Protestants cult-ish centuries ago. But faith in anything HAS to be pluralistic, as it has to take into account the variety of views of many people. There are no EXCLUSIVE TICKETS into heaven.
Some religious leaders need to get off the JUDGEMENT soap-box and get into the NON-JUDGEMENT views that Christ had. His messages are all based on providing guides for living happily, meaningful, fulfilled lives... NOT judging and condemning others for their slightly different views.
If Jesus knew what was to come, than surely he knew that a variety of guidelines would be formed and that they would share common principles. And that the common views would all make the difference to individuals who seek happy fulfilled lives.
But in the western media, why is it that we pick the messages delivered by idiots to discuss? Sure it's shocking, but if we look for shocking things to chat about exclusively, than does the media not encourage extreme views? Are they the only ones we blog about? And why?
Is the media's objective simply to get ratings? Or is it to TRULY reflect the reality on the streets? After all, most religions have some rather absurd views when taken literally.
Justin, I like your reports and generally agree with your views. However I believe it is good and right that the strange and unbiblical beliefs of Mormons should be shown to be very different indeed from true christianity.
Rather remarkable that the ever opportunistic Romney's should be whining about religious insinuation. If you want to see real religious and ethnic pandering take a look at some of Romney's extremist views on the Middle East e.g. this little gem from a speech at Yeshiva Univ. last April in which mighty Mitt thundered, "Take former President Jimmy Carter. President Carter thinks that Isreal's security fence is the thing that keeps peace from coming to the Holy Land. Having just been to Israel, I came to the opposite conclusion: the security fence keeps peace in Israel - it's helping - that fence is helping prevent bloodshed and terror and violence. What Jimmy Carter fails to understand is what so many fail to understand. Whether it's Hamas or Hezbollah; Al Qaeda or Shia or Sunni extremists, there is an overarching goal among the violent Jihadists - and it transcends borders and boundries. The goal is to replace all modern Islamic states with a religious caliphate, to destroy Israel, to cause the collapse of the West and the United States, and to conquer the entire world." And you thought no one could be to the right of Bush. Perhaps Romney and the evangelical extremists have more in common than they realize. We had to put up with this cracker as govenor for too many years, the gruesome thought of him as President is just too much to endure.
What so un-Christian about this, Justin? As Pope Benedict has said, the Truth is always pastoral. This fellow is motivated by his Christianity to do a good deed and try to win a convert. I know this kind of broadcast seems odd to British observers but only because Christianity in the UK has become so watered down, to the point of tolerance becoming code for "anything goes".
If it is any reassurance to you those of us on the left will not even listen to the Religious Right or Republican Party anymore and we are going to win this next election.
The Christian religion in the U.S.A. has shot itself in the foot by going beyond seperation of church and state. The backlash which is occuring now will have the net effect of reducing the power of Christianity. We have been preached to enough. Now we want some leadership.
As an evangelical Christian I am embarrassed by this video. Regardless of the accuracy of his comments I found him rude and condescending. For some reason so many Christian commentators have modeled themselves after Rush Limbaugh. It would be wonderful if Christians could band together long enough to tell these people that being rude only brings disgrace to the faith.
However many of the points of his argument are valid. Mormons are not Christians. A comparison of the two faiths by an independent source would conclude that the Mormons are Christians simply because they choose to call themselves Christians. It would be much the same if Christians started calling themselves Jewish.
Part of the problem can be laid upon Mr Webb himself. Journalists from around the world have been making hay with comments about "Eden in Missouri". Honestly most Americans, Christian or otherwise, do not care about the fine points of someones faith. If journalists actually researched the issue they would find that the problem that Christians have with Mormons is that Mormons claim to be Christians. Most Christians find this to be dishonest and insulting. That is why many Christians would rather vote for a moderate atheist than a Mormon. Look at the people being elected in America. It is obvious that being a strong Christian has never been a litmus test for elected office. The problem is not that Mr Romney is of a different faith, it is the relationship between the two faiths that is the problem.
Mr Webb starts his article stating there is a controversy about Gov Romney's Mormon faith.
What controversy?
Gov Romney's speech was clear and credible. I doubt his faith will be a real issue in his campaign.
Please don't create stories where there aren't any.
Truth has the monopoly on truth, not people or organizations.
Usually, the more vociferously and zealously an advocate or organization promotes the idea that they have the "truth," the greater the likelihood that they are, in fact, seriously delusional.
Every weekend, worldwide, groups of sports enthusiasts adorn themselves in specially coloured and emblazoned clothing and congregate to play or cheer for their favourite team in the mock battles we have come to know as "sport". The basic idea is that, despite occasionally defeat and embarassment, these enthusiasts "know" their team is best and that all the others aren't as good. This often involves a lot of egoic posturing and the hurling exaggerated, or even false, accusations and insults at the other team. Its often about asserting the other team's inferiority. It sometimes results in genuine violence.
Every weekend, worldwide, groups of religious enthusiasts adorn themselves in specially coloured and emblazoned clothing and get together to pray or sermonize for their favourite "religion." The basic idea is that, despite occasionally defeat and embarassment, these enthusiasts "know" their religion is best and that all the others aren't as good. This often involves a lot of egoic posturing and the hurling exaggerated, or even false, accusations and insults at other "religions." Its often about asserting the other religion's inferiority. It sometimes results in genuine violence.
Anyone remember that "good sportsmanship," is based on friendly participation, rooted in total respect for the opposition? At the end of the day, "Its not whether you win or lose, but how you play the game." Anyone remember that fair play makes for the best game?
Mr Webb starts his article stating there is a controversy about Gov Romneys Mormon faith.
What controversy?
Gov Romney's speech was clear and credible. I doubt his faith will be a real issue in his campaign.
Please don't create stories where there aren't any.
This whole situation is media driven hype. Mitt is suffering not due to his religion, but because many people dislike him because he seems plastic, shifty and poll driven. John Kerry was labeled with "flip flopper" in the last election and suffered greatly for it.
The other thing we're not reading about in this controversy is that there is a large percentage of the US population in general (not just evangelicals) who admit they would never vote for a Mormon, as indicated by multiple polls. That's not something to be proud of, but it puts a context to the implication by the snide media (an example of which is on display here in this blog) that this is a problem exclusive to evangelical Christians. There are plenty of atheists who are bigoted against Mormons as well, but they're not getting any bad press.
As an American living in England, I can attest that bigotry is alive and well in the population here, mainly targeted at practicing Christians. You can see examples of it on the pages of the Guardian and the Independent, and yes in the 大象传媒 as well. Call it institutional bias if you like - by and large a high concentration of secular journalists forming an echo chamber, reinforcing each other's antipathy towards faith.
Can you imagine the reaction of the press and intellegentsia in Britain if a practicing Mormon stood for higher office? I think Europe should take the log out of its own eye when it comes to bigotry before removing the speck from America's.
As scary as that dude sounds he is mostly right. Mormons do have some wacky beliefs including that God was once a man, and he had a wife.
Mormons would not ordain black people until 1978, because they believed that Black people were cursed by God.
They changed their policy when the U.S. government threatened to take away their tax exempt status. Their leaders apparently got a revelation from God just before the government stepped in.
If you look at the central tenets of Mormonism it is not Christianity.
Christianity is a monotheistic religion, Mormonism is polytheistic.
To Dave, what public school in America is teaching creationism? And when did Bush call his war of terror a 'crusade'? Why is it that you guys have to lies just to justify your hatred of Bush?
Personally I do not care about what faith a candidate has as long as he has some faith and I think Romney's greatest flaw is his sacrificing of his true beliefs to win the nomination.
Oh, and as a voracious watcher of television, I never heard of Bill Keller and can only wonder why Justin Webb thought that some psycho on the internet represented the views of all Christians.
I don't see what's wrong with this evangelical's comments, although I agree it is a bit strange that he chose to attack Ann, rather than Mitt. Also, Romney's official biography says that he "switched from Harvard to BYU (a Mormon university) to follow my love, Ann", which implies that she was raised a Mormon, or at least converted to Mormonism at a very early age, so both your and the evangelist's comments are confusing.
Everything he said about Mormonism was correct. I appreciate that the use of the word "Cult" may be sound offensive to British ears, but consider the facts:
1. Mormons believe that every generation has a "Prophet", whose every word is the word of God and who meets with God, not in the spiritual sense of ordinary Christians, but in a physical way - he can see the face of God. Having a central authority figure whose word is divine and indisputable is a key indicator that an organisation is indeed a "cult".
2. Mormons believe God was once a man, who lived on a planet called Kolob, and was transported (by whom we're not told) to planet earth, where he became a God. Furthermore, they believe that Mormons who are favoured by God will be made Godly, while still remaining in the flesh, and made god of their own planet.
3. Mormons believe that the prophet Abraham experienced a revelation, where God took him up into the heavens and showed him the planet Kolob. He wrote down his vision on a papyrus. (For some reason, he decided to use Egyptian hyrogliphics, although how and why a Jewish Patriarch would choose or be able to write in Egyptian hyrogliphics has never been explained.)
This book was discovered by Joeseph Smith Jr. nearly two millenia later, when he bought it from an Irish travelling cirus owner who was passing through the American midwest. He then translated it, using a pair of magic glasses called the "Ummin and Thurim".
4. While most mainstream Christians agree with the Biblical instruction to give a tenth of their income to the Lord, most interpret this as a call to give that money to various charitable organisations. LDS members are commanded to give a tenth of their income to the LDS Church. They are also required to take out personal mortgages with the Church.
Frankly, anyone who does not regard Mormonism as a "cult" is either a Mormon or has never done any research into it.
I think the different US and UK approaches to the relationship between religion and politics says quite a lot about the two countries.
In constitutional terms, the US has a clear separation of church and state, yet its political culture is drenched in religion. On paper, the UK is a hopeless muddle of church and state (although, contrary to what some have said, the CoE is certainly not funded by the govt. or the taxpayer), yet its political culture is fiercely secular.
To generalise, I think many Americans look up to the 鈥榮criptural鈥 validity of their constitution, and in doing so take their eyes off politics as actually practiced; while the Brits rely more on an entrenched but unwritten political culture, i.e. politics as actually practiced, and (complacently?) assume that everyone will recognise the redundancies in the constitution and ignore them.
I can see advantages with both. Americans are familiar with their own constitution, know their rights, and can brandish them proudly. This is great: British individuals don鈥檛 really feel such empowerment in their relationship with the state. On the other hand, the British system privileges actual political behaviour, and leaves less room for lip-service to powerful words and totem poles. This leads to better accountability.
Hell, let鈥檚 just call it a draw.
p.s. On the Mormon vs. Christianity thing: I鈥檓 pretty sure the Bible isn鈥檛 quite so definite concerning Christ鈥檚 divinity as that bigot Keller seems to think. And what, often, is the difference between a cult and a religion but the respectability conferred by age and forgetfulness? The early Christians were a Jewish splinter group centred on the cult of personality of Jesus of Nazareth. Once you鈥檝e gone down the rabbit-hole of religious faith, the differences are immaterial.
I don鈥檛 really understand Bill鈥檚 point. He acts like the main point of his message is to get Ann to turn to Christ and recognize that he loves her and can forgive her of her sins. From Romney鈥檚 speech, and what I understand of the Mormons, it seems like they do accept Christ as their savior and turn to him to forgive them of their sins. Bill seems to be of the opinion that you can鈥檛 have false beliefs about other points of doctrine and still turn to Christ and be forgiven. That鈥檚 a tough position to take since he probably doesn鈥檛 get it exactly right on every point either.
Also, Bill鈥檚 caught up with saying that the God of the Mormons isn鈥檛 the God of the Bible. Well, it seems that there鈥檚 a large divide among other Christian religions as to whether God, Christ, and the Holy Ghost are one being or three separate beings. They can鈥檛 both be right, which means half of them don鈥檛 believe in the God of the Bible either. Seems to me Bill鈥檚 more concerned with bashing Mormons than correcting false beliefs on a general level.
One last point. Several of the posts say that Bill鈥檚 behavior is not un-Christian if he is telling the truth and then they assume he is telling the truth. Tonia Vickery astutely pointed out that the Bible makes no mention of Joseph Smith. However, the Bible also makes no mention of Bill Keller and she has no problem believing what he says about the Bible and the Mormons. The Bible also made no mention of Peter, James, John, Paul, or any of the others until they showed up in the Bible themselves. I guess I don鈥檛 understand where the rule comes from that someone has to be mentioned in the Bible before they can preach the word of God. Most biblical prophets were never spoken of before they were called of God. Anyway, I鈥檓 not trying to take sides. I鈥檝e always been skeptical of Mormons, but law school has taught me to be skeptical of everyone, critics included.
I don鈥檛 really understand Bill鈥檚 point. He acts like the main point of his message is to get Ann to turn to Christ and recognize that he loves her and can forgive her of her sins. From Romney鈥檚 speech, and what I understand of the Mormons, it seems like they do accept Christ as their savior and turn to him to forgive them of their sins. Bill seems to be of the opinion that you can鈥檛 have false beliefs about other points of doctrine and still turn to Christ and be forgiven. That鈥檚 a tough position to take since he probably doesn鈥檛 get it exactly right on every point either.
Also, Bill鈥檚 caught up with saying that the God of the Mormons isn鈥檛 the God of the Bible. Well, it seems that there鈥檚 a large divide among other Christian religions as to whether God, Christ, and the Holy Ghost are one being or three separate beings. They can鈥檛 both be right, which means half of them don鈥檛 believe in the God of the Bible either. Seems to me Bill鈥檚 more concerned with bashing Mormons than correcting false beliefs on a general level.
One last point. Several of the posts say that Bill鈥檚 behavior is not un-Christian if he is telling the truth and then they assume he is telling the truth. Tonia Vickery astutely pointed out that the Bible makes no mention of Joseph Smith. However, the Bible also makes no mention of Bill Keller and she has no problem believing what he says about the Bible and the Mormons. The Bible also made no mention of Peter, James, John, Paul, or any of the others until they showed up in the Bible themselves. I guess I don鈥檛 understand where the rule comes from that someone has to be mentioned in the Bible before they can preach the word of God. Most biblical prophets were never spoken of before they were called of God. Anyway, I鈥檓 not trying to take sides. I鈥檝e always been skeptical of Mormons, but law school has taught me to be skeptical of everyone, critics included.
Mr. Webb, Thank you for posting this interesting bit of political talk. As the campaign continues, it's easy to lose track of what "I", an evangelical Christian, am supposedly saying.
I must admit that I'd never heard of Bill Keller or his show, but I would argue that to issue this sort of direct attack is a decidedly un-Christ-like action. Especially when delivered in such a heavy-handed and holier-than-thou manner. But, I digress.
I chose to comment because I feel that if the voice of Mr. Keller and those like him are being taken as the consensus of evangelical Christians in America, then it's no wonder that I cannot seem to find a candidate that I even like, much less agree with. Despite the many candidates that claim religious affiliation of some sort (and they all do) None of them are actually willing to sacrifice their political stance/party affiliation/chance of success for their religious "beliefs". Which leads me to believe that they don't actually believe it.
All that to say, I'm am unimpressed and undecided.
three points:
1. in the video, while this so-called christian minister attacks mormons for denigrating women, he fails to acknowledge that xian fundies, which i am guessing he is, also do so by denying women their constitutional rights to fully control and direct their own lives.
among most xian fundies:
a] the man, as in the mormon faith, is the undiluted head of the household and
b] women are made to carry every pregnancy to term regardless of how conception occurred or the danger to her life.
2. as for romney making his speech at the bush41 library, this is basically a slap in the face to bush43. bush41 is much more secular and bush43 has repeatedly refused his father's advise [or those who served with bush41]. so this is a way for the father to return the favor to his son.
to the best of my knowledge, none of those who worked on bush43 campaigns are working for romney, but rather other candidates.
regardless of what is said, in a very real..and large...sense, this is bush41's endorsement of romney for presidency.
3. as for the content of romney's speech, it was duplicitous at best because it was insulting, if not demeaning, of anyone who is not specifically a christian. he showed ZERO respect for any one who questions the existence of a god or who worships multiple gods,or doesn't believe in christ.
romney has totally misinterpreted the intent of america's founding fathers. perhaps neither he nor his speech writers have actually read the constitution, or any of the founders' papers, or the research about how the constitution came to be written as it did. in fact, several of the founders, including thomas jefferson, deeply questioned the existence of a god.
the founders not only made sure that there was NO reference to any god or religion in the constitution, they decided the first amendment they wrote would be to allow everyone the freedom to practice any religion they choose without the state establishing any religion or the intervention of the state.
the founders also did not want one religion to intrude on another.
yet, romney tries to lead us to believe he will show no preference for one religion or another. are we supposed to believe he will be any better than shrub in this regard: who has been deferential to xian fundies in every possible way, including the removal of scientific evidence as it relates to disease, sex, death, and the environment.
to quote the iconic truthteller, aretha franklin: who's zooming who?
As an American, what I am most disgusted about Mr. Romney鈥檚 religious views is his religious bigotry. He is the one who said 鈥淲e need to have a person of faith lead the country鈥. So an atheist or agnostic isn鈥檛 good enough to be president? I thought there was 鈥渘o religious test to be president鈥. Or is that something Mr. Romney recently found out?
There is another saying, 鈥渢hose that live by the sward will die by it.鈥 Mr. Romney鈥檚 cheap and hypocritical attempt to play the 鈥渞eligion card鈥 in his favor doesn鈥檛 negate that he is a religious bigot. He says there is no religious test, yet he himself applies one. Selective interpretation is convenient. It allows one to deceive even oneself. Not a trait we need in any one, let alone the most powerful person in the world.
I can vote for a person of faith for president, I cannot vote for a bigot of any sort.
Sorry, forgot to add - I assume Justin described Keller's address as'unchristian' not because it is unorthodox or conflicts with scripture (which is what some here seem to think), but because he does not display some of the better Christian values - respect, love, decency, moderation, honesty, etc.
And he would be right, wouldn't he?
Keller comes across as snide, intolerant, arrogant, bigoted, disingenuous, and hateful.
The Christian right, as they say, is neither.
Re. Mormonism being 'stranger' than Christianity. This is clearly nonsense. Transubstantiation anyone? The trinity? Typological interpretations of the OT? Virgin birth? Angels? George W. Bush? Are any of these things reasonable in any way whatsoever?
These Evangelicals should have NO say in the US political process. They are completely unstable. They obsess over abortion, yet have no problem (and I mean NO problem) being gung-ho about wars... even after they're told the war was on an innocent people. Dead women and children mean nothing to them... when they're "over there." No respect for human life AFTER it's born. They scream about wanting bans on stem cell research and in the same breath try and defend the life of a woman who is a vegetable; not realizing that stem cells may one day help people like this woman. They put more effort into hate than they do into love. They're more likely to cheer on Bush to war than help the people of Darfur. They want to push "Intelligent Design" on the school system and dismiss evolution. Their causes are frivolous and are a detriment to the US. They do nothing to aid its advancement in an ever-changing world, instead, they want us to go backwards. While the rest of the globe moves forward in every way, these people want to scream about some imagined "War on Christmas." Frankly, they can't even accept what Jesus more than likely looked like, so I take the rest of their views with a grain of salt.
What is and is not Christian has become so convoluted in the US that it is an insult in some places and a name tag in others. Every day we see iconoclasm of both what is defined as Christian beliefs and how they are part of our society.
In order to understand what is Un-Christian you have to define what is Christian. In America, that definition is lost. The people of the US wear their affiliations like hats and will change them to suit their fancy.
Rich suggests that the British people, presumably through the government, somehow fund the Anglican church. This is not true and indeed I suspect there would be riots in the street if this were proposed. I thought it was interesting that Tony Blair claims to have kept his religious views quiet for fear that he would be thought "a nutter," suggesting that it would be difficult for a religious person (honest enough to admit it) to get elected. In the US the opposite would probably apply! I wonder why these ancient superstitions have lasted longer in the ex-colonies -- largely the US and sub-Saharan Africa -- than at home.
If you substituted Shia or Sunni for some of those beliefs professed in this post then I could swear I was reading about Saudi or any other intolerant middle east country.
Sean (#71)
For the sake of accuracy, while Bush didn't use the term "crusade" in his State of the Nation Speech he did use the term in public at least once. He said "This crusade, this war on terrorism is going to take a while..." on Sunday, September 16, 2001 [Jonathan Lyons, "Bush enters Mideast's rhetorical minefield " Reuters: September 21, 2001].
And as you probably know very well, creationism *is* taught in many US schools, as part of comparative religion or social studies classes, although it is not supposed to be taught as part of science classes.
It is of immense interest to note that it seems to be OK for some, such as athiests etc to be as scathing as they want to be in regard to what they term "extreme fundementalists" but such are not allowed the same latitude when they would like to make their views known.
There are a multiplicity of viewpoints but they cannot all be correct. There is only one God and one Saviour, Jesus Christ, and this one solitary figure has exercised more influence for good than any other. The point that seems to stick in the throat of the opposers of this fact is that the bible states " Neither is there salvation in any other; for there is none other Name under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved." Acts 4: 12.
As an American who lived for many years in Europe and now splits his time between the US and Europe, it never ceases to amaze me that this is what my country has become. An election for the leader of the country with the greatest ability to do both good in the world and single handedly destroy it, is centering around which church, which is meant to be separate from the state as we learned in school, is more or less legitimate. Perhaps I'm naive but it's hard to imagine a present day campaign in anywhere but the middle east having such topics being the determining factor in whether a candidate is electable.
According to most analysts the actual begining of the political power of those who take the Bible as an accurate factoid-filled history of the first few thousand years of our planet(!) was when that paragon of brotherly love, Jerry Falwell put his not unsizable support behind former actor and govenor of California, Mr. Reagan. Unfortunately getting Mr Gorbachov to "tear down that wall" (actually, I believe it crumbled) was not the only legacy of Mr. Reagan's time in office. I'm afraid many of the supporters of the so called religous right aren't making a terribly good case for what they call "intelligent design".
"by their fruit shall ye know them" why don't they just look at all the good Mormons do? Rather then just criticize their beliefs? Did you know that the Mormon Bishops don't get paid?
I was undecided on whom to vote for until this speech. I thought it was magnificent and was a good reminder of our founding fathers' own beliefs and intentions for this country.
Seriously, I just cannot understand what are all the fuss about mormon church in America? I've seen and met some of them and they are some of the nicest, kindest people around.
I've dealt with a lot of evangelical christians as well, and have seen many of their cult-like behaviors. With their xenophobic, ultra conservative political stance and intolerance to anything other than their own faith, I think they are the ones that are closer to muslim extremists.
all this talk about no joseph smith not being in "The Bible."
folks, there was no jesus christ in the old testament, the one bible that jesus believed in, the one jesus preached, the one that the christian faith is REALLY based on.
christ did NOT envision a new religion based on himself. rather his aim was to bring jews who had drifted away from practicing their religion back to judaism.
let's face it: the one MAJOR difference between judaism and any christian religion is whether jesus existed and was the savior, as the christians believe.
OR as jews believe: that jesus was an amalgam representation of many unordained jewish rabbis at the time who preached to get jews who had drifted away back to their faith, judaism. that the messiah, in any form, has not yet come.
when christianity came to be, it was treated as a cult.
when luther posted and a new religion began, it was deemed not just a cult but a heresy.
even the "catholics" have split into several factions.
there are HUNDREDS of christian, especially protestant-based, religions because of differences in interpreting the bibles, old and new, belief in saints or not, belief in direct communication with god or not, whether there should be music in churches..and what kind....
and let's not forget that henry VIII split from the "catholic" church primarily over divorce, and thus started a new religion.
as far as i am concerned, LDS is just one more christian religion.
someone once said that the difference between a cult and a religion is 100 years. [...and that 100 years was up more than 50 years ago.]
truthfully, i am concerned at the preponderance of emphasis put on religion in politics. yes, a religion can guide a person as how they will lead their lives, but so will laws, regardless of their origin. bluntly put, all laws and ALL religions are wo/man-made anyway. they are just the way one group tries to exert control, and provide people with understanding why they live as people: the meaning of life, the rules of life.
what scares me is when someone who is running for office says:
- they're not sure the earth is round;
- that they don't believe in evolution [at least 5 of the republicans candidates said yes to that in an early "debate"];
- that they don't think the environment should be cared for and protected;
- that they literally think men should be dominant over women and prevent women from having full rights and control over their own lives and bodies;
- when they believe that punishment, even murder by the state, is more important than rehabilitation;
- when they hide scientific evidence in order to promote a non-scientific agenda;
- when they think corporate profits are more important than human rights....
and contrary to the uninformed,
there were other religions before there was christianity, even before there was judaism. and let's not forget the romans, the greeks, the druids, the vikings, etc. and what of eastern religions [like hinduism, taoism, buddhism, etc.] that have very different basises. and what of islam, based on christianity & judaism but also having taken a diffrent path, in fact one more in line with mormonism in that both have more recent deity-type personnas.
if those kinds of things are based on religion and will in part be the basis for the way someone will govern, then, yes, i will care very much about the religion of the candidates.
bottom line: i think a secular america is a better america and was the very america most of the founders were aiming for.
"there has never been even a hint of a real religious war in the United States."
That first post on the page is a real whopper for Mormons.
How about the order by governor Boggs of Missouri during Joseph Smith's time to "exterminate the Mormons or drive them from our state" - followed by massacres such as Haun's Mill (Oh yeah...they forget those things in kid's US history books - but they remember mountain meadows every time).
How about when the president of the country marched an army all the way to Utah - using about 1/3 of the federal budget at the time - to "put down the Mormon rebellion" he thought was going on. (by the way, the troops got there and found nothing to do except set up a fort...most converted to Mormonism :)
I'm not sure that anyone has actually addressed the real issues that this e-preacher was trying to illuminate.
1-Did Romney claim that Mormons are Christians?
2-Are Momons Christians?
Lively discussion, but I noticed that many people comment that the religion should not impact on the candidate's political stance.
The problem is, it can and often does.
The Honorable Mr. Kerry was publicly called out by the Catholic Church for his political stand on a woman's right to choose whether or not she should carry an unwanted pregnancy to term.
I have personally witnessed, at a friend's funeral of all places, the clergy expounding on Politics.
Having lived in Utah, and participated in the politics there, I have seen the Mormon Church dangerously entertwined with the government and during one crucial vote, the threat was put out that if a particular issue at the state level did not go a certain way, the church standing of all the elected officials involved would be publicized-with the disclaimer that they meant NOTHING by such a announcement.
And even in Hawaii, the Mormon Church disrupted politics and the will of the people by infusing large amounts of cash into affecting change in issues involving the state and the voters.
I don't care if the churches get involved in guiding politics, as long as they pay taxes and submit to regulations like any other corporation or citizen.
I vote my conscience and values, but that right bears the burden of some damned high taxes.
The concern with Romney is that he will act as instructed by the Mormon Church and not as needed and expected by the American People. We already have at the head of our government one dangerous political official who believes he talks to God and does what he believes is right despite the better interests and needs of this country and the citizens that live here (and he has admitted to this).
I think what the American people want is a leader who will clearly indicate the awareness of the separation of Church and State and that election to office is not a Carte Blanche to impose religious values and religious
will on the nation's future.
To his credit, I think Mr. Romney's trying to assert this. To the credit of the American people, we are FINALLY exercising the grand tradition of not trusting anybody who is a politician.
Ahhhh people as deluded as this fella make me feel so wonderful!
Thanks for the coverage. Seriously though, Mormon, Christian, Republican? Pick your cult.
Mitt Romney has been saying for months that America needs a man of faith for the White House and now has made his much publicised speech . The problem is that he has continued his lack of transparancy with the American voters . All are agreed that Jesus is at the heart of the Christian faith . It simply is grotesque that Romney hides the fact that as a Mormon he believes that Jesus is the Devil's brother produced by a relationship between God the Father and one of his plural wives on a planet near a star called Kolob .
Another matter he will not come clean on is that he consented to the secret Mormon ceremony which representd the Christian Pastor as being in the hire and pay of Satan This is strange as he is courting the same Pastors .
Lastly why did Romney consent to the Mormon practice of baptizing dead Jewish holacaust victims in secret Mormon Temple rites ?
Mr Romney can we have some simple to goodness honesty - or is it if you were open with your views you would know that the American people would not want a man with your sort of faith .
I have stumbled across this debate by chance - and to be honest have no idea who Mitt Romney is. However I am amazed (and truly appalled) by the bigoted views expressed in the video and by some of the bloggers here. God help America! Christianity is a great religion but this has little to do with it. What you see here is small town self-righteuosness and ignorance masquerading as faith. It ain't the same thing, cowboys!
Everything that I just watched was unChristian. The same people who would watch Jerry Springer are the same ones who would watch this guy. He is downright cruel in his speech of Ann. The Romney family radiates strength, loyalty, Christianity, love, and virtue. There are a lot better people in the spotlight to pick on than Mrs. Romney. How uneducated of this man. He needs to be a bit more subtle so that people cannot see what his intentions really are. It is people like this who start fights and divides with others. How shameful and pathetic. Do not throw stones if you live in a glass house. He is obviously scared of Ann and what she represents to him.
If everyone left Romney's religion alone he would not need to talk about it or clarify it to confused people, who clearly dont want to understand the doctrines of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Its just a way people use to try and attack him, discredit him. Why dont they just attack his policies. If his policies are fundermental then attack them like politions do! The 'christain' way according to the bible is to love your neighbour as yourself, Christ certianly didnt go and question and badger the pharisee's. Let every man worship how were and what they may.
I think it has been explained before members of The Church of Jesus Christ of latter-day Saints try to live a christlike life. Everyone makes mistakes and no one is perfect. People have agency to choose, choose to find out what 'mormons believe' or take someone elses word for it, choose to let a mans religious beliefs effect their vote, or where to choose to listen to a mans governmental policies and vote on those!
As a European evangelical I fully agree with Bill Keller, and with post 72, that Christianity and Mormonism are quite different things.
I can't see why Bill Keller should be called "unchristian" just for stating in words that simple truth.
Bill Keller has the right to challenge mormonism, just as anybody has the right to challenge ideas with which he/she disagrees.
When an anti-nuclear ecologist challenges the ideas of the supporters of nuclear energy, do you call him/her "unecological" ? But when a Christian (Bill Keller) challenges Mormon theology, you call him "unchristian". I think I know why: it's because you think that a Christian, having to be charitable to all beings and ideas, is therefore not allowed to state openly that he disagrees with anyone or anything.
anon said that mormons "are also required to take out personal mortgages with the Church". 100% wrong. Well not unless the Church owns the Woolwich with whom we had a mortgage. We all need to be aware of wolves dressed as lambs.
Mormonism is indeed truly laughable. It is not evil, nor even horrible, just ridiculous. Did you know that Joseph Smith, founder of the church, managed to shoot and kill some members of the lynch mob that came for him? Some Saint! The list of absurd things mormons believe is not short. But there is no reason at all why they can't beleive things or should be abused for them. The list of things Catholics believe is also quite odd.
The best answer to this whole question was given by JF Kennedy and his speech is watchable online. It's a great pity he had to make it but it should have settled the issue for all time.
Mormons are nice and ethical people whose main fault is being too trusting (Utah is the world capital of various kinds of frauds). Otherwise, the fact that they believe in some wacko ideas is irrelevant if the constitutional prinicples espoused by Kennedy are upheld.
All this just confirms to me that we got it right in Europe when we bundled all the religeous extremeists in one boat (the Mayflower) and pushed it off. As an aside, Americans don't realize that many in Europe also celebrate Thanksgiving, in our case it is giving thanks that they didn't come back!
I can understand why this fellow is upset, people are mixing up his religion with another distinctly different faith. One of the Bible's authors, Paul of Tarsus, goes bezerk over much smaller breaches of doctrine, passionately rebuking the perpetrators. Keller himself said it was fine if she wanted to follow a faith in which he did not believe, so he's not "intolerant", but he wouldn't stand for her mixing up faiths. I think that's reason enough to be upset, and I don't think being upset over religious differences is anything most Brits will be able to understand, anyway.
Bill Keller? Who he? I have never heard of him, but Mr Keller's remarks and attitude would appear to reflect more upon himself than Gov. Romney's beliefs.
This personalized 'attack' would appear to reveal more about Mr Keller's fears and faith than about Gov. Romney's faith and his politics. Does it really matter that much if the next President of the United States of America is a Mormon, a Catholic or an athiest? We might all like to think he will represent our personal morals exactly, but is it not more important is that he is a force for good and can represent the nation as a whole, whatever your personal belief.
Get a grip on yourself Mr. Keller. Let Gov. Romney state his (political) case for President and the people will decide in the ballot box.
Bring back the age of reason! All religion is ludicrous, the only difference is the society and legal systems where it is practiced. In a secular society like New Zealand or Denmark religious disputes cause general amusement, whereas in a theocratic state it can and does cause carnage and death (look at the killings sanctioned by "God" in Iran).
I know for one where I would prefer to live, but never fool yourself into believing that the intolerant will tolerate other beliefs unless they have to. In that, the founders of the US constitution, truly understood human nature.
Bill Keller for President! His presidential platform might be "Bringing the world together through my own personal Jesus."
So Mormonism is a "cult" because it has "wacky" beliefs. Let鈥檚 see, Catholics worship Marry and believe statues of her bleed. Or when taking the sacrament the bread and water actually turn into Christ flesh (yuk). Hmmm, that鈥檚 not wacky at all. Evangelicals are wacky by virtue of Keller. And most of the responses by Evangelicals are down right stupid (like Joseph Smith is irrelevant because he鈥檚 not in the Bible, never mind he lived 1800 years after Christ death). I am sorry but the credibility of Evangelicals (born agains, ect) was lost 8 years ago with Bush. I don鈥檛 know how anyone can take them seriously. Evangelicals have problems with Mormon beliefs and Mormons have a problem with Evangelicals and their beliefs. No resolution to this will be found in the near future, get over it. Your wrong and I am right, blah blah blah.
I am a fairly open minded person and if you had asked me 10 years ago whether it was right to ask a candidate his religeous beliefs I would have said "no". In a post 9/11, post George Bush world I have to say that it is a fair question. If a person is running for county dog catcher, maybe not. When he is being given the "keys to the kingdom" and the power to destroy the world, I say absolutely. I have known many mormons and could easily vote for one but if you want the job of "most powerful person in the world" then no information about you is out of bounds.
What if we're all talking about the same God but describing her differently, or giving her different names? For example, when you go to the beach, do you see the big blue ocean, or the great green sea?
Is there any good reason to express disrespect for another person because of their spiritual perspective?
Mitt Romeny, sir, is no JFK, and shall never be.
For one thing, he probably doesn't sleep with every woman that crosses his path like ol' Jack did.
Of course, wouldn't that be great if someone would manage to unearth some salacious bit of gossip linking him with some saucy Miss America?
I am formerly of the Mormon faith myself. I converted from Catholicism to Mormonism as a young adult during a particularly stressful period of my life (it was actually quite cultish the way they went after me), I then left the Church behind after realizing what horrendously sexist and insane principals they hold. The hypocrisy did me in. As a young convert girl at BYU, I was living the gospel more than the Mormonettes that I roomed with. Plural wives? Nothing compared to the underground sex and booze parties these "religious fanatics" held. That woudln't have been too bad, except for the sex, which was unprotected because the folk say "spontaneous sex" not as sinful as planned sex.
My best friend got pregnant that way, did not want the child, and proceeded to try and self-abort through some ignorant old wives tale passed amongst the Mormon girls. It didn't work, got her severely ill, and she ended up having the child because her family would've disowned her and told her she would be kept out of the Heavenly Kingdom if she were to abort OR give up the child. BTW, the baby's father's best friend called the family and ratted on her. Wonderful Christians.
And yes, they ARE Christians (thus, the name Church of JESUS CHRIST of Latter Day Saints). They do believe in the Lord albeit with some strange precepts along the way.
I find this Church to be an abomination to the true God, as much as I find Evangelicals to be the same abomination. God looks down on us and weeps for the insanity we've demonstrated, especially in the past 8 years with GWB. I hope and pray that we do not have to tolerate more religious fanatacism in the future.
I am a Christian myself, and I agree in part with this particular Bill Keller broadcast but agree more with Justin Webb's label of un-Christian behavior. The message of Jesus' love is true and the definition of "Christianity" is found in the Bible. Keller delivers this message, but only after maliciously attacking Ann for a straight 4 minutes. At best this will only turn Ann and others cold to the gospel - even if that message is one of pure love.
I am a British 'Mormon', I've been practising all my life, and firstly I want anyone who sees this video to understand that there are deliberate lies and misrepresentations being told. There are some references here to our actual doctrine but he is not accurately portraying what we believe or practice. Like other members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day-Saints we revere, honour and study the Bible and I can assure any confused Christian or non-believer that our brand of Christianity fits the Bible every bit as well as Mr Kellers does, we just don't fit HIS definition of Christianity (which appears to be a narrow definition indeed).
As for Romney, it would be nice to see him really defend his faith against men like Keller but I realise that could do more harm than good, so he must 'turn the other cheek'. I liked what a previous poster here said about looking at Utah - it's been successfully run by Mormons for over a century so they are no strangers to governing. I really hope Romneys faith does not prevent the mainstream Christian right from supporting him, though I am pessimistic on this.
theres nothing that justin likes better than to stir a little religious controversey, look at the number of posts to such.keller is hardly that abbrasive when compared to many other american commentators, religious or secular and actually what he says about mormonism is standard christian response (read the section about mormonism in"the kingdom of the cults" by walter martin) as a christian and a keen observer of the upcoming presidential campaign the first thing that struck me about romney was his disengenuiness and his obvious flip-flopping in order to appeal to the christian right unlike guliani who stood his ground on gay issues and abortion and other candidates like huckerbee who hasnt had to change his stance this will count against romney in january. by the way whose been asking the questions about candidates religious positions? why its none other than the liberal, secular media.
This is too funny. Seriously, Christains? Mormons? is this the dark ages or 2007? I think it's about time some seriously responsible people were speaking out against ANY religion in regards to politics. Stop feeding the baby!
Nuts on the road!!!
:o)
Too bad we didn't save the master tape of the 1960 Kennedy/Nixon campaign. We could have just played it back and saved ourselves the trouble of going through all of this again. Intolerance seems to be a timeless commodity.
Justin - I would encourage you to do more homework sir. As a writer for the 大象传媒, I would assume that you may want to study the foundational beliefs of Evangelical Christianity first before assuming that someone's comments are "un-Christian". John Stott's book "Basic Christianity" (he is from All Souls Church in your home country) would be a good place to start. Then read a history of the Mormon church or perhaps even the book of Mormon and you will find that the posted Utube video is actually factually accurate. Then ask yourself whether it is un-Christian for someone to point out the truth or whether it is un-Christian to call a public figure out when they are distorting or twisting the truth. Perhaps you might examine your own bias (I assume we all have some bias of course) and determine whether your commentary is truly un-biased or just a gloss based on a weak understanding of both Christianity and Mormonism and the fact that they are truly incompatible religions...
Ironically, the UTube video posted is an honest and accurate defense of the Christian viewpoint and if sincere, represents a loving plea (from a Christian viewpoint) for Mrs. Romney - based on the best thing she could have - the salvation of her own soul.
Respectfully yours in S.C. - MR
Elbeau #85
"How about when the President...put down the Mormon rebellion."
Yes but it was 2500 Missouri state militia.
"As a result of the war, 2,500 Missouri militia troops were called out to put down the Mormon "rebellion." Smith and other church leaders were imprisoned in Liberty, Missouri and the majority of the Latter Day Saints were deprived of their property and expelled from the state"
That was one of our bigger religious wars, we've all heard the story about a million times how the Mormons were chased out of New York from pillar to post, from Ohio to Illinois, to Missouri, to Nebraska finally landing in the promised land in Utah, what was it around 150 years ago? Looks like the "war" was mostly a series of minor skirmishes due to friction with local residents rather than anything resembling a real war. How many people died? How many casualties were there. C'mon, you can do better than that, race and ethnic hatred killed far more people in the US than religion ever did. Why not bring that up to assuage the justifiable inferiority complex Europeans have about their civilization when they compare it to America's? We are a very different people, our human biology is about all we have in common and don't let those politicians tell you otherwise. There are no special relationships and when you get right down to the nitty gritty of it, no common values either. BTW, if you want to talk about real religious wars, why don't we bring up the ones Europe fought for over 2000 years and when will they end? There's a good one going on in the Balkins right now (when hasn't it?)
Dave #97
"giving thanks that they (Americans) didn't come back."
Then please tell me why Europeans keep coming here and wanting to come here. Why not spread the word and maybe you will change their minds? For each European who doesn't want to come but could have, we can legally accept one more Asian, African, or Latin American who does. We like the wretched refuse because that's where WE ALL came from ourselves. Except for about a million "Native Americans" we all trace our histories back to people who were considered human trash by their own societies. Then don't be surprised when we act up to your expectations. Your society has no say in what we think or do because you do not know what is best for us, you don't even know much about us and besides, there is nothing you or anyone else can do about it anyway except gawk and rant like helpless children on the outside.
What you may not realize is that there is tremendous "push back" in the US against religion. Even the GAP (retail store) has removed the word, "Christmas", from its advertising. People are afraid to mention "Christmas" for fear of offending those who don't celebrate it.
Secularists becoming offended because Christmas is mentioned? Think about that.
Haven't secularists become like zealots, themselves, if they cannot tolerate any reference to Christmas?
I am very disturbed at the religious fundamentalism that has arose not only within the Muslim religion but in Christianity within the United States. The US, a nation that seemes to be an advocate against the religious funamentalism we see and hear about in the Middle East, should therefore set example and be an advocate for tolerance of other cultures, religion ect. And I thought the seperation between Church and State happened a hundred years ago? And..why are we going back in time with bigotry, racism and xenephobic attitudes? The events in our history that are celebrated are the events where we become more tolerant of other peoples and achieved peaceful relations through diplomacy.
Comment #72. I am a Mormon and you are wrong. Like the guy in the little flick above, you take part-truths and make them into scary false-hoods.
Mormons believe that if you live right here on the earth, you spend eternity growing and progressing and becoming more perfect like God.
Mormons believe marriage is eternal and beautiful and that having children is the most wonderful thing we can ever do. We love our families. Motherhood is the greatest partnership with God anyone can have so it is the greatest blessing any woman could have.
Mormons believe God still talks to man just like he did in the Bible. He loves His children as much today as he did in the Old and New Testament, so we have a prophet.
Mormons believe in serving and giving to those around them.
Mormons believe in tithing. It isn't required but it will bring blessing if you pay it.
An American Jewish journalist made the same point in Tuesday's Washington Post:
Un-Mormon, Unchristian
Richard Cohen | Mike Huckabee says he's a Christian leader, but he's really a shameless follower.
For those who disagree with the use of un-Christian, let me put it plainly. The video's tone is insulting, the language is pejorative, and the representations are distortions.
Hardly Christian behavior, despite the vain invocation of God's love.
"never been a hint of a real religious war in America"????
It was illegal for Native Americans to practice their religious rites until the 1900's.
What I think was unchristian was simply the malicious and disrespectful way Mr Keller pointed out the differences he sees between Mormonism and what most consider "Christian". He does have much of the doctrine technically correct, but it was delivered in such a nasty, mocking way. His attitude is unchristian.
I was raised in a Mormon family, but no longer subscribe to Mormon beliefs; the doctrine now seems absurd to me. But having grown up with Mormon doctrine, I can assure you they actually do believe they ARE Christian because their faith is centered around Christ. Therefore, Mrs Romney isn't intentionally deceiving anyone. She is honestly stating what she believes, whether Mr Keller regards her statements as true or not.
There is certainly nothing wrong with pointing out the difference between one set of beliefs and another, which Mr Keller did. But, yes, I believe the way this speech was delivered was decidedly unchristian.
1. There were Christians long before the Bible existed so how can Biblical Fundementalists think they have the right of it?
2. The Anglican Church is totally congregationally funded in both its buildings and its clergy at all levels. Their pay is meagre so why would they do it if not 'mission minded'?
Why is it that when someone says he used to be a Mormon but left the church, he's treated like an junkie who had the backbone to quit cold turkey? I was a fire-breathing, proselyting atheist for 15 years, then became a Mormon. So what? Do you people have so little to do with your lives that you can devote so much time to condemning the beliefs of people who mean you no harm? Jeeze! Get a dog to kick, or something!
Religion does not guarantee decency as a human being, nor does atheism preclude it. An atheist can be a fine person by the same means as a religious person, ie, by deciding how to behave, then living his principles. A Christian must consciously decide, every day, to follow Christ's commandments. An atheist must decide, every day, to do whatever he thinks is right. I'd much rather live next door to an atheist who has spent thousands of hours in study and contemplation than some jackleg preacher who thinks Christ was a Christian!
And for the record, about 98% of what is written herein about Mormon doctrine is baloney. Someone posted the first article of faith of the church, and I defy anyone to find the sin in those words. As Christ said, "By their fruits you shall know them," and I submit that the LDS church - not every single member of it, but the church and its doctrine - have produced much good.
As for whether it's a mainstream church, well, the Baptist who threatened to kill me for my beliefs a few years ago was a member of one of more than 300 Baptist sects. No president of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints ever collaborated with Hitler. Some of y'all point to a few flakey or criminal Mormons and damn the Church, but if I point to about a zillion pervert preachers in other faiths, well, I shouldn't judge those churches by their leadership.
I'm truly thankful to Mr. Webb for hosting this discussion. I was thinking of selling my battle rifle, but I think maybe I'll keep it. Seems there's a lot more mindless hatred than I suspected.
And by the way, the President doesn't make law, so Mitt or Hillary, either one will have a devil of a time outlawing anything. It's in that Constitution thingie. Maybe you heard of it.
I watched the tape with a mixture of distaste and disbelief. I thought that dodos like this man had gone out of business years ago. They have in the U.K. and most of their churches have closed.
Actually Kennedy said it all. Surely all that matters is that at the end of the day all that matters is that the United States, or any other country to that matter, elect someone who will do a good job for the country and the majority of the citizens.
By the way I tried to explain how the American system worked to a Spanish friend of mine. He could not believe it. A somewhat sanitized version of his response was. You mean they spend all that time and all that money and still come up with someone like G.W. Bush - lets have another beer.
Personally, I've had my fill of God fearing, Jesus loving, Bible thumping, Israel supporting, self-righteous Christian politicians! I'd like to be able to vote for a candidate who believes in our Constitution,& separation of church & state. Not another zealot, who blindly uses America's power trying to bring about the "Second Coming"!
It does take an very large effort on (mostly by the supreme court) to say that the us constitution seperates church and state.
The 1st amendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...". It only limits congress not the executive or the states (some of which maintained state religions well into the 19th century).
Its only by claim that the 14th Amendment (equal protection clause) somehow extends the 1st amandment to all public bodies was used in the middle of the 20th century to restict religious activies supported by state and local bodies
The idea of seperation of church and state is a monument to judicial activisim not the bill of rights
I ask everyone to remember that in a society where we have the freedom to say what we want, in most cases, there will always be people who wish to degradate what another believes or says. As a country we love to be right, we love to hear ourselves speak. Well I think that the Romneys have been in the political world long enough that this is just another day, and just another guy making noise. Believe me when I say that most people will not care what this guy says.
I find it commendable that Mister Romney does not want to become the "spokesperson" for the Mormon faith. He shouldnt have to, they have missionaries for that. But once again I want to remind the world, that as Christians, we come from a cult, albeit a very successful one.
I am so glad I'm a Pagan!
Odd that he's so obsessed with the Mormons, saying they're "Non-Christian", but where does he stand on the israel/Palestine situation? Surely jews and muslims are non-christian, so does that mean he's not going to allow a jew or muslim (or hindu or bhuddist, for that matter) to have any influence in american politics? For a nation built on the values of tolerace and free speech the USA has fallen so low I doubt that Thomas jefferson would even recognise it!
I had to watch that video a couple of times it was so funny! Seriously, who is this guy? I've never heard of him before.
I thought his "faux-sincere" face was great. The way he looked straight at the camera and deliberately furrowed his brow like a condescending head-teacher. Hilarious! At the end of his rant, I was just waiting for him to deliver a Trump-esque, "You're fired!"
God, I miss British politics sometimes. I miss the way Brits naturally distance themselves from the political train wreck with some sort of instinctive survival mechanism. Over here, on the other hand, all the nutters jump aboard with a megaphone and party-on down, while everyone else takes them seriously! Amazing.
I still love this country though.
I am commenting on post #6, from Tonia Vickery, I am in absolute agreement with what you have stated Tonia. Mr. Keller is probably showing more Christian love than most will give him credit for, he is showing that he cares enough for this woman, to put himself in the front row, telling her of the REAL JESUS. I know that our Bible may have a lot of untold attributes, but it was NOT written in the 19th century to cover the sin in the authors' lives. I submit to all, Jesus IS LORD and if you can make this statement, you WILL be saved, and any one who will take this stand cares for all who haven't.
I am not a Mormon but I have met many in my life and have gotten to know some of them well. I have never seen one shred of evidence to suggest that they represent even the slightest threat to American society, American values, or American freedom. And I have never seen any evidence that Mitt Romney has ever let his religion in any way overtly influence his discharge of his responsibility in public office and neither has anyone else or it would have been splashed all over the media by now. BTW, I do not support Mitt Romney because I do not agree with his political views and that is the only reason.
Anyone visiting Salt Lake City would do well to visit the remarkable Mormon Tabernacle and listen to a concert by the 300 voice Choir. It is one of the greatest choral groups in the world and all of the singers are non professional musicians. It's one of America's great musical treasures. It's also the place to trace your geneology if you are interested. They undoubtedly have ammassed the largest database of this subject anywhere. They consider it part of their religous calling. Jihads are not.
Is this the same constitution G.W. just disregarded & tried changeing in the name of Jebus?
My Gods' bigger than yours!
Right?!!
When the ignorant speak with authority the whole world suffers. Anyone who preaches anything OTHER than tolerance, compassion, acceptance, forgiveness and love has no business labeling themselves a Christian. The only people Jesus was ever truly angry with, according to the New Testament, were the GREEDY and the SELF-RIGHTIOUS. Sadly our country (USA), which is supposed to be tolerant of all religous beliefs, is being taken over by these False Christians. We're no better off than any other country wrestling with self-appointed, hate-filled religious leaders and their blind followers. Historically our world's worse atrocities have been made in the name of GOD. I can't imagine our creator is pleased with that! Just think what we all could accomplish if those of us who refuse to believe such drivel would unite across the world...!
To answer Justin's question (comment # 3), I was born here in America and I had never heard of the name Bill Keller until today. Needless to say I don't watch him.
Amazing yet true. In the US we allow tax exempt status for the likes of bill keller while the world and the US are worried about radical Islam? How about radical religious bigots across the spectrum of all religions? Tax them and hold them to the same proofs as scientists. That鈥檚 what Jesus would do.
"... Ann, whose father was from Wales, and was presumably not a Mormon."
I have no idea whether or not he was a Mormon. However, I'd hesitate to presume that he was not. Many Mormons came from Wales, having been converted by missionaries there.
Is anyone really surprised by this?, Christianity justified slavery, relegated Native Americans to a sub-Human category, and justified the "convert-or-die" method here in the Americas.
Also, Protestantism was highly involved with the Klu Klux Klan both in recruting and in "activity" within the past 100 years...
So I ask again, does this REALLY surprise anyone?
Okay, followup after research: Ann is indeed a convert, at Mitt's urging. However, Keller makes the implication that her family's religion was "Biblical Christianity", which seems contradicted by a Deseret News article* saying her father's "rejection of organized religion ran deep".
* "Mitt Romney: the beginning", by Neil Swidey, July 1, 2007.
Someone in an earlier post said that there is a push back against religion in the USA, using GAP ads as their proof because the ads no longer mention Christmas. What hooey, what asonishing ignorance too! It couldn't be further from the truth.
The change is not because secularists have pushed back at all. The reason Gap and other companies have begun using the term Holidays instead of Christmas is purely for business reasons. They have become much more aware that this is an increasingly multicultural country with people of many religions and backgrounds, not all of whom celebrate Christmas. That is why Gap, like many other companies, is careful to use models of all backgrounds in its ads and in store photographs so as to reflect more accurately its customer base.
Calling the December/New Years period "the holidays" is far more inclusive and more acurate in modern day America. It is a business decision, just as sensible a one as using models of every race and color, instead of just blue eyed blondes.
I'm a Mormon living in Salt Lake City...but I'm not going to vote for Romney. I don't care if he's a Mormon or someone who offers blood sacrifices to vacuum cleaners. I'm a Democrat who doesn't agree with his policies, and that's that.
I'm not even going to touch what was said in the comments by people who THINK they know what Mormon doctrine is, though, because most of it is, quite frankly, untrue.
Be that as it may, the stupidity in that video was...astounding, in a word. Oh, the lunatic fringe. You make the rest of Christianity (and yes, members of the LDS Church ARE Christians, thanks) look bad.
This man has obviously forgotten about the Golden Rule. If he is going to do unto others what he wants them to do unto him...maybe I should just go around slandering his Evangelical faith and calling it a cult. See how it makes him feel.
First, as an American, the fact that Romney felt there was a need to make this speech in the first place is deeply saddening. I grew up believing that ours was a country that accepted differences in belief, not one where representing a major political party meant catering to the ignorant and malicious.
While Romney's speech was well-written and well-delivered, I don't see it making an impact. If the fundamentalists want to play a game of 'holier-than-thou,' anyone who doesn't follow their specific, exclusivist, and hate-filled doctrines doesn't have a shot.
Secondly, judging from the Mormons personally known to me, if their behavior isn't what Jesus was talking about, I have no idea what the man taught. Just making different interpretations and accepting different texts doesn't change the fact that the LDS produces some exceptional people.
If Ted Haggard, Benny Hinn, or Kent Hovind are any example of what the fundamentalist Christians are about, I think I know who I'd rather have as president.
I've never seen Bill Keller's program, and I usually avoid televangelists anyway, but any comment criticizing his intolerance is not founded. I counted at least two occasions during this segment that he told Anne Romney that it was fine with him if she wanted to believe that. Mr. Keller's request was primarily for Mrs. Romney not to lie about what she believes. Mormonism is quite different from Protestant Christianity, and Mr. Keller was just asking that such a point be made clear.
The claims against Mr. Keller's actions being unchristian I feel are also unfounded, if we are defining Christian in any kind of biblically historical way. On many occasions the apostles of the New Testament regularly exposed and opposed false teachers that lied to the people (the book of Galatians focuses centrally on this theme) and this is precisely what Mr. Keller was doing
As a Catholic, I think that Mormonism is very different than what I believe to be orthodox Christianity; as an American, I find moderate, charitable Mormons much easier to live alongside than rude, crude, sensationalist Evangelicals like Mr. Keller.
The separation of church and state is a mainstay of the American political system. Arguably it is one of the few things that really works in the whole machine.
The main problem is that while politicians are forbidden from making judgements based upon religion, religious leaders have no such thing restricting them, save a command from this book they claim to have read to be "no part of this world."
It is fairly common for high profile religious leaders to aid in the mud-slinging just like we saw in the video above, and it is disgaceful. Not only is it not becoming of a man of the cloth to stoop to that level, but it also muddys the issues voters need to be concentrating on.
As as example, have we seen any data on Milt Romney's governance of the commonwealth of Massachusets? Missed the memo on that too, eh? Whether Mormons are Christian or not is not an issue. How he did at governing a state is vital in determining his qualifications for running this country.
Want to end political evangelism from the pulpit? The next religious leader that attacks or endorses any candidate should lose the recognition of his ordination.
Any church which retains him as their leader ceases to be a religious organization since he is no longer a minister, and therefore the church is no longer eligable for the tax excemption they currently enjoy. Now, pay Ceasar's tax to Caesar.
This "undue burden", as it would doubtless be called, is simple cause and effect. Undermine one of the basic pillars of our governmental system, you will lose it's support. The church must now either pay taxes like any other business or choose a minister that will play by the rules.
...And for the record: I am an ordained minister.
Why do Mormons consumate their marriages in the Temple? The mormons believe in life on other planets. When Mormons die they become Gods themselves of other planets in the universe. Read the book of Mormon. In the 1800s Mormons had bounties on them in several US states. the Missouri law read something like. "If one comes upon Mormons in the wilderness you can do with them what you will." America has always been separated into a us against them mentality. Thats why there have been only two political parties for so long. Real politics requires compromise. When only two groups are represented, one will always feel cheated. Real governments have multiple viable parties. Not much gets done, but that is a blessing in disguise. Humans react poorly to change.
Justin,
As an American living in London, I think the best way to give your readers an appreciation of what all the fuss is about regarding Romney's religion is to draw an analogy to the UK: What would be the reaction among the British press or 大象传媒 if, say, a Scientologist wanted to stand for Prime Minister? A similar question that is more rooted in existing UK law, specifically the Act of Settlement of 1701; would the Parliment allow for someone to remain in the line of succession to the throne if they had married a Roman Catholic? History as recently as 1988 points otherwise.
Thus while a Brit might not have a similar emotional reaction as a Yank to a Mormon possibly being US President, it is clear there would be strong emotional reactions in the UK if either of the above 2 scenarios were to transpire - it is certain that some bigots in the UK would come out of the woodwork onto YouTube(e.g. whose effigy is burnt with Guy Fawkes' in Lewes every fifth of November?)
Justin Webb, I'm just curious: would you consider Jesus Christ (as recorded in the 4 canonical gospels) to be demonstrating un-Christian behavior when he made himself a whip and forcibly drove out people buying and selling animals for sacrifices in the temple grounds, and scattered the money and brought the commerce to a stop? To the ignorant, Jesus Christ was probably very "un-Christian".
Mormons are no more a cult than good old Bill Kellar and his little band of so called Christians which sect does he come from, I would not have a clue maybe they are connected to the ones who fought the Crusades or persecuted the Puritans or Catholics in England. But what I do know is that Jesus is the Christ and that the Book Mormon is another witness to the Bible that Jesus is the Christ and that Joseph Smith is the latter day prophet to restore the lost gospel.This is the Truth but it is not really the issue for Mitt Romney to discuss because thats his personal belief.Economics and foreign policy and all other issues are more important than his religion.
If there is a separation of church and state in the USA why is abortion such a big deal? Politicians in the USA have hidden agenda's, unambigious liberal with the truth whenever it may suit their purpose and in it for their own fame and fortune with few exemptions.
The presidential election which is going to cost over a billion dollars should be considered the world's most expensive dog and pony show.
All these dollars are tax deductible and buys the donors power and future business deals like republicans donors who benefitted from the war in Iraq. The americans would be wise to adopt the french presidential election system.
"Calling the December/New Years period "the holidays" is far more inclusive and more acurate in modern day America. It is a business decision, just as sensible a one as using models of every race and color, instead of just blue eyed blondes."
Talk about hooey! Thanks for making my point for me. That people feel "left out" because a major religious holiday is celebrated reflects their own misguided emotions.
And, if you truly value accuracy, the more accurate position would be to acknowledge the majority who celebrate Christmas.
I must agree with Bill Keller about the Mormon Cult! In the scriptures, we see all too clearly:
Romans 1:18-21
(18) For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hinder the truth in unrighteousness;
(19) because that which is known of God is manifest in them; for God manifested it unto them.
(20) For the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, even his everlasting power and divinity; that they may be without excuse:
(21) because that, knowing God, they glorified him not as God, neither gave thanks; but became vain in their reasonings, and their senseless heart was darkened.
Whenever an advocate of one religion attacks the dogma of another religion, thoughts of kettles and pots come to mind. The Garden of Eden in Missouri? Men having their own universe to rule after death? Wacky stuff, indeed. But, more so than the virgin birth or resurrection? I don鈥檛 think so. And what about Mr. Keller鈥檚 accusations of oppression of women? I grew up around Mormons and know first-hand about the second-class status of Mormon women. But are they treated badly by their men? Not at all. Let鈥檚 look at the tally when it comes to burning women to death for practicing witchcraft. Mormonism: 0; mainstream Christianity: Hundreds of thousands? Millions? Mr. Keller should be careful where he throws his stones.
I have been told many times, by people on "both sides of the issue" that I cannot be gay AND Christian, that the very statement is a contradiction in terms. I disagree with them and I disagree with any who contend a Mormon calling themselves Christian is in error. I claim the right to define, describe and explain myself in any way I wish and so I extend that privilege to others as well. A Hindu friend of mine once explained to me that he was indeed Christian for along with his Hindu beliefs he also believed in Christ and considered himself Christ's follower. Perhaps when someone calls themselves Christian it is about their faith walk and not about your definitions.
I don't get what all the fear and trembling about Mormonism is for. Who cares what someone believes personally, it's what they DO that matters. I lived in Utah for over a decade and found the people there kind, community oriented, welcoming, normal trying to live decent lives. That's more than can be said for a lot of other people. If they treat others well and kindly, what difference does it make what they believe? Frankly, after listening to the hate-filled Bill Keller video, I'd be much more frightened of him than a Mormon!
Listening to these blowhards argue on television about what constitutes a "real Christian" just reminds us that religion is blasphemy.
Who is Bill Keller? What an idiot. Makes a great case for atheism though - after listening to his claptrap, it's enough to make any thinking person of faith (the key word is "thinking")question the validity of the evangelical mission - I won't vote for Romney because of his faith (or lack thereof) but because I disagree with his politics and his flipflopping, seize the platitude approach in addressing the critical issues that this nation is facing.
Reading thru all the posts the remarks made by Jean on Dec.6 make the most sense to me.I myself am liberal yet at the same time more Christian in my practices than these Preachers.Bill Keller is more an example of conservatism than Christianity.
Also as a female there is one other way of defining a conservative(which religion doesn't matter)that I have not seen discussed.They all seem to want to dominate females as a lesser species under complete control of males.Why would any woman vote for this?
In response to a poster's question, speaking as an American, guys like this don't represent most Americans. I would optimistically say that Americans are moving away from their zealous belief in pre-Enlightenment-style religion and their rejection of reason, logic, and science. I spent years in Utah surrounded by Mormons and it did strike me as fairly cultish--but I'm an atheist, and most religions do.
As an atheist, I feel so comfortable in the fact that I hold all religions, especially christianity, in such very low esteem.
While I don't support Mr. Romney or his party, it occurs to me that, as a member of a religious minority, perhaps he understands the reason for separation of church and state better than a member of a more mainstream religion.
I'm a little surprised that this video was used as a means to express a Christian's point of view. Did you see the film quality? It looks like one of those videos that only gets 9 views during its entire lifespan on the internet. But since it's now on the 大象传媒 website, the chances of it being seen have drastically changed.
If I planned to write a research paper (or even a persuasive paper) on Christianity, I seriously doubt that I would use this video as a source, because so few people had ever heard of Bill Keller prior to this 大象传媒 article. Oftentimes, being widely known equates credibility. Judging from the previous posts, no one knows who Bill Keller is (even Christians).
What he said is a simplified understanding of Mormonism (and therefore disturbing to those who understand Mormonism as Mormons teach it.) However, he is in charge of protecting his flock; what is incredible to note is that so many people accuse him of stupidity while having no grasp of Mormonism or its distinct teachings. I suppose it makes sense since most people do not agree much to religious talk that shares its negative summation of another religion but it would be foolish to suppose that such terms as "cult" are used to refer to the non-believers of one's own beliefs. Few Protestant Christians would refer to Buddhism, Catholicism (though some do here), Hinduism or Islam "cults" while there is a general consensus among Christians (Catholics include) that Mormonism is indeed a cult.
Maybe we're getting bogged down with jargon here - whether it's a 'cult' or somethnig else, the differences between Mormonism and Christianity are too vast for it to be called another branch of the Christian church. You can't take a religion, fundamentally change all it's core values and beliefs, then say it's still the same thing.
As for what's unchristian about the video, maybe the guy could have been more measured in the way he presented it. But he's absolutely right in pointing out that a Mormon isn't a Christian. You don't become a Christian by doing good works, but by accepting God's unmerited gift of salvation through Jesus Christ.
Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints believe the Book of Mormon to be Scripture. This does mean that their faith isn't just another routine Protestant denomination. Acknowledging a fact isn't bigotry, but certainly people can be bigoted against non-Christians and against those they see as not-quite-Christians.
Less marked cases of this sort of thing in the Christian world might include Christian Science or Seventh-Day Adventism, denominations in which the founders' writings play an important role, without being treated as Scripture.
And, of course, there have been no recent headlines to my recollection of Christian Scientists being threatened with death because of being considered not to be real Christians. I would that Ahmadiyya Muslims were so fortunate.