Politics, religion don't mix

The Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) is often accused by Evangelical pastors of not believing in Christ and, therefore, not being a Christian religion. This article http://mormonsarechristian.blogspot.com/ helps to clarify such misconceptions by examining early Christianity's comprehension of baptism, the Godhead, the deity of Jesus Christ and His Atonement.

The Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) adheres more closely to First Century Christianity and the New Testament than any other denomination. For example, Harper’s Bible Dictionary entry on the Trinity says “the formal doctrine of the Trinity as it was defined by the great church councils of the fourth and fifth centuries is not to be found in the New Testament.”

One Baptist blogger stated “99 percent of the members of his Baptist church believe in the Mormon (and Early Christian) view of the Trinity. It is the preachers who insist on the Nicene Creed definition.” It seems to me the reason the pastors denigrate the Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) is to protect their flock (and their livelihood).

It is encouraging that Paul Weyrich, Wayne Grudem and Bob Jones III,(along with Jay Sekulow, Mark DeMoss, and Dr. John Willke, a founder and past president of the National Right to Life Committee.) have rejected bigotry and now support Mitt Romney on the basis that he is the most moral candidate with the best qualifications to lead our country.

Funny thing about the religious and religions in general - all that energy and resources wasted on arguing, fighting and even killing to determine whose imaginary lord is superior.

"Only LDS need apply." That tag line regularly appeared in help wanted ads in Utah not that many years ago and certainly within the lifetime of Mitt Romney. He has no room to whine about a religious test for public office. That sort of bigotry is a Mormon's birthright.

politics and religion are joined at the hip. The government says you have freedom to worship and freedom from taxes but you must silence yourselves when we commit dubious acts of foreign policy. So as a result the church after maybe making an initial statement against a venture, quite silently I might add, goes into the support the troops mode which turns into the equivalent of silent support of the action no matter how immoral it might be. This moral numbing aids the immoral cause and this recipe has lasted since St Augustine introduced the Just War Theory in the fourth century. Hitler used it to his advantage during his reign. The church likes to act as if it was not complicit in Hitlers assault but introspection proves otherwise. We hear about the Niemoller and the Bonhoffers but they were the few exceptions. They had Gott mit uns on their belt buckles and had chaplains to counsel them when they committed some of the most horrendous deeds in human history. Please american churches don't follow suit with the German churches and keep silent. This immoral war in Iraq is a immoral act and cannot be treated as a "hands off" political act.

Ravenal,

"Only __ need apply" mentality is a more common trait amongst a lot more people than the Wasatch Front Saints. I've experienced it as a protestant in catholic countries long before I'd even heard of the LDS. It is an attitude regularly condemned by leaders of the Church for as long as I have been a member. It is an element of self-righteousness that will trip many down to Hell, but it is not, repeat, not a tendant of the faith but a provincial attitude of flawed people.

As for the article: it does make a point on the double-edged nature of religion in the US. Many of us consider it a reflection on someone's character, but flaunting it or making it a major point for choosing one good man over another for a job where it is not the primary requistic seems wrong. If one is to advance it as a major charge for discriminating thinkers, he'd better have his own house in order and living his own life such as that the charge of "hypocrite" doesn't bounce back and hit him.

It is better to religion out of the election beyond the point of hinting at a man's guidelines and character, and instead, examine his record in the practical conduct of his daily life. The one may reflect his ideals, the other will show his real worth to us.

i have gone to many churchs over the 55 yrs i been here on earth. what amaze me that out all the church i have gone to..the one that is outstanding is the lds church. the members there believe in holding everyone to a high standards. a father who not properly look after his family would be talking to by the men of the church and he would be given help and advise to become a better father and vise versa for a mother. the lds beleive in family wholesome. i do believe that is why all of the mem in the church are outstand community leader or service people and are willing to help people more openly. they act on what are preach to them be kind your neighbor, turn thy cheek. do upon other the way you wanted to be treated. i wish other church are like lds..maybe that why church turn on the lds church.

Jay,

Sounds like a typical scripture study that we conduct every Sunday and encourage in our families every day. The fact is the Book of Mormon deals heavily with the practical application of the spiritual in everyday life. It is actually conforting to know that once a man is elected he continues in thoses habits and practices that made him the man he is. That others join in and that the scripture study becomes a group study, again should not be a cause for heartburn, but an affirmation of their maintaining contact with the source of their character development. Joseph Smith Jr. was once asked how he governed such a large body of people as had created Navouoo, IL. He responded that he taught them correct principles and let them govern themselves. These men are just continuing self-education in "correct principles."

Quite frankly, I feel sorry for Mitt. He has been the one voice of true religious neutrality and separation of church and state throughout this circus that has become the campaigning process for 2008.

However, that does not keep others (like Huckabee and AL Sharpton) from vomiting their self-observed religious superiority, prejudice, and elitism. Even as an evangelical, I think it clear that Mitt is 100 times the politician, 100 times the leader, 100 times the visionary, and 100 times the person than Hucakabee or any other candidate this election year.

If I have said it once over the last few months then I have said it a hundred times: if Republicans are so bigoted and ignorant that they fail to vote for their strongest candidate because of his beliefs in a (*heaven forbid*) non-evangelical Christian religion, then they deserve to be slaughtered in losing the presidency for this and many years to come.

Mark my words, a vote against Mitt is merely a vote for whomever wins the Democratic primary. Gulianni, McCain, and Huckabee all have one thing in common, they are sub-par leaders and poor visionaries campaigning in a high-stakes election year for a seat that will never be theirs. As I see it, Mitt remains the sole semi-conservative candidate with enough honesty, track record, integrity, passion and vision to combat the increasing might of the Democrat's rising (and much hyped) superstars.

But therein lies the problem--i.e., too many of us are either so uneducated or bigoted so that we would rather see a weak leader or, worse, a fundamental fascist than a (*GASP*) "Mormon" in the White House.

If there is one thing I have learned over the last few months it is this: religious bigotry and prejudice is not only alive and well in our fair nation, but that it is rampant. On no fault of Romney's (i.e., the "M-Word" candidate), this election campaign has proven, without a doubt, that religious intolerance has survived the dark ages and will, most likely, continue for many unhappy years to come.

P.S. I would like to add that I live in Utah (in a city just 5 minutes from Salt Lake and the famed LDS Salt Lake Temple) and have lived here for most of my 30+ years. I have worked with, for, and supervised "Wasatch Front Saints" for many years and can honestly say that I do not know where these rumors come from. Sure there are some fundamental jerks out there, as in any religion (just look at Huckabee if you don't believe me), but these are extremely rare and almost always shunned by community and tolerant society. The vast majority of Mormons I know are extremely wonderful people. Most all of my neighbors, most of my freinds and (now, even a few of my family members) are Mormons living on the Wasatch Front. That said, as a whole, I think Mormons are an entirely genuine people who care about not only their generally large families, but society as a whole. The positive Mormon influence is one of the reasons my wife and I have decided to stay in Utah all these years even though better jobs were offered to us in other metropolitan areas.

That said, make sure you know what you are talking about when you are referring to any group of people.

Guy down the street wrote:

Funny thing about the religious and religions in general - all that energy and resources wasted on arguing, fighting and even killing to determine whose imaginary lord is superior.

Sad but true !!!!

So many politicians sell their soul for a few years of glory. And we put our lives in their hands!

We get what we deserve.

Governor Casey opposed abortion and capital punishment because of his deeply held beliefs. Not one person was executed during his term as Governor.
Yet he never felt the need to wear his faith on his sleeve nor shout it from the dais. People recognized in him a good honest man who while deeply religious could rule in a fair and impartial way.

G.W.Bush on the other hand loudly proclaimed himself a devout christian while executing over 170 prisoners (more than any western nation in the same time span)and pushed economic policies favoring the wealthy over the rest. His war of choice in Iraq was opposed by nearly every christian leader around the world and has resulted in over 500,000 deaths and pushed the world toward
the abysss. He makes a mockery of his faith yet so-called christians continue to support him.

We get what we deserve.

The Real Truths,

Are you saying that religion is somehow the correlating cause of the failures of these these two politicians?

For your sake I hope not. I wouldn't want you to make an effort or strain your mind at all by looking only slightly broadly or too far back in history or you may just find that your agrument dosen't have even a toothpick, let alone a platform to stand on. The vast majoirty of the great leaders of the world were and are men and women of faith.

But, we get what we deserve.

An Evangelical wrote:

The Real Truths,
Are you saying that religion is somehow the correlating cause of the failures of these these two politicians?
For your sake I hope not. I wouldn't want you to make an effort or strain your mind at all by looking only slightly broadly or too far back in history or you may just find that your agrument dosen't have even a toothpick, let alone a platform to stand on. The vast majoirty of the great leaders of the world were and are men and women of faith.
But, we get what we deserve.

G.W.Bushit only had "faith" to get the nut case rightwing fools to vote for him---they did--he won----America lost!!!!!!

amy4peace wrote:

<quoted text>
G.W.Bushit only had "faith" to get the nut case rightwing fools to vote for him---they did--he won----America lost!!!!!!

You entirely missed the point being made.

GW's "faith" had nothing to do with his failures as a President. Any idoit who seriously beleives that a man's faith, as a stand alone factor, would lead him to be an incompetent leader in government has a serious flaw in their logic--as was argued. The truth remains that the vast majority of the greatest leaders in history were , and to this day still are, men and women of faith. The clear and undeniable point is that you cannot say that "we get what we deserve" by voting for a politician who also happens to be a person of faith. You need only look generally to the history of both the world and our nation to find that such a position, under no circumstances, can be supported.

To clarify, to say that a leader fails becuase of his faith or belief in a greater power than himself is contrary to both history and reality, which would clearly beg to differ that an opposite position would more lilkely be true.

It's the hypocrisy, stoopid.

We know that any type of theocracy is a no-go in this present world. Only Christ will herald a true theocracy when He returns to establish His Milennial kingom. I hope that Mitt can separate his Mormon views, that are based on a strong mix of gov.and that religion. You do not realize how strong the Mormon religion is in Utah's gov.t structure. Many people not just Christians are weary of his winning the presidency.Hopefully he can put aside his Utah home based religious affliations, and run this country as a true statesman. My vote will not put him there either. As a matter of fact non of the Republicans offer any hope. Guilliani is as a moderate better to handle the bastions of non-conservatives which have every right to their views. Actually the whole race is scary this round. As the Democrats surely do not have any great hopefuls either.

"As the Democrats surely do not have any great hopefuls either."

I beg to differ. John Edwards is a good choice.

An Evangelical wrote:

<quoted text>
You entirely missed the point being made.
GW's "faith" had nothing to do with his failures as a President. Any idoit who seriously beleives that a man's faith, as a stand alone factor, would lead him to be an incompetent leader in government has a serious flaw in their logic--as was argued. The truth remains that the vast majority of the greatest leaders in history were , and to this day still are, men and women of faith. The clear and undeniable point is that you cannot say that "we get what we deserve" by voting for a politician who also happens to be a person of faith. You need only look generally to the history of both the world and our nation to find that such a position, under no circumstances, can be supported.
To clarify, to say that a leader fails becuase of his faith or belief in a greater power than himself is contrary to both history and reality, which would clearly beg to differ that an opposite position would more lilkely be true.

I did not miss the point --you did !!!-- G.W.Bushit has no faith. he only used "faith" to get votes He thinks he is God. Sadly so do many of his lemming followers..

An Evangelical wrote:

The Real Truths,
Are you saying that religion is somehow the correlating cause of the failures of these these two politicians?
For your sake I hope not. I wouldn't want you to make an effort or strain your mind at all by looking only slightly broadly or too far back in history or you may just find that your agrument dosen't have even a toothpick, let alone a platform to stand on. The vast majoirty of the great leaders of the world were and are men and women of faith.
But, we get what we deserve.

I never really thought of evangelicals as people capable of reading and comprehending....but I'll respond anyhow.

Where, in my post, did I say anything like....."religion is somehow the correlating cause of the failures of these these two politicians?"

What I said, and apparently this was too much for you to comprehend, was that many voters were conned by Bush's claim of being a man of faith. There is absolutely nothing about the man that would convince a rational person of Bush's religiosity. He is a walking contradiction of the Sermon on the Mount.

And where did I describe Casey as a failure? He was a good Governor, a good Christian and a good man.

An Evangelical wrote:

Quite frankly, I feel sorry for Mitt. He has been the one voice of true religious neutrality and separation of church and state throughout this circus that has become the campaigning process for 2008.
However, that does not keep others (like Huckabee and AL Sharpton) from vomiting their self-observed religious superiority, prejudice, and elitism. Even as an evangelical, I think it clear that Mitt is 100 times the politician, 100 times the leader, 100 times the visionary, and 100 times the person than Hucakabee or any other candidate this election year.
If I have said it once over the last few months then I have said it a hundred times: if Republicans are so bigoted and ignorant that they fail to vote for their strongest candidate because of his beliefs in a (*heaven forbid*) non-evangelical Christian religion, then they deserve to be slaughtered in losing the presidency for this and many years to come.
Mark my words, a vote against Mitt is merely a vote for whomever wins the Democratic primary. Gulianni, McCain, and Huckabee all have one thing in common, they are sub-par leaders and poor visionaries campaigning in a high-stakes election year for a seat that will never be theirs. As I see it, Mitt remains the sole semi-conservative candidate with enough honesty, track record, integrity, passion and vision to combat the increasing might of the Democrat's rising (and much hyped) superstars.
But therein lies the problem--i.e., too many of us are either so uneducated or bigoted so that we would rather see a weak leader or, worse, a fundamental fascist than a (*GASP*) "Mormon" in the White House.
If there is one thing I have learned over the last few months it is this: religious bigotry and prejudice is not only alive and well in our fair nation, but that it is rampant. On no fault of Romney's (i.e., the "M-Word" candidate), this election campaign has proven, without a doubt, that religious intolerance has survived the dark ages and will, most likely, continue for many unhappy years to come.
P.S. I would like to add that I live in Utah (in a city just 5 minutes from Salt Lake and the famed LDS Salt Lake Temple) and have lived here for most of my 30+ years. I have worked with, for, and supervised "Wasatch Front Saints" for many years and can honestly say that I do not know where these rumors come from. Sure there are some fundamental jerks out there, as in any religion (just look at Huckabee if you don't believe me), but these are extremely rare and almost always shunned by community and tolerant society. The vast majority of Mormons I know are extremely wonderful people. Most all of my neighbors, most of my freinds and (now, even a few of my family members) are Mormons living on the Wasatch Front. That said, as a whole, I think Mormons are an entirely genuine people who care about not only their generally large families, but society as a whole. The positive Mormon influence is one of the reasons my wife and I have decided to stay in Utah all these years even though better jobs were offered to us in other metropolitan areas.
That said, make sure you know what you are talking about when you are referring to any group of people.

i could not write any thing better what you had wrote. mit is a good man